SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
Water
Office of Water
Annual Report
December 1984
-------
ANNUAL REPORT
TO THE
OFFICE OF WATER
During our September meeting at the Arena Stage,
I promised a year-end report of. your accomplishments.
Routine work sometimes goes unheralded, therefore I wanted
to be sure we took time to acknowledge the significant progress
that we made in the past year. By putting this in writing, as
a means of affirmation, it's another opportunity for me to
thank you for a job well done.
The Agency has been through some difficult times in
the past few years, but you have continued your work in
exemplary fashion. I congratulate you on your accomplishments.
Administrator Ruckelshaus and I thank you for your spirit
and commitment to environmental protection.
We look forward to the further accomplishments of the
Office of Water in the coming year. Each of you can claim
a significant part of this progress.
Sincerely,
Jack E. Ravan
Assistant Administrator
for Water
-------
PROTECTING THE NATION'S WATERS
PROGRESS IN 1984 .
EPA's Office of Water has had a year filled with
activity and accomplishments. To the outside world, our
acronyms may be confusing, but we are proud of our progress
in such things as NPDES, UIC and CBOD5. Because of our
many initiatives, it is helpful to have a listing of
what is happening in the various water programs. It is with
this in mind, that we look at the past year's experiences.
NEW PROGRAM OFFICES
The most dramatic structural change to occur in the
last year was the creation of two new offices, the Office
of Ground Water Protection and the Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection. These new offices are the visible
signs of an increased effort on two agency priorities.
Ground Water Protection
Setting up the Office of Ground Water Protection was
extremely important for creating a focal point to coordinate
policy, to deal with other federal agencies, and to support
the work of the states. Because half of this country
drinks ground water, and because we have discovered increased
ground water contamination, it was clearly time to give this
important resource a new level of attention.
The Office of Ground Water Protection began operation
officially in April of 1984. One of its primary responsibilities,
-------
-2-
under the leadership of Marian Mlay, is to implement the
Ground Water Protection Strategy that was released in August 1984
The strategy has four major elements:
1) Build and enhance institutions at the state level.
2) Address problems associated with inadequately controlled
sources of contamination.
3) Issue guidelines for EPA decisions affecting ground
water protection and cleanup.
4) Strengthen EPA's own organization for ground water
management.
The regional ground water offices are now in place,
$7 million in grants has been allocated to the states for
developing and implementing programs, and we will be providing
states with assistance in addressing technical and design
issues. Although much remains to be done, we now have the
people ready and the commitment necessary to tackle this
difficult task.
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
Before we established the marine and estuarine office in
October, the organization of ocean activities was divided
among several offices, with no central focal point or overall
coordination* The new office, with Tudor Davies as its director,
is a contact point for all issues relating to protection of the
marine and estuarine environment.
The-se activities include decisions on 301(h) waivers for
marine discharges, as well as overall implementation of the
-------
— 3 —
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act/ which
includes site designations and permit issuance. The office
establishes criteria for the issuance of ocean disposal
permits, and works closely with the agency's regional
offices in evaluating and selecting suitable sites for the
ocean disposal of dredged and other materials. The office
is also responsible for developing an environmentally
sound incineration-at-sea program.
j
The office participates with the regions and state agencies
in designing and providing technical support to the Chesapeake
Bay and estuaries programs. The Chesapeake Bay, of course,
received special attention last year in the President's
State of the Union address, the President's visit to the Bay,
and the allocation of §40 million. The program is a model
for state and federal coordination. An additional $4 million
has been appropriated by Congress to do research, monitor, and
assess problems in the following selected estuaries: Narragansett
, '*
Bay, Long Island Sound, Buzzards Bay and Puget Sound.
The office also represents the Great Lakes National Program
in Washington. The significance of this program centers around
international obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement with Canada and the leadership of the Great Lakes
states in nutrient and toxics control.
IMPROVING COMPLIANCE RATES
A major effort was spent during the last year to improve
compliance rates for major municipals. In June 1983,
-------
-4-
1024 major facilities were in significant noncompliance
with their NPDES permits. As of September 14, 1984, the
regions reported that they expected these results by the
end of the fiscal year: 527 facilities returned to compliance,
472 addressed by a formal enforcement action, and only 25
yet to be addressed. This represents a success rate of
nearly 98 percent for the year.
