United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Management Systems and Evaluation PM-222 Washington DC 20460 Proceedings of the Workshop on Managing for Environmental Results May 25-27,1982 ------- Proceedings of the Workshop on Managing for Environmental Results May 25-27,1982 ------- Contents Proceedings 1 Introduction 3 Summary of Regional Presentations 3 Environmental Results in Overall Regional Management 4 "Environmental Status Reports as the Basis for Nego- tiations with States" Region 2 6 "Joint Environmental Planning with Each State" Region 8 7 Environmental Results Management in Regional Air Programs 7 "Reviewing the Appropriateness of Monitoring Sites and Non-Attainment Designations" Region 7 8 "The Emission Inventory as the Key to Managing Air Quality" Region 9 9 "Integrated Data Assessment for Problem Scoping and Targeting" Region 5 10 Environmental Results Management in Regional Water Programs 10 "Comparing Ambient Data with State Standards for Initial Problem Screening" Region 8 10 "Using Ambient, Discharge, and Flow Data for Pre- liminary Determination of Priorities: The Water Manage- ment System" Region 6 11 "Use of Biological Information for Water Quality Management" Region 4 12 "Using Compliance Data to Target State Activities and Evaluate Effectiveness" Region 6 13 Environmental Results Management in Regional Hazard- ous Waste Programs 14 "Data and Information for Setting Priorities and Target- ing Resources in RCRA and Superfund" Region 9 15 Summary of Headquarters Presentations 15 Office of Water 17 Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation 18 Office of Toxic Substances 19 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 21 Summary of Presentations on the Use of Biological and Public Health Data 21 Biological Data 22 Public Health Data 25 Summary of Presentations on Multimedia Approaches to Environmental Assessment 25 PIP Geographic Approach 26 NEIC Multimedia Assessment IH ------- 27 Panel Discussion on EPA and State Roles in Managing 57 Summary of Workshop Accomplishments and Next for Environmental Results Steps 35 Panel Discussion on Planning, Resource Allocation, 61 Closing Remarks Accountability, and Evaluation 45 Summary of Workgroup Discussions and Appendices Recommendations 62 | Agenda 46 Water Quality 64 Ljst of participants 48 Air Quality 66 m Recommended Accountability/Evaluation Measures 49 RCRA/Superfund 67 ,v Ljst of Questjons Considered by Workgroups 51 Drinking Water 68 v pre-Workshop Briefing Package 53 Panel Discussions on Workgroup Findings IV ------- Introduction On May 25, 26, and 27, 1982, the Environmental Results Branch (ERB) of the Management Systems Division, Office of Management Systems and Evaluation (OMSE) sponsored a workshop for Headquarters and Regional managers at EPA on "Managing for Environmental Results." This material summarizes the proceedings of the Workshop. It includes summaries of the technical presentations made by EPA Regional and Headquarters offices, transcripts of the panel discussions at the Workshop, summaries of workgroup discussions and recommendations, and identifies some next steps that ERB will undertake to further the Agency's efforts to manage for environmental results. The Agenda, a list of Workshop participants, and the briefing materials that were distributed before the Workshop are included in the Appendix. Workshop Summary The Environmental Results Workshop was held to define managing for environmental results, to introduce some innovative approaches now in use, to identify issues and concerns for further work, and to develop a consensus on EPA's next steps. During the three days of the workshop, approximately one hundred fifty people participated in the discussions. Managing for environmental results was defined by EPA Deputy Administrator Dr. John Hernandez in the opening session to mean that Agency managers will use environmental quality data to set goals for each program and then manage their programs to achieve those goals. Managers will evaluate progress made toward the goals and be able to report on that progress. The workshop participants agreed that this was not a new concept; that all managers must set priorities among the many environmental problems that need to be solved, decide how to best use the available resources, and evaluate whether we are being successful in moving toward our statutorily defined goals. There was a consensus, however, that there are some constraints to this approach and that efforts may have to be taken, some quite significant departures from how the Agency has operated in the past, to institutionalize this results-oriented approach and allow managers the flexibility to respond to site- specific problems, while holding them accountable for the success of their efforts. ------- The first day and a half of the workshop presented examples of programs or activities now under way or being developed to improve use of existing data on environmental status and trends and to use those data to resolve geographic specific environmental problems. Several Regions reported on activities to identify and rank problems, to seek cooperation with state and local governments, to improve data collection, and to plan for evaluation of program results. In addition, two potentially useful types of data, health and biological data, were discussed as additional sources of information on changes in environmental quality. Representatives of each Headquarters program office also discussed national efforts to identify policy direction to resolve environmental problems. The afternoon of the second day was spent in workgroup discussions which focused on how to better manage the EPA Water Quality, Air Quality, Drinking Water, and RCRA/Superfund programs using information on environmental status and trends. These workgroups looked at available indicators of environmental status and changes in environmental quality over time and suggested indicators which are not routinely used, but could demonstrate changes in environmental quality for use by program managers as well as the public. The final session consisted of a presentation of some recent demonstration projects on multi-media assessment: the Program Integration Project's geographic approach and the multi-media compliance auditing concept of the National Enforcement Investigation Center. Next Steps Lew Crampton, Director of the Office of Management Systems and Evaluation, summarized the findings of the workshop and, based on the recommendations made during the Workshop, proposed the next steps that the Agency should pursue in its efforts to manage for environmental results. He highlighted eight areas: Strategic Planning. A need for better strategic planning was identified. OMSE will work with each AA to develop a short strategic plan on a one to three year perspective that will, medium by medium, focus on how we are going to achieve environmental results. OMSE will then develop an agency-wide strategic plan to integrate the plans prepared by the AAs and to add an intermedia perspective. Environmental Status Reports. As a next step in defining goals and setting action priorities, OMSE will work with each Region to develop State by State Environmental Status Reports. The reports will be set up to assure flexibility in each Region's approach. OMSE will combine the reports to produce a State of the Environment Report. Resource Allocation. A critical concern of the workshop participants was that the resource allocation process be improved so that it supports management for environmental results. OMSE will work with the Comptroller's Office to seek improvements in the budget and resource allocation cycles. Specific concerns were: achieving greater flexibility in the workload models; increasing the ability to reprogram without penalty; better planning for monitoring networks; and the data needs to evaluate environmental status and results of EPA activities. Accountability. The current "bean counting" approach in the accountability system should be replaced, where possible, with qualitative rather than quantitative measures. OMSE will look for measures which document changes in environmental quality as a result of Agency activities; for example in the enforcement area we can move from measures such as the number of administrative or compliance orders toward measures of compliance rates. Evaluation. Pilot projects, for example in the area of quality assurance, should be initiated to evaluate the results of program activities to achieve environmental results. Publications. A series of publications should be developed to focus on noteworthy environmental results activities and to facilitate technology transfer. Indicators. OMSE will work with Headquarters and the Regions to assemble the best available indicators from existing data for the short-term, and begin the process of developing over the long-term better indicators to report environmental accomplishments. Monitoring Strategies. OMSE has assumed the responsibility of the DAA Committee on Monitoring and Information Management and will focus on air, water, and hazardous waste to improve the current monitoring networks, data systems and quality assurance. ------- Summary of Regional Presentations Before holding the Workshop on Managing for Environmental Results, staff of the Environmental Results Branch of the Management Systems Division of OMSE visited the EPA Regional Offices and identified a number of activities individual Regions have undertaken to manage for environmental results. OMSE asked Regional managers to make presentations on the most successful and promising of these activities at the Workshop. The Regional presentations, when coupled with later presentations by representatives of the program offices at Headquarters, provided a clear picture of where the Agency