The rate of significant noncorapliance for all categories
of facilities dropped sharply in the third—quarterly
reporting period, and we expect the rates to improve even
more for the last quarter of FY 1984.
REGULATIONS
EPA is a regulatory agency, and it is in the business
of issuing regulations to implement the laws passed by Congress.
During the past year, the Office of Water has produced a
number of both proposed and final regulations.
Effluent Guideline Regulations
An important part of carrying out the Clean Water Act
involves the issuing of effluent guidelines for industry.
Certain industries make products that have toxic by-products,
and EPA is charged with placing limits on wastes the industry
discharges into rivers and streams. During the last year,
the Office of Water issued guidelines both for discharges
that go directly into rivers and for those indirect discharges
that go first into sewage treatment facilities.
-------
-5-
The following effluent guidelines were issued last year;
Industrial effluent Date
guideline
Battery Manufacturing 2/84 (final)
Foundries (Notice of
Availability) 3/84 (issued)
Inorganic Chemicals
(Phase II) Z/84 (final)
Nonferrous Metals
Forming 2/84 (proposed)
Pesticides (Notice
of Availability) 6/84 (issued)
Plastics Molding &
Forming 2/84 (proposed)
Nonferrous Metals
(Phase II) 5/84 (proposed)
Phosphate Fertilizer
(Revision) 7/84 (proposed)
-------
-6-
NPDES Litigation Settlement
c ' '
When EPA promulgated its revised National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulation in 1979, the
agency was sued almost immediately by industry. in 1980 it
was sued again over a combination permit program. The two
suits were combined into one petition. Extensive negotiations
resulted in four separate settlement agreements.
The final NPDES litigation rulemaking contains over 30
/
separate issues. The outcome represents a balance between
the legitimate concerns of the industry and the significant
opposing comments received from the public.
Construction Grants Regulations Revision
The construction grants program was responsible for a
number of regulations during the last year. In February,
the overall construction grants regulations were issued in
final form. The revised regulations are shorter, simpler,
and provide more flexibility to the states in managing the
program to assist local governments in building wastewater
treatment facilities.
U
The revisions are in response to changes in t:he Clean
Water Act that would eliminate delays during the planning
and design stages, and thereby eliminate the impacts of
inflation resulting from those delays.
The regulations also reflect a legislative reduction of
the federal share of project costs. Beginning October 1
of this year, federal grants cover 55 percent of costs instead
-------
-7-
of 75 percent. Also, collector sewers and correction of
combined sewer overflows were eliminated as separate
categories of eligibility, although states still have
authority to fund those categories within certain limitations.
Secondary Treatment Definition
The secondary treatment regulations provide more flexibility
to smaller communities in meeting Clean Water Act requirements,
while making sure that water quality is maintained.
Communities are now allowed to install less expensive
methods of biologically treating wastewater, such as trickling
filters and waste stabilization ponds, which are considered as
equivalent to conventional secondary treatment systems under
certain conditions. Small communities that are having difficulty
financing complex secondary treatment plants will now be able to
achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act.
CBODr;
EPA proposed to allow the level of organic matter in
wastewater from secondary treatment facilities, to be defined
in terms of a recently developed measure (CBOD) that reflects
the organic waste load more accurately than the traditional
80-year old measure (BOD). BOD refers to biological oxygen
demand and CBOD refers to carbonaceous biological oxygen
demand. These are terms used to measure the amount of oxygen
used in the breakdown of waste. The greater degree of
pollution, the higher becomes the BOD number.
-------
Proposed Drinking Water Regulations for Volatile Synthetic
Organic Chemicals
This proposed rule establishes recommenced maximum
contaminant levels (RMCLs) in drinking water for seven
carcinogens and two non-carcinogens. RMCLs are non-
enforceable health goals that would result in no known or
anticipated adverse health effects. The level for carcinogens
was set at zero in response to Congressional intent. The level
for the non-carcinogens was based on chronic toxicity data.
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Revise the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulation v
We announced our intention to propose regulations for
organic, inorganic, microbial and radionuclide contaminants
in drinking water. This effort, which will be done in four
phases, is designed to control additional contaminants,
prescribe technology requirements to reduce ongoing levels
of waterborne disease outbreaks, as well as modernize
existing interim maximum contaminant levels.