currently stands in managing for environmental results. The Regional presentations also highlighted some of the technical difficulties in meeting this goal. In their presentations. Regional staff specifically discussed how environmental data is used to identify major environmental problems, to set priorities, and to target resources to activities that will have the greatest environmental impact. The activities that were presented fall into two basic types: Regional efforts to design overall Regional strategies to achieve environmental results across all media; and program-specific activities to identify major environmental problems and causes within a /medium. This section presents abstracts of the Regional presentations. Environmental Results in Overall Regional Management Several Regions are working to develop overall management schemes for identifying environmental objectives and tracking progress in meeting those objectives. The most successful efforts use the State-EPA Agreement (SEA) process to work with states in identifying priority problems and develop joint programs to address these problems. At the Workshop, Regions 2 and 8 discussed their identification of environmental problems as part of the SEA process and their use of SEAs to manage for environmental results. ------- "Environmental Status Reports as the Basis for Negotiations with States" Region 2 Speakers: Joann Brennan, Environmental Protection Specialist Office of Policy and Management EPA Region 2 FTS: 8-264-4297 Commercial: (212) 264-4297 Dan Sullivan, Chief Monitoring Management Branch EPA Region 2 FTS: 8-340-6782 Commercial: (201) 321 -6782 Region 2 staff discussed the approach the Region has taken to develop environmental status reports (ESRs) as a successful means for providing a baseline of environmental data that is used as a starting point for setting Regional priorities and for developing State-EPA Agreements. This approach is displayed in Figure 1. The ESRs are 25-30 page documents that use a variety of environmental indicators in each medium to identify environmental problems, environmental improvements, the sources of environmental pollution, and data needs. Tables 1 and 2 show how environmental information is analyzed to identify specific problems in the air and water media. The ESRs, which are concise summaries of environmental data, have been used successfully as the basis for State/EPA Agreements. An ESR has been developed for each state in the Region. As future reports are prepared, the Region is working with states in the Region to resolve the following issues: How frequently should ESRs be prepared to meet the Agency's needs? The Region is considering a two-year preparation cycle instead of annual reports. What better environmental indicators of both ambient and source control can be developed? The Region is planning a project "Results-Oriented Oversight of State Programs" that will provide: a set of agreed-upon ambient indicators for at least the conventional air and water pollutants; a set of agreed-upon source-control indicators for each of the major programs; a set of agreed-upon managerial indicators to be used for oversight of state performance. How should ESRs address toxics? Can or should ESRs serve as both management tools and public information documents? The Region feels ESRs need to be used primarily as management tools. State sensitivity increases and ESR content suffers when ESRs are viewed as public information documents as well. Figure 1. Region 2 Overall Management Presentation ESR as Technical Basis for Establishing Priorities ESR/Program Reviews Preliminary List of Priorities YES an it be handle routinely/adequately through e Grants Proce Do the RA/Commissioner consider it a high priority SEA Priorities SEA Strategies Routine Non-priority Grant »| Program Grant Work Plans Activities ' _ ------- Table 1. Region 2 Overall Management Presentation Summary of Source Control Priorities by Region Metropolitan Niagara Genesee- Southern Southern Hudson NYC and Frontier Finger Lakes Tier West Tier East Central Northern Valley Long Island Point Sources Area Sources Mobile Sources Long Range Transport Toxics SO2 L TSP H 03 L TSP H 03 L H 03 L 03 L H H H TSP M 03 L TSP L 03 L CO L H Acid Rain H H TSP L 03 L 03 H CO L H TSP M 03 H TSP M 03 H 03 H CO H Oxidants H H KEY: PRIORITY DESIGNATIONS H = High M = Medium L = Low S02 = Sultur Dioxide TSP = Total Suspended Paniculate 03 = Ozone CO = Carbon Monoxide Table 2. Region 2 Overall Management Presentation Summary of Water Quality Management Problems by Basin o- WQM/SOURCE PROBLEM < ff 1 1 J O °| | g S 5 < s | Sj| g O ST. LAWREN Z <5 ^ o_ LAKE CHAMI Z tl\ UPPER HUD! MOHAWK Z en LOWER HUD! DELAWARE Z E NEWARK-RA O HOUSATONI SOUND/ EAN 00 LONG ISLAN ATLANTIC O Municipal Discharges Industrial Discharges Combined Sewer Overflows Urban Storm Runoff Acid Rain Hazardous Waste Sites H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ------- "Joint Environmental Planning with Each State" Region 8 Speaker: Jim Lehr, Deputy Director Air and Waste Management Division EPA Region 8 FTS: 8-327-2407 Commercial: (303) 837-2407 State-EPA Agreements (SEAs) are the cornerstone for managing for environmental results in Region 8. Key aspects of Region 8's SEAs that make them successful for this purpose are that they: focus on environmental problems, normally include as priority objectives specific environmental problems that are multi-year, multi- agency or multi-program in scope, ensure full participation of top management and program staff in the process in order to ensure that they see themselves as "owners" of the product (i.e., the SEA) and use it, rely on credible environmental information for problem identification and priority setting, are developed in such a way that they reflect and focus on the environmental problems of greatest concern to state officials, provide a comprehensive planning and management tool for priority problems in particular, they serve as tools for the Regional Administrator and other Regional and state managers to track progress in resolving environmental problems through the year tracking is conducted in such a way that timely corrective action can be taken where necessary, eliminate the need for separate Regional operating plans since all Regional activities are specified in the SEA, there is no need for a separate operating plan, eliminate the need for separate grant workplans for the States SEA workplans serve also as grant workplans, so there is no need for the state to draft two sets of workplans, and are kept brief and to the point unnecessary detail is eliminated and reporting requirements are kept to a minimum. The Region emphasized that it is not necessarily the product the SEA document that is important, but the process by which the SEA is developed and used to meet identified objectives. The process, which is shown in Figure 2, begins with a meeting between senior EPA and state managers, in April of each year, to agree on long-range priorities and on specific objectives for the coming year. EPA and state staff then work to identify specific activities and levels of funding for each objective. These negotiated workplans (which also serve as the narratives and workplans for program grants) become a critical part of the SEAs, which become final in September of each year. One final characteristic of the SEA process in Region 8 that makes it successful are the quarterly evaluations of SEA activities, and the mid- and end- year on-site reviews by senior staff. The key to making the SEA process meaningful is to ensure that Regional managers embrace it as the process they themselves use within the Region to plan and Figure 2. Region 8 Overall Management Presentation Water Quality Planning and Management for Results Data collection and storage Data retrieval, analysis summaries statistics Identify critical pollutants and stations where beneficial uses are impaired J, Publish Regional Air and Water Trend Report Support Regional/and National Environmental Profiles Provide analytical reports to States for support of 305(b) Report activities J, Support National Environmental Assessments Meet with State 305(b) reps to review and agree on priority problems based on results of Regional Use Impairment Studies and State305(b) Report- identify sources and severity Senior mgrs. EPA and State determine goals and objectives for coming year and long-range Develop planning strategies and funding policies based on goals and objectives State/EPA negotiations on State submittals of Water Quality Management strategies Develop State/EPA Agreement State/EPA Tracking Evaluations (1 year period) quarterly and mid-year reviews ------- manage their own programs and to conduct Regional oversight of state programs. This ensures that Regional and state activities fully complement each other and constitute a true state-EPA partnership. A major selling point of the Region 8 SEA process with the states is that there has been enough reduction in detail and in reporting requirements that the SEA process is less resource intensive than the old grant workplan development process. Another important selling point has been the Region's willingness to negotiate separately with each state to determine what purpose the SEA is to serve and who (the Region or the State) is to be responsible for developing and carrying out the various elements in it. The Region has allowed these understandings regarding the what and the who of the SEA to vary significantly from state to state. Region 8 raised the concern that EPA be careful in changing state reporting requirements in order to better manage and track environmental results. Regional staff said the SEAs are negotiated on a yearly basis and that EPA should not change them mid-year, or else state agency managers will not have much faith in the SEA process and EPA will lose credibility as a partner with the states. A "partner" who keeps changing the rules in midstream is not a trustworthy or reliable partner. In particular, Region 8 is now negotiating FY 83 reporting requirements any new reporting requirements need to be incorporated now or wait until next year's process. Environmental Results Management in Regional Air Programs The Air program is, by statute, oriented towards managing for environmental results. The statute requires that ambient air monitoring data be used to designate geographic areas as in attainment or not in attainment with air quality standards. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) provide strategies for bringing geographic areas that do not meet ambient air quality standards into compliance. In addition, OMSE staff found that in several Regions air data is used not only to designate non-attainment areas, but also to set priorities among non-attainment areas and to identify monitoring needs. At the Workshop, Regions 7, 9 and 5 described their use of air data to manage for environmental results. "Reviewing the Appropriateness of Monitoring Sites and Non-Attainment Designations" Region 7 Speaker: Tom Holloway, Chemist Environmental Services Division EPA Region 7 FTS: 8-758-4461 Commercial: (816) 374-4461 Region 7 prepares a Monitoring Activities Coordination (MAC) Report that summarizes monitoring data and defines data needs throughout the Region. The MAC Reports have been used most successfully in the Air program. The analysis of Air monitoring data includes: the location of current standards violations, an analysis of air quality trends, an assessment of air monitoring needs i.e., identification of unmonitored areas where violations of standards might reasonably be suspected because of high emission density or population density, the analysis of the usefulness of air monitors, including identification of air monitors that are not essential, and an analysis of the apparent appropriateness of current attainment and non-attainment designations. The fiscal year (FY) 1981 reports contained hand- produced maps that displayed county summaries of recent monitoring data, attainment status designations, emission densities, and population densities. Composite overlays of these maps, a sample of which is shown in Figure 3, identified unmonitored areas which have high population density and high emission density. The Region has contacted the states with these unmonitored areas and encouraged them to consider putting monitors in these areas. The FY 1982 analyses use an extensive computer mapping system developed by the Region in coordination with the National Aerometric Data Branch, in EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Since the mapping software has no inherent geographical limitations, it can be applied to any Region. The maps provide information on the location of monitors; ambient air quality and trends by monitor; non-attainment area boundaries; and the locations, stack heights, and emissions for large point sources (>100 tons per year). The maps overlay this information on state and county outlines. They are used to identify problem areas, probable causes of the problems, and areas where additional monitoring is needed. The evaluations attempt to identify ways to focus the limited monitoring resources of state and local environmental agencies on the areas with the greatest monitoring needs. ------- The Region works with each state in preparing the reports. The Region indicated that, because of this approach, the states consider the analysis of air data and air monitoring recommendations in the MAC Reports to be constructive management tools that they find helpful. Figure 3. Region 7 Air Presentation Ambient TSP Data Des Moines Area Editor's Note: The original map was produced in four colors. Those colors are indicated in parentheses on the adjacent Legend for Ambient Monitoring Data Maps. Legend for Ambient Monitoring Data Maps Boundaries i 1. I 11 Unclassified Area (Black) I i Secondary Nonattainment I 1 Area (Blue) I ' (Primary Nonattainment I -I Area (Red) Annotation for Standards Violated A Annual PrimaryStandard(Red) 24 24-hour Primary Standard (Red) 24 24-hour Secondary Standard (Blue) 8 . 8-hourPrimaryStandard(Red) 3 3-hour Secondary Standard (Blue) 1 1 -hour Primary Standard (Red) Monitor Symbol Sizes State Maps Microscale o Middle Scale Neighborhood Scale Urban Scale v Regional Scale Monitor Symbol Colors and Flag No Violation of Standard (Green) Violation of Secondary Standard (Blue) Violation of Primary Standard (Red) rExceedance of Alert Level (Red) Annotation for Trends t Increasing Trend A Probable Increasing Trend No Trend V Probable Decreasing Trend i Decreasing Trend (Where two trend symbols are shown, the first is for annual averages, the second for 24-hour observations.) Data Completeness At least 75% completel 979-81 A At least 75% complete! 979-80 O Less than 75% complete 'The Emission Inventory as the Key to Managing Air Quality" Region 9 Speaker: David Howekamp, Director Air Management Division EPA Region 9 FTS: 8-454-8201 Commercial: (415) 974-8201 Ambient data is an appropriate indicator of current air quality and is the ultimate test of program effectiveness over the long term. However, ambient quality is not suitable as a short-term indicator of progress in improving air quality because of the considerable year-to-year variability in ambient levels due to essentially random meteorological factors. For that reason. Region 9 is planning to use data on emissions and emissions reductions as the principal short-term indicator of progress and therefore as the principal tool for day-to-day management of the Region's Air Program. Ideally, state and local agencies would ensure that emissions inventories in non-attainment areas are fully current, complete and accurate. Unfortunately, even a strong state program which places high priority on maintenance and use of accurate emissions inventories (e.g., California) may require as much as a two year cycle to fully update its emissions inventory. Region 9 therefore is proposing to use a partial emissions inventory of key classes of sources as its principal tracking tool. The use of a partial inventory would give the Region a data base that would facilitate closer scrutiny and more frequent updating. Conceptually and operationally, the use of emission inventories has always been a central element in the SIP process. Furthermore, the 1977 CAA Amendments required annual reporting of current emissions against a reasonable further progress (RFP) line (showing projected reductions in emissions over time) to be contained in the SIP. In practice, however, a state has been given credit in the SIP for the emissions reductions at the time that a new control rule has been adopted, rather than when actual emissions reductions are confirmed to have taken place in the field. As a result, states are credited with emissions reductions based on projections when in many cases evidence from the field clearly shows that those projections, were unrealistic. To correct for this. Region 9 therefore is proposing to adjust estimated emissions reductions to reflect the reality, of what is happening in the field. In the case of VOC control in particular, observations of state and local inspection procedures clearly indicate, in many cases, that the initially projected reductions from a given class of sources are not being achieved. In the future, when Region 9 staff become aware of such operational shortfalls, they will work with the state to help see to it that one of the following types of corrective action is taken: where appropriate, improve the training of state and local inspectors so that more of the emissions reduction potential of the existing rule can be achieved. ------- alternatively, amend the rule to make it more enforceable, or if the basic structure of the current rule is such that it is inherently unenforceable, develop a substitute rule that is enforceable to achieve the required degree of emissions reduction. The responsibility for performing this key role of assessing emissions reductions and assigning and tracking emission reduction credits will be assigned to a special analytical group the Technical Evaluation Section within the Air Management Division. This group will be the nerve-center of the Air Management Division. In particular, it will assess the air quality impact of current and of proposed activities of the other operational units in the Division and it will assimilate and assess the impact of operational problems encountered by these other units. In this way it will provide the analytical support necessary for the Division Director and the other air program managers to run Region 9's air program as a coherent whole. It will provide analytical support to the Division Director to assist him in coordinating the activities of the other operational units within the Division. "Integrated Data Assessment for Problem Scoping and Targeting" Region 5 Speaker: David Kee, Director Air Management Division EPA Region 5 FTS: 8-353-2212 Commercial: (312) 353-2212 The Region 5 Air Division has initiated a comprehensive study of pollution in several major non-attainment areas. The first of these is a study of TSP problems in Detroit. Regional staff presented the methodology and conclusions of the Detroit TSP study as an example of one way to plan and manage air pollution control programs to maximize area- specific environmental results. Mr. Kee acknowledged that the Region will need to do a revised analysis after the Agency promulgates the proposed inhalable paniculate standard and that the revised analysis may lead to somewhat dif- ferent conclusions. ^ Ambient Air Quality Data / Figure 4. Region 5 An Approach to Environmental