Water Quality Standards
The revised water quality standards regulation set
guidelines which the states use to set water quality goals
for specific bodies of water. State standards serve as the
regulatory basis for treatment controls that go beyond
technology-based treatment.
Particular attention was given to maintaining a strong
antidegradation requirement. There was also a much stronger
-------
-9-
emphasis an state adoption of water quality criteria for
toxic pollutants.
In addition, the Office of Water produced an extensive
series of guidance documents on wasteload allocation procedures
to support the water quality based approach to permitting,
as well as guidance to conduct use attainability analyses.
Underground Injection Control Direct Implementation
In May, EPA announced we would be directly administering
an Underground Injection Control (UIC) program in 22 states.
In October, we announced programs in five states, two
territories, and on Indian reservations located in four states.
This program is to control the underground injection of
liquids.
The regulated wells are used to dispose of wastes,
enhance oil and gas recovery, and mine certain minerals. If
left unregulated, these activities could pose a significant
threat to ground water quality.
Incrneration-At-Sea Program
The incineration-at-sea program has feeen a highly
visible program at EPA during the past year. In November
of 1983, EPA held a public hearing in Brownsville, Texas,
on proposed permits for incineration of hazardous waste at
sea. A crowd of 7,000 people turned out, mostly to protest
those permits; it was the largest public hearing in the
history of EPA.
-------
-10-
In response to concerns raised at that hearing, the
the Office of Water delayed the issuance of permits until it
develops proposed regulations that deal specifically with
incineration-at-sea, and new research criteria to be incor-
porated into a research strategy. The public has been
involved extensively in the development of both of these
documents. We anticipate they will be released around the
first of the year.
Ocean Disposal Criteria
We anticipate publication, within a few months, of a
proposed rule in the Federal Register that responds to a
court decision and statutory amendments enacted since the
current ocean disposal regulations were promulgated in 1977.
As a result of the decision, EPA will be considering the
availability and environmental impacts of land based disposal
alternatives in evaluating applications for ocean disposal
permits. At the same time, we are proceeding to develop a
comprehensive revision of the ocean disposal regulation.
Proposed Rule for NPDES Noncompliance
The purpose of the changes in this rule was to establish
a consistent basis for reporting noncompliance in the
Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR), and to propose
additional reporting of other noncompliance. This is the
main compliance report available to the public.
-------
-11-
The proposed rule defined specific criteria for
reporting noncompliance, i.e., time frames for reports and
criteria for the magnitude and frequency of effluent violations.
These were called Category I noncompliance and were based on our
definition of significant noncompliance. A state agency
could list a second category of noncompliance at their discretion,
/
General Pretreatment Regulation, Removal Credits
The Clean Water Act required EPA to have a program to
control industries that discharge into publicly owned
treatment works any pollutant that will interfere with the
way the plant works. A later amendment allows POTWs to
adjust their standards for industries, if a particular
pollutant is already being treated by the POTW. This
adjustment is called a removal credit.
The final regulations require any POTW seeking removal
dit approval to demonstrate its performance through
sampling on a regular basis thoughout one full year at
approximately equal intervals and calculating its rates
based on these data. These procedures will ensure that
the removal capability of a POTW is determined on a case-
by-case basis.
Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation
This regulation establishes policies and program
requirements for water quality planning, management and
implementation. This process provides the authority for a
-------
-12-
consistent national approach for maintaining, improving and
protecting water quality, while allowing states their individual
programs.
The process is implemented jointly by EPA, the States,
interstate agencies, and areawide, local and regional planning
organizations. This regulation explains the relationships
between the several components of the water quality management
process and outlines the roles of the major participants. It
was released by the Office of Management and Budget on December 7,
1984, and will be promulgated shortly as a final regulation.
REPORTS
Report on Future Federal Role in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Financing
EPA has completed a study of the Federal role in
financing municipal wastewater treatment facilities. The
goal of the study was to develop a national consensus on the
future direction of the EPA construction grants program, and
to develop funding strategies that promote state and local
financial self-sufficiency and long-term municipal compliance.