Results Planning The objectives of the study were: 1) to develop a systematic way to compile and present data from all available sources, including population exposure data, ambient data, source information, and enforcement data; 2) to determine the relative contribution of point and area source emissions and other factors (e.g., plant closings) to the TSP trends; and 3) to develop revised program and enforcement strategies where necessary. Figure 4 displays the sources of data the Region uses. The analysis resulted in several significant conclusions: It is important to consider the impact of specific sources (especially major, non-complying sources) on observed standards violations at specific monitoring stations. Individual sources may be the cause of site- specific violations more often than we realize. Meteorological data especially windrose data (data on wind speed and direction) can be very useful in helping to determine which sources are likely contributors to standards violations at specific monitoring stations. (See Figure 5.) With regard to Wayne County (Detroit) Michigan specifically, the Analysis showed that: There has been significant progress in TSP control since the early 1970's. The designated non-attainment area should be reduced in size to take into account the highly localized and source-specific nature of the remaining TSP problems. The Region 5 Air Division is working with the State of Michigan to act on the results of the Detroit TSP analysis. The Region is also beginning to apply this study methodology to other pollutants (e.g., ozone) and to other non-attainment areas. Figure 5. Region 5 Air Presentation TSP Pollution Roses for Steady Wind Direction Days, 1977-79 DETROIT Ford Motor Steel Plant Detroit Coke Co. WINDSOR Detroit Sewage Treatment Plant/ Source Compliance Data ^ r *--j Great Lakes Steel Zug Island Emission Data Detroit Edison River Rouge Great Lakes Steel Regulation Development Data Total Information Integration Kilometers .ajug/m 3 Indicates 75 u/m 3 ------- Environmental Results Management in Regional Water Programs In preparing for the Workshop, OMSE staff found that the Regional Water Divisions have a number of efforts under way to manage for environmental results. Three Regions were asked to discuss their systems for the collection, analysis, and use of environmental data for managing for environmental results. Region 8 staff described a system that relied primarily on ambient data. Region 6 staff discussed systems for integrating all available ambient, source, and emissions data to identify water quality problems. Both of these systems are used to identify problems areas and to screen available information to determine if further analysis is needed in particular areas. Region 4 staff discussed the Region's use of biological data to identify water quality problems. "Comparing Ambient Data with State Standards for Initial Problem Screening" Region 8 Speakers: Jack Hoffbuhr, Director Water Division EPA Region 8 FTS: 8-327-4871 Commercial: (303) 837-3895 Irv Dickstein, Director Tom Entzminger, Data Analysis Branch Chief Environmental Services Division EPA Region 8 FTS: 8-327-4935 Commercial: (303) 837-3895 Region 8 staff made a presentation on the work they have done to improve the collection, analysis and reporting of ambient water data and to use the analysis to identify priority areas for highlighting in State-EPA agreements. To introduce their presentation, they defined three essential elements the Agency must have to manage for environmental results: environmental objectives, managerial commitment, and credible environmental information. The Environmental Services Division, the Water Division, and the states have worked closely together to incorporate these basic elements into water program management. The Region works with the six states in the Region to ensure that they enter ambient water data into the STORET water quality file. The ESD uses a comput- erized system to perform state-by-state use- impairment analysis and compares the ambient water quality measurements in STORET to the individual state standards for those water quality parameters relevant to each beneficial use. A standard methodology is used to determine the frequency and severity of standards violations and to indicate where designated uses of stream segments are likely to be impaired. Trends in pollutant concen- trations are cited where possible. Table 4 provides information on the computer program Region 8 uses for its Beneficial Use Impairment Analysis. In this way, the Region uses ambient water quality data to identify possible problem areas. The Region then works with the states to factor the analysis into the setting of priorities at the start of the State-EPA agreement (SEA) process. The full processfrom collection of data to development of State/EPA Agreements and evaluation of those agreementsis shown in Figure 2 on p. 6. Table 4. Region 8 Water Quality Presentation Program for Determining Beneficial Use Impairments Input Output Input to the computer program consists of: (1) A modified criteria matrix adjusted for specific state standard requirements. (2) Proper STORET Agency and Station codes for all monitoring sites to be analyzed, preferably ordered by river basin. The computer output provides the following information for each beneficial use at each sampling station: (1) The average monthly multiple of criteria exceedence by parameter (including only parameters that have potential for beneficial use impairment). (2) The average annual multiple of criteria exceedence by parameter. (3) The probability of criteria exceedence for each parameter. (4) An impairment level due to each parameter. (5) An impairment level affecting each use (average impairment due to each offending parameter). (6) A summary which includes: a. impairment levels for all stations analyzed by use b. a ranking of impairment by use for each station c. monthly concentration severity analysis by parameter for critical stations. "Using Ambient, Discharge,, and Flow Data for Preliminary Determination of Priorities" Region 6 Speaker: Myron Knudson, Director Water Management Division EPA Region 6 FTS: 8-729-2656 Commercial: (214) 767-2656 The Water Management Division, assisted by the Management Division and the Environmental Services Division in Region 6, has developed and tested the Water Management System (WMS) as a 10 ------- means of better incorporating environmental criteria into State and EPA decision making. WMS is a technically oriented approach toward analyzing available information on ambient water quality and sources of pollution. The WMS was developed as a pilot approach with one state. The Region has encouraged other states to adopt it, but it is not a requirement. The WMS reflects Agency concerns expressed in EPA's Operating Year Guidance for FY 1982. The Agency emphasized the development of basic methods and tools to promote sound management decisions. Emphasis was also given to improving the Agency's ability to measure the effectiveness of its programs by using environmental data. The WMS is a careful compilation of the best data available to guide the planning, decision making, and tracking of programs required by the Clean Water Act. The insights that result from the analysis in the system can be used to guide effective water management decisions. The WMS provides a mechanism by which the program can budget its increasingly limited resources toward solving problems on a "worst-first" basis and consequently provide the most results from the available resources. The steps in the WMS are as follows: Compile ambient water quality data available in STORET and compare to state standards, Screen data for "significant" problems, Rank problems in order of severity, Identify potential causes, and Implement action plans for those municipal, industrial, and nonpoint sources that are significant contributors to the observed water quality problems. Figure 6 shows the kind of graphic display of "causal" information for a stream segment that is possible in the WMS. Maps and acetate overlays can be developed that show, for a stream segment, types of dischargers along the stream (in PCS); NPDES permit compliance status, including permitted effluent limits and magnitude and frequency of violations (from DMR files); construction grant status, to provide information on what steps are being taken to correct the problem (in GIGS); types of pollutants contributed by non-point sources (from 208 and 305(b) reports); and naturally occuring conditions. Figure 7 shows how Region 6 categorizes problems in its Action Plan. The WMS approach is applicable to any pollutant, or set of pollutants, for which ambient data have been gathered and recorded over a period of three or more years. In most cases that would limit its present application to studies of conventional pollutants. However, as more data are collected for toxics under the EPA Integrated Toxics Strategy, WMS could become an increasingly useful tool for approaching the toxics problem. Figure 6. Region 6 Water Quality Presentation Potential Sources at One Stream Segment Analyzed by WMS Process Potential Upstream Sources Gosnell 0 NC-FC BOD TSS NC-FC< Key Major Municipal Major Industrial Minor Municipal Minor Industrial NC non compliance FC fecal coliform BOD biological oxygen demand TSS total suspended solids Turb turbidity SO4 sulfate P phosphate ^Monitored Segment in Violation for: FC Turb S04 P Figure 7. Region 6 Water Quality Presentation Action Plan for Water Management System Municipal Construction grants funding Problems O & M program Industrial Enforcement actions Problems Adjust permits Nonpoint 208 planning Problems Land use management Naturally Monitor Occurring Consider standards revisions Problems "Use of Biological Information for Water Quality Management" Region 4 Speaker: Dr. Don Raschke, Chemist Environmental Services Division EPA Region 4 FTS: 8-250-2294 Commercial: (404) 546-2294 Region 4 encourages the development of bio- monitoring programs in each of the states in the Region. In the presentation. Dr. Raschke identified the bioparameters and biological testing procedures 11 ------- used in Region 4 to support decision-making by water program managers. Region 4 provides technical support to states in site investigations and provides technical assistance and training to develop bio-monitoring capability in the states. Region 4 believes that there is a need for a national strategy that will incorporate biological data into the Agency's decision-making processes. Dr. Raschke showed how biological data is used by Region 4 for: management decisions allocation of resources based on: types and magnitude of problems, and location of problems. Major classes of problems in the water medium were identified together with the biological parameters utilized for developing sound decisions. operational decisions NPDES permit decisions 404 permit decisions setting and evaluating water quality standards determining whether use classification are being'met measuring progress. The biological parameters critical to making decisions for these operational programs were identified. The Region also sees a need for a nationally- funded biological data base, such as the BIOSTORET system that has been designed but is currently unfunded. Table 5. Region 4 Water Quality Presentation Water Quality Problems Table 6. Region 4 Water Quality Presentation Operational Decisions Category Problem Bio Parameters Enrichment Toxicity Septicity Habitat Destruction Sanitary Condition Taste & Odor Fish Kills Septic Conditions Aesthetics Human Health Animal Health Aquatic Life Nuisance Conditions Fish Kills Impoverished Biota Wetlands Sea Grass Beds Coral Reefs Drinking Water Shellfish Production Water Contact Algal Assay Chlorophyll Autotrophic Indices Standing Crop Bioassay Reproductive Success Species Composition Residue Analysis Mutagenic Tests Standing Crop Metabolism Autotrophic Indices Reproduction Species Composition Habitat Inventory Species Composition Bacterial Analysis A. NPDES Permits Establish Permit Requirements Adequacy of Permit Requirements Bioassays 316 A& B Studies B. 404 Permits Jurisdictional Boundaries Permit Denial Vegetational Studies Metabolic Studies Organic Import-Export Quality of Biota C. Water Quality Standards Establish Criteria Determine Use Classifications Evaluate Status Algal Assay Chlorophyll & Organic Biomass Reproduction Growth Species Composition Condition Lethality D. Measurement of Progress Trends in Quality Standing Group Progress (Goals, Objectives, Policy) Reproduction Fishable-Swimmable Growth Biointegrity Species Composition Toxics Condition Autotropic Indices "Using Compliance Data to Target State Activities and Evaluate Effectiveness in the Drinking Water Program" Region 6 Speaker: Myron Knudson, Director Water Management Division EPA - Region 6 FTS: 8-729-2656 Commercial: (214) 767-2656 . The Water Management Division in Region 6 has developed a system which analyzes and uses compliance data on public water systems to plan and evaluate activities in the drinking water program. By analyzing the number and types of monitoring and reporting violations (M/R) and maximum contaminant level (MCL) violations in terms of the population served by each system, they were able to assist the states in better targeting program activities on the most significant problem areas. An assessment of compliance data for Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas was conducted by Region 6 to identify progress in improving drinking water quality and to identify remaining water system needs. Five major problem areas were generally found to be evident in each state: Small systems have a majority of the drinking water violations. 12 ------- Each state has one or more violation categories showing widespread violations (i.e., bacteriological MCL violations, bacteriological monitoring and reporting compliance, etc.) each of which should be a given specific priority for program action as compared with other known program needs. Repeat violators (systems with 2 or more violations) cause a large portion of the violations. (See Figure 8.) Compliance with the public notice requirement by water systems with MCL violations is woefully low. A series of formal enforcement actions of increasing stringency for the recalcitrant violator is needed in all states except Texas. To address these problem areas, Region 6 worked with the states to develop a compliance strategy to focus state activities on multiple violators and on assistance and training of operators of smaller systems in order to bring more systems into compliance. Their analysis has shown that more systems throughout the Region are now in compliance as a result of these targetted efforts. (See Figure 9.) Figure 8. Region 6 Drinking Water Presentation Bacteriological M/R Violations, Community PWS's FY'80, New Mexico 100 90 80 70 Example: 45% of the violating systems had 3 or more months of violations and accounted for 75% of the total violations. Systems Violations 50 iO LO JO ~ 10 I o i£ \ \ Figure 9. Region 6 Drinking Water Presentation Comparison of FY'79 and FY'80 Bacteriological M/R Violations by District Community PWS's New Mexico 700 Health Districts 3 4 01 234567 Frequency of Monthly Violations 10 11 12 Environmental Results Management in Regional Hazardous Waste Programs Managers of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs have indicated that, by their very nature, these two programs are oriented towards environmental results. The programs are designed to prevent the releases of hazardous materials to the environment or to clean up uncontrolled sites, and thus achieve environmental results. The RCRA and Superfund programs have developed techniques to assess the probable risk from sites and are developing techniques to rank problem sites. The hazard evaluation model (the MITRE model) ranks potential Superfund sites based on their probable hazard. Since both of these programs are still in their early stages of development, a number of questions have arisen as to what type of information is needed for risk assessments and to set program priorities. Region 9 discussed this issue at the Workshop. 13 ------- "Data and Information for Setting Priorities and Targetting Resources in RCRA and Superfund Program" Region 9 Speaker Harry Seraydarian, Deputy Director Toxics and Waste Management Division EPA Region 9 FTS: 8-454-8137 Commercial: (415) 974-8137 While the MITRE model is used uniformly among all Regions to rank Superfund sites there is no comparable national model for the RCRA program. To fill this void. Region 9 developed such a ranking model consistent with the criteria issued by the Office of Solid Waste. This model makes use of data which facilities submitted in Part A of their RCRA permit applications, as well as additional information such as the compliance history and the general quality of operations at each RCRA site. To use this model (and to meet other operational needs) Region 9 has assembled a computerized data bank that allows quick access to the available information on RCRA sites in Region 9. Region 9 has used the model to rank sites in priority order for call-ins for Part B of the RCRA permit application and to set priorities for site inspections. Mr. Seraydarian emphasized the need for annual surveys in the RCRA program. Region 9 feels strongly that a comprehensive annual survey (rather than the proposed 10% sample) of treaters, storers and disposers is necessary for two years to establish an information base upon which regulatory decisions can be made. He suggested that the survey then be conducted once every three years to update the data base and track progress in hazardous waste reduction and adequacy of treatment. He specified several reasons why the comprehensive survey is needed: to establish a data base for industry in siting hazardous waste facilities; to assess the degree of hazard in terms of waste volume; to cross-check the manifest system; and to track trends in hazardous waste reductions. Mr. Seraydarian also raised important issues he said must be resolved in order for Superfund program managers to effectively manage for environmental results. These were: Funds Are Needed for State Superfund Sites. Mr. Seraydarian said that state involvement in the entire Superfund program is necessary. Recognizing the limitations of the initial priority list of 115 hazardous sites, he urged that the Agency allocate resources to the states so that they can make preliminary assessments of other potential Superfund sites. He said that without adequate resources for such preliminary assessments, it will not be possible to apply the MITRE model in a meaningful way to rank sites and assure that Superfund dollars are directed towards the sites presenting the greatest, most immediate hazards and in this way ensure the greatest possible environmental results from the Superfund program. Guidelines for Cost-Effective Clean-up Are Needed. Mr. Seraydarian said these guidelines would be used to determine the appropriate degree of clean-up at any one site, given the potential hazard it presented and the relative costs of the remedial alternatives available. These guidelines would then be a key factor determining the extent of the environmental results that should be anticipated. 