EPA's Management Advisory Group took testimony from states,
cities, engineers, and other interested parties. An EPA task
force was established to coordinate the study. A final report
and a legislative package were completed in December 1984,
and presented to the Administrator. The recommendations
included a revised grant program that would capitalize
state-administered revolving loan funds.
-------
-13-
Surface Impoundment Assessment Report
In response to growing indications that the storage,
treatment, and disposal of liquid wastes in surface impound-
ments might be a significant source of contamination to
ground water, EPA conducted an inventory of impoundments
and their potential to contaminate ground water.
Although the Surface Impoundment Assessment Report was
issued in January 1984, the data have been available since
1979 and have been used extensively by both the Office of
l
Solid Waste and the Superfund program. The study was
designed to: 1) increase our knowledge concerning impoundments;
2) determine numbers, location, and potential effects of
surface impoundments on ground water quality; 3) solicit
information on existing state approaches to ground water
protection from these facilities; and 4) provide EPA with
formation to allow for a review of our programs regarding
ground water protection and surface impoundments.
The results of the study confirmed the concerns that
led to its initiation: surface impoundments, without proper
siting, design, construction, and operation, can threaten
ground water quality. In the past, federal regulations and
most states did not adequately address this problem.
Nonpoint Source Report to Congress
EPA released a report on nonpoint source (NPS) pollution
that informed Congress that six out of ten EPA regions found
NPS pollution to be the principal remaining cause of water
-------
-14-
quality problems. Half of the states repotted that NFS
was a major or significant cause of their remaining water
quality problems* Nonpoint source pollution can be the
chemicals associated with agricultural activities, runoff
from urban and mining activities, or pollution associated
with silviculture.
In recognition of the problem and in the absence of a
Congressional mandate, a nonpoint source task force was
formed, comprised of twenty-five policy level representatives
of federal, state, interstate and local agencies. The
objective of the task force was to develop a realistic
nonpoint source strategy that would encourage nonpoint
source management programs that ensure water quality protection,
while recognizing the competing uses of resources. Success
will depend on the close association of government and the
private sector.
The States' Evaluation of Progress 1972-1982 {STEP Report)
In cooperation with EPA, the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators published a
report in February that described a decade of progress in
water pollution control.
Although the nation's population grew by 11%, with a
sizable increase in the use of surface waters for industry
and recreation, we still had the following progress:
42,000 stream miles improved in quality; 390/009 acres of
lakes showed improved water quality.; 142 ail-lion people are
-------
-15-
receiving secondary or more advanced levels of sewage treat-
ment, up from 85 million in 1972; and cities and industries
have substantially increased compliance with their limits on
waste discharges.
Rural Water Survey
This survey is concerned with an intensive, one-time
national statistical assessment of rural water conditions.
It focuses primarily on the quality, quantity, availability,
cost, and affordability of domestic water in rural households.
Some of the conclusions were: 1) most rural households have
a water supply that is acceptable by most of the indicators;
2) water is in sufficient quantity; and 3) water is readily
available at a reasonable cost. Nevertheless, the exceptions
to these findings were not rare, and the difficulties were
Dt always minor. Bacterial contamination was the predominant
oblem encountered.
Pesticides Survey
The Office of Drinking Water and the Office of Pesticides
Programs have jointly undertaken the design of a monumental
survey of pesticides in ground waters, to determine the type
and extent of pesticides migration into water supplies.
Results will benefit the Office of Drinking Water in its
design of national regulations, as well as helping to develop
pesticides registration rules.
-------
-16-
Report of the Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force
The Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force (PIRT)
was chartered by the Administrator to make recommendations on
the pretreatment program. The final report, which should be
available to the public in January, focuses on five sections:
simplification and clarificationf enforcement, resources,
roles and relationships, and suggestions on regulatory changes
POLICIES/GUIDANCE/STRATEGIES
Construction Grants Financial Capability
This policy was developed to ensure that construction
grants applicants could show their financial and management
capability to construct, operate, and maintain a wastewater
treatment system.
It describes legal and regulatory requirements for
applicants and provides a framework for applicants by
asking five questions concerning the total costs of the
proposed treatment system. These questions provide answers
for how the project will be financed, what are the total
annual costs per household, and what are the roles and
responsibilities of local governments involved.
Dioxin Strategy
The strategy was designed to determine the nature and
extent of dioxin contamination throughout the country.