14 ------- Summary of Headquarters Presentations The afternoon of the first day of the workshop was devoted to presentations by Headquarters Managers in the Office of Water, Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation; Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances; and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response on the national efforts under way in their program areas to collect better information on environmental status and on the environmental results of their activities and to use it more effectively in planning, resource allocation, program management, and evaluation. The material that follows summarizes the presentations that were made. "Environmental Results Management in the Water Quality and Drinking Water Programs" Speaker: Rebecca Hanmer Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Water Ms. Hanmer began her presentation by discussing the shifts in the philosophy and approach of the Water program that have occurred since the 1960's. She pointed out that early on the program had attempted to make decisions on the basis of water quality standards, with relatively weak technology requirements. The Agency then moved to a period of strong technology requirements tied to permits, and is now swinging back to a water quality based approach. She emphasized that managing for environmental results is not new that it is a very old direction that we are coming back to. Ms. Hanmer then discussed several areas where the Office of Water (OW) plans to put increased emphasis on using environmental information and assessing environmental results. In the FY'83 guidance process, OW is emphasizing the need to make water quality based decisions. In the guidance, states will be asked to review their existing procedures for determining which streams are water quality limited (i.e., those streams that would not be 15 ------- able to meet water quality standards just by putting on technology based controls, and that would therefore require more stringent permit limits) and which streams are effluent limited (i.e., could meet water quality standards if they put on technology based controls). Specifically, OW will be asking the states: to review the priority water bodies; to rank those water bodies in terms of the seriousness of pollution control problems; to look at their procedures for setting water quality based limitations; to review the feasibility of achieving the water quality standards in those places where technology based limits are not enough. OW is asking the states to re-evaluate their water quality standards programs. Specifically, OW is asking the states to conduct an assessment of stream classifications, use designations, water quality criteria, and the mix of point and non-point sources of pollution contributing to non-attainment. States are to answer four basic questions: What is the use to be protected? To what extent does pollution contribute to the impairment of the use? To what extent will pollution from control of point sources basically what we have been regulating restore or enhance this use? Do the benefits of attaining the use bear a reasonable relationship to the costs? OW wants states to refine water quality standards by incorporating everything that is known about the stream emphasizing that site-specific biological information is to be incorporated as well as the chemical information the Agency has been using over the years. Headquarters will produce guidance documents to assist the States in ranking their water bodies. It will outline screening techniques and suggest priority weighting factors. It will discuss the development of priority water body lists, and the inclusion of these lists in states' 305(b) reports. Through this analysis of water quality information, the 305(b) reports should be more useful for making decisions. Ms. Hanmer also discussed how the concept of environmental results is being incorporated into the NPDES program. She stated that since the NPDES system was put in place in 1972, the Agency has made decisions under NPDES on an engineering basis, defining in engineering terms what best practicable treatment would achieve, setting limits derived from that engineering analysis, and putting them in enforceable form in NPDES permits. OW plans several changes in NPDES permit policies that it believes should enhance the Agency's ability to measure and see environmental gesults. OW will be issuing a second-round industrial permitting strategy. First priority will be given to rewriting and reissuing permits where there is a known impairment to water use or other significant known water quality problems. Second priority will be rewriting permits where BAT guidelines have now come out. Third priority will be issuing permits where we do not have effluent guidelines. OW's last priority will be reissuing expired permits that already incorporate adequate technology. (Under the Administrative Procedures Act these permits are still in effect.) Ms. Hanmer indicated that all of these efforts will require that OW give attention to the collection, analysis, and cost of information. OW is taking more of an interest in getting its managers to articulate what information they need to make good decisions. OW is developing a revised monitoring strategy that will generate a data base to support decisions and that encourages local governments and industry to assist EPA in data gathering. The strategy will emphasize biological surveys and the types of monitoring that will help the program get a better handle on measuring results in cleanup. Ms. Hanmer asked for help from the Regions and states to identify how different monitoring techniques can best be combined. In the Drinking Water program, where environmental information is used to target non- compliance problems and then to encourage the states to focus on these problems, OW uses the information to know where new strategies need to be developed. EPA and the states have agreed on definitions of persistent or major, and intermittent or minor, violations of bacteriological and turbidity standards. This allows OW to analyze trends, identify categories of systems that are most likely to have serious violations, and to compare performance at the district, state, and Regional levels. OW will look now at three dimensions when deciding how resources ought to be spent: Do we have a mandate and how strong is it? How significant is the problem we are trying to address before controls are in place? What information dp we have that indicates that a problem is a significant environmental problem? What is the marginal utility of EPA's involvement using the tools the Agency has available permits, standards, and enforcement actions? Ms. Hanmer concluded by paying that the whole concept of environmental results can be used not only in program operations but also in structuring the Agency's thinking about what programs we support and what priority to give them. 16 ------- "Environmental Results Management in the Air Program" Speaker: Paul Stolpman, Director Office of Policy Analysis Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation Mr. Stolpman focused his presentation on how Headquarters is fashioning its position with regard to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, based on his view that the statute is the thing that most clearly drives environmental results in the program. He identified five areas the Administrator has indicated should be amended and discussed from an environmental results standpoint, the thinking that went into those decisions. He said that while the Agency didn't intentionally make environmental results the driving factor in the CAA revision process, that was, indeed, the case. The areas he then discussed follow. The Automobile Standards The Administration is suggesting adjusting the carbon monoxide standard from 3.4 grams per mile up to 7 grams per mile. The goal of the Clean Air Act in setting auto standards was to get a 90 percent reduction in the fleet emissions average. An analysis of available data shows that the 3.4 gram per mile standard is a 96 percent reduction from the uncontrolled fleet, while the 7 gram standard is a 92 percent reduction from the uncontrolled fleet. The data also show that in 1976, the fleet CO average was about 87 grams per mile. In 1980 the fleet average had dropped to 48.2 grams per mile. Thus, between 1976 and 1980 tremendous drops were attained in the average CO emissions of the fleet. When the Agency projected into the future against the 7 gram and 3.4 gram standards, we found that in 1987, at the 7 gram standard, the fleet would emit an average of about 26.6 grams per mile on average. At 3.4 grams, it would emit 26.3 grams per mile three-tenths of a gram difference. The reason for that small difference is that once you start to squeeze the automobiles' average emissions over 90 percent, it is not the stringency of how a car is produced on the assembly line that makes the difference, but rather, how the car is operated in the hands of the consumer. The Agency also discovered that, in terms of cost effectiveness, a 7 grams per mile standard would result in CO reductions costing nineteen dollars a ton. At the 3.4 grams per mile standard, the cost rose to seventy-one dollars a ton. Based on that the Administration recommended a 7 gram standard, basically because there were no additional environmental results that came from reducing the standard down to the 3.4 level. Also, when the Agency looked at attainment status, we found that by 1990, virtually every air quality region would be in compliance with the ambient CO standard. Therefore, again for the environmental indicator, a change in the standard will make virtually no difference, in terms of the environmental effect. The data on the NOx standard is similar to that for the CO standard. Only two areas of the country, Denver and Chicagooutside of California were out of compliance with the NOx standard, and there are no ambient air quality problems for NO2. These data suggest that there is no great need to keep the standard at one gram as opposed to two grams. Therefore, the Administration is recommending a two gram standard instead of the one gram standard that is presently in the law. Also, in 1970 the NOx fleet average was 3.7 grams per mile. In 1980 it had dropped to 2.9. At the two gram standard, that will continue to drop through the decade. A change in the standard will have virtually no effect on the attainment status of any areas of the country. In terms of cost effectiveness, the Agency found a similar but much more dramatic trend to the one that we found with CO. The 2 gram standard gave us reductions at about fifty-seven dollars a ton. At 1 gram the cost rose to over six hundred dollars a ton, increasing cost by a factor of ten. The Percent Removal Requirement on Coal Fired Power Plants The Administrator also recommended eliminating the percent removal requirement on coal fired power plants and coal fired industrial boilers. That provision calls for not only an emission standard, but actually a reduction in the emissions of sulfur and nitrogen, as they come through the plant, so that no untreated fuel could be used. The provision was written into the 1977 Act in order to protect the jobs of miners in the Midwest. It had little to do with environmental protection. There is also a substantial economic rationale for getting rid of the percent removal requirement. If you relax or eliminate the percent removal requirement, there will be some modest increase in emissions. Depending on where you set the alternative standard, the increase is anywhere from a 2 percent to 10 percent increase in SO2. However, the cost savings are from $200 million to as high as $3.6 billion a year. Not only that, in terms of dollars per ton, the cost runs as high as seventeen hundred and fifty dollars a ton for every ton of SO2 removed, whereas on average today in most utilities, you can get a ton of SO2 out for about 300 dollars a ton. Acid Rain Another area where the Agency has taken this same stand is in the area of acid rain. There we've taken the approach that we don't know enough about the environmental results of emissions control programs in order to take a position with regard to regulations. Therefore, our stand has been that we need to do more research, more rapidly, in order to understand 17 ------- those environmental results. We want to know what we're buying before we develop what would basically be about a four billion dollar per year program in order to achieve a ten million ton per year reduction. Hazardous Pollutants In the hazardous pollutant area, our philosophy is slightly different. Since 1970, when the hazardous pollutant program was first called for in the Clean Air Act, the air program has only managed to list seven pollutants. Of those seven, we have only managed to promulgate regulations for four. One of the reasons that our record is as dismal as it is, is because of the requirements the Agency must meet once a pollutant is put on the hazardous list. The Agency is making some recommendations to the Congress for more flexible treatment for both the process of listing hazardous pollutants and for the regulatory process. Although this appears to be a relaxation of the requirement, in the end, OANR believes the environmental results will be much more significant. These changes will allow EPA to start listing pollutants more rapidly, with the knowledge that once the pollutant is listed, the Agency will have some flexibility in dealing with that pollutant and imposing reasonable regulations on the industry. There was also substantial evidence that the SIP process, with the Federal review put in place, had become a burdensome, wasteful process. One report showed that in one Region in December 1980, there were 160 SIP revision actions pending. (There are about 500 revision actions in a year in the Agency on average.) Of the 160, 71, according to this study, had been in this system for over a year. That implies that the industrial community is not getting the kind of responsiveness it needs in order to plan under the general guidance of attaining air quality standards and that EPA is basically not trusting its partner, the states, who under the Clean Air Act are given primary responsbility for attainment of the ambient standards. EPA's goal is to change this situation dramatically, to put in place programs which accelerate that review process. In fact, the Agency is recommending that the review process be eliminated as a mandatory requirement and that, instead, we work with each state on developing an overall strategy. It would then be the state's responsibility, within that strategy, to go ahead with revisions where appropriate. EPA would have the ability to step in and review; only as a default mechanism within a certain limited time period. "Environmental Results Management in the Toxics Program" Speaker: Don Clay, Director Office of Toxic Substances Office of Pesticide and Toxic Substances Mr. Clay began his presentation by emphasizing that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Office of Toxic Substances are different from other programs in the Agency and so must have a different approach to measuring and managing for environmental results. He identified the purposes of TSCA as encouraging the development of health and environmental effects data by manufacturers and processors of new and existing chemicals and shifting the nature of chemical production and use so as to encourage safer products in manufacturing processes. He also discussed the fact that the program regulates only as a last resort. Mr. Clay said that in measuring for environmental results, the Office of Toxic Substances has broken the toxics program into three types of indicators input indicators, output indicators, and process indicators. Using the asbestos in school regulations as an example, an output indicator would be an estimation of the actual reduction in asbestos-caused cancer which results from that program. While a good indicator, it would be difficult or impossible to measure. A process indicator for the asbestos program would be the reduction in the concentration of asbestos fibers to which school children are exposed. That reduction could be estimated, but relating it to health effects would be more difficult. An input indicator would be the development of the regulation itself. While these are easy to count, Mr. Clay pointed out that they are a long way from the output indicators which he envisions as necessary for measuring environmental results health effects indicators, such as acute or chronic effects, the number of cancers estimated, the number of birth defects and environmental indicators, such as fish kills. He added that we should also consider economic indicators, for example, the number of companies forced out of business, and innovation indicators, such as the number of new products that are developed. Mr. Clay then turned to a discussion of the difficulty of measuring environmental results in the Toxics program. He compared the situation in Toxics to RCRA, which must try to measure the effectiveness of preventing things from happening. He also pointed that results may show up long after a program action. For input indicators, such as getting rules out, he noted that it is difficult to know whether people are actually complying and whether the chemicals that will be substituted for one which is taken off the market or restricted, are, in fact, safer. For output and process indicators, Mr. Clay indicated that the length of time before results are 18 ------- measurable is a serious problem. He used the example of the incubation time for cancer twenty to forty years. Models to predict health effects, he said, are very uncertain. Other difficulties he identified include selection of appropriate units to measure, since we are controlling to prevent negative health effects; relating tons of production to exposure; the absence of good baseline data; and measuring deterrent effects for example, what chemicals are not even produced and submitted to us because EPA and TSCA are here. The actions OTS is taking to manage better for environmental results through input indicators include: development of a "One Hundred Day Plan" identifying input indicators and goals of the Toxics program, tracking negotiated, voluntary, and regulated accomplishments; prioritizing existing chemical testing or control actions; and reorienting the program's budget and planning process along input indicator lines. Regarding output and process indicators, Mr. Clay stated that some baselines are currently available to the office. These include information on chemical substances and poundage, although it is somewhat dated; limited data on the number of chemicals introduced annually; and records on new substances introduced between 1979 and 1982. OTS also plans to require exposure and other data for certain chemicals of concern. Using these data, OTS is considering comparing a random sample of pre-TSCA inventory chemicals with premanufacture notifications to see whether there have been trends toward safer chemicals or chemical manufacturing processes, or toward lowered environmental releases. The program also will examine the data available on 8-A chemicals to determine production trends and will try to measure the effect of test rules and negotiated agreements on use and production of volatile chemicals. Further, the program will identify changes in the number of chemicals introduced annually to try to measure the impact on innovation. And finally, the program will monitor, on a limited basis, ambient and human exposure levels to establish baseline trends. Mr. Clay concluded by saying that managing for environmental results remains a great challenge, but is an effort which is certainly worth doing. "Environmental Results Management in the Solid Waste and Emergency Response