Dioxin contamination may exist in soil, water, or air.
Seven categories of sites are being investigated, ranging
-------
-17-
from sites where contamination is strongly suspected to
ambient sites with no known sources of dioxin.
Toxics Control Policy (Biomonitorinq)
The biomonitoring policy was developed because of an
increasing need to control toxics in surface water, the
Clean Water Act set up two methods of controlling water
pollution—technology-based standards and water quality-
based standards. It did not, however, take into consideration
the fact that when some pollutants are mixed together, their
toxicity changes.
The biomonitoring policy recommends an integrated
approach to monitoring; using both chemical and biological
methods to assess and control toxic substances in surface
water. In the biological methods recommended, scientists
c :pose fish and other aquatic animals to samples of effluent
j.uted with varying volumes of receiving water. The effects
on the animals are then observed over time and the toxicity
of the wastewater is calculated. This represents a clearer
picture of what is actually going on in the receiving waters,
and provides a tool for setting limits in discharge permits
to regulate whol<* effluent toxicity. The Office of Water
also produced a support document to implement the policy.
National Municipal Policy
This policy demonstrates the Agency's commitment
to municipal compliance with the Clean Water Act. The Act
-------
-18-
requires all publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), to
meet the statutory compliance deadlines and to achieve the
water quality objectives of the Act, whether or not they
receive federal funds.
We are focusing on those plants that previously received
federal funding and are not currently in compliance with
their applicable effluent limits, on all major POTWs, and
on minor POTWs that contribute significantly to an impair-
ment of water quality. Our goal is to get compliance by
POTWs as soon as possible, and no later than July 1, 1988.
In April, the Office of Water released regional and
state guidance that contained procedures and criteria for
setting priorities, preparing compliance plans, and
establishing final schedules for noncomplying POTWs.
Construction Grants Advanced Treatment Policy
The policy provides for a consistent national approach
for review of Advanced Treatment (AT) projects. Advanced
treatment projects are those designed to meet effluent
requirements more stringent than secondary treatment.
The policy establishes nationally consistent procedures for
advanced treatment reviews and improves the technical basis
for reviewing AT projects.
These grants funds are available only if the incremental
cost of AT is $3 million or less, or if the Administrator
determines that AT will definitely result in significant
water quality and public health improvements.
-------
-19-
Municipal Sludge Management Policy
The Sludge Task Force was established to examine the
problems of sewage sludge disposal and use, and to look at
the need for additional regulations.
In June of 1984, we published a policy that promotes
sludge management practices that recycle sewage sludge to
recover its resource value. EPA will regulate and guide
sludge management and provide research. State governments
will regulate local sludge disposal and help in planning and
operating local systems. Local governments can choose available
management options, and they have the responsibility to maintain
an adequate system.
This policy is a framework for regulations that establish state
requirements and technical controls on sludge disposal and use.
Guidance for Oversight of NPDES Programs
This guidance document establishes criteria for the
NPDES program (including pretreatment ) . It is being used
as a framework with the regions and states, giving details
for their individual agreements and/or work plans.
It defines the major elements of a sound NPDES program;
outlines high priority achievements for FY 1985; clarifies
how the regions and states should translate specific goals
into annual grant agreements; and defines roles of EPA
regions and states in carrying out the NPDES program.
-------
-20-
Drinking Water Additives
EPA published a notice in June that examined the
possibility of transferring the responsibilities of the
Drinking Water Additives Evaluation Program. The Federal
Register notice solicited bidders for a third-party self-
regulating program for the additives manufacture and user
industry. Additives are substances added to drinking water
to improve its quality.
OUR CHALLENGE
The items mentioned in this annual report are the
highlights of the past year. No less important are the
many individual efforts made every day to keep the Office
of Water running smoothly.
It is sometimes difficult to remember the relationship
between what we do and protecting the water of this country,
but nevertheless the relationship exists and is a crucial one,
Because of our work, rivers are cleaner than they were ten
years ago. Because of our work, we continue toward the goal
of safe drinking water for every American.
We don't come to just any kind of job in the morning.
We come to participate in one of the most important movements
of this century ... protecting the environment. Because of
the job we do, the environment will be better protected for
future generations. It is a job worth doing 1
------- |