Programs" Speaker: Rita Lavelle Assistant Administrator Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Ms. Lavelle began her presentation by summarizing the environmental results achieved by her office's enforcement activities in the Superfund and RCRA areas. She mentioned several examples including violators who have been jailed recently (in cooperation with State and local authorities) in Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont and North Carolina for improper hazardous waste handling and disposal practices; Superfund enforcement efforts which have brought in $59 million in private funds for cleanup of 23 hazardous waste sites; and 10 Superfund sites which have been cleaned up. Ms. Lavelle emphasized how enforcement creates an incentive for voluntary compliance. She offered the example of the Hooker Chemical Company which signed a consent decree costing it an estimated $30 million for cleanup at Niagara, N.Y., at an enforcement cost to EPA of less than one-tenth that amount. Such an enforcement outcome also is a deterrent against another Love Canal. Speaking of hazardous waste control through compliance monitoring, Ms. Lavelle noted that this function was being shifted steadily to the states in accordance with President Reagan's New Federalism initiative. She said 30 states were already authorized to conduct compliance monitoring of generators and facilities that treat, store and dispose of hazardous waste. In 1981, states conducted 4,515 inspections and EPA conducted 1,742, but the weight of actual inspections is shifting steadily to the states with EPA's Regional Offices assuming more of an oversight role. Ms. Lavelle then listed other enforcement methods employed by OSWER administrative orders, judicial action and criminal enforcement. Turning to a more detailed discussion of results- oriented activities in, first, Superfund, and then RCRA, Ms. Lavelle emphasized the importance of "consistent application" of the philosophy of cooperation, rather than confrontation. As an example, she cited the ABM-Wade suit in which 36 responsible parties had agreed to pay $1.6 million toward cleanup at that site. EPA is prosecuting responsible parties which are not settling. She noted that EPA may sue for triple damages if Superfund money is expended and responsible parties are identified. In summary, Ms. Lavelle said the Superfund enforcement program follows a dual-track system in which the Agency proceeds with cleanups where responsible parties are slow to "step to the table," but at the same time the Agency works with 19 ------- responsible parties to ensure they will make the leap in the most expeditious manner possible. If the responsible parties fail to respond, they are taken to court while the cleanup continues. OSWER tries the carrot first, but if it does not succeed, the Agency will use the stick. She noted that above all, consistency was the goal. Ms. Lavelle then discussed the philosophy and difficulties in accurate measurement of environmental results. She noted that the purest form of measurement would be a tabulation of lives saved, illnesses prevented and birth defects avoided. Proving a cause and effect relationship is difficult, however, and proving a negative cause and effect relationship is even more difficult. The Superfund staff is now developing practical ways to measure environmental results attributable to its cleanup activities. At the 115 interim priority sites, the measurement of results is facilitated by the detailed data collected as part of the hazard-ranking process established in the Mitre Model. A kind of baseline will be derived against which to compare results of cleanup activity. The hazard ranking system provides information about substances, pathways and target populations or receptors. A rough estimate of the threatened population can be derived from the number of people living or working near a site. These data can serve to approximate a baseline case, from which the benefits from remedial action can be inferred. However, she cautioned that cleanup results may not be known for several years. In a more detailed discussion of RCRA, Ms. Lavelle said the great bulk of Federal regulation governing hazardous-waste management will be in place by the end of July. She said such an accomplishment is a "result" in its own right. In the meantime, she indicated that her staff was poised to take two more results-oriented steps: First, to arrange visits to some 200 facilities to check their compliance with groundwater protection standards and regulations; and second, to focus our permitting strategy on the 2,000 incinerators and land-disposal sites among the 10,500 facilities that now treat, store and dispose of hazardous waste. RCRA is also looking for other methods of managing for environmental results. For instance, it is conducting an annual survey of generators and hazardous waste facilities which will provide information on the national capacity for proper disposal, waste reduction by recycling, reuse and recovery, and the extent to which waters are being properly managed. One approach is by developing environmental standards which have a strong influence on environmental results and provide regulated parties with the greatest flexibility. She said they were difficult to develop and apply in practice, however. The second approach is with design and operating standards which are somewhat removed from the direct environmental benefit sought, but provide for prevention of harm to the environment and public health. In conclusion, Ms. Lavelle said her staff was working with the Office of Planning and Resource Management to improve the measurement of results. Priorities are being established in both RCRA and Superfund, and there will be a greater reliance on States, in keeping with President Reagan's New Federalism policy and also consistent with good management. The quest will be to achieve real results in environmental protection, "without fakery or fluff." 20 ------- Summaries of Presentations on the Use of Biological and Public Health Data "Biological Data" Speaker: Dr. Tom Murphy, Director Environmental Research Laboratory/ORD U.S. EPA 200 S.W. 35th Street Corvallis, Oregon 97330 FTS: 8-430-4601 Commercial: (503) 757-4601 Dr. Murphy discussed the limitations of the current chemical toxicity approach to monitoring and suggested a course to improve the use of biomonitoring. Two frequently used techniques to evaluate attainment of EPA's statutorily set biological goals were discussed: developing chemical criteria which can be used to predict the suitability of the environment for life (e.g., DO in water), and direct measurement of suitability of the environment with a bioassay. While both are quantitative and useful they also have disadvantages because they are based on toxicity, primarily chemical toxicity. This ignores the influence of hydrologic and habitat modifications which may in many cases place greater limitations on attainment of the biological goals. Dr. Murphy suggested that two considerations are necessary: 1) what do we want out of the environment, i.e., what is its desired use; and 2) if we want the quality of streams to permit uses that depend on a "healthy" biological system, we have to look at all determinants of this, not just pollutants or chemical criteria. The Environmental Research Laboratory at Corvallis has concluded that: probably more miles of streams are biologically degraded by habitat modifications than by toxics; and in many cases, planned habitat improvements are a cheaper and more effective way to biological improvements than traditional pollution control. The limitations of the chemical toxicity approach can be overcome by direct field biological surveys. This is not a new approach, it is very straightforward, but it is also one of the least understood and most ill-used. The fundamental problem is: what reference point do we use to evaluate a biological system? What do terms such as "integrity" or "propagation of fish and wildlife" mean when applied to biological systems? 21 ------- Dr. Murphy concluded that our criteria must go beyond chemical criteria; we must face the problem of different levels of use and the different chemical and habitat limits for these uses. We must also further research the use of "least disturbed comparable systems" as a means of defining a desired state of stream "health" with the understanding that natural variation does occur and must be allowed for. The problem is that there is no magic formula: We can't come up with a cookbook for all situations; but we must or can go beyond the current situation of relying on each biologist's judgement. Guidelines are possible, if we accept that they'll never be entirely simple and that there will always have to be some judgement. It is difficult to write a regulation for biomonitoring and we may have to rely more on a process of managing expert biological opinion while using a set of accepted individual assessment techniques. "Public Health Data" Speaker: Dr. Jacob J. Feldman, Associate Director Office of Analysis and Epidemiology Programs, National Center for Health Statistics 3700 East-West Highway Hyattsville, Md. 20782 FTS: 8-436-7026 Commercial: (301) 436-7026 Dr. Feldman discussed in some detail a few examples of the use of health data in assessing environmental results. He focused on certain of the issues involved in using body burden measurements to monitor pollution. He emphasized the need to take into account how a substance is metabolized, how it passes through the body, and the toxic response curve in designing the measurement and analytic protocols. He illustrated his message with two case studies. Blood lead levels were determined from a sample of 10,000 individuals as part of NCHS's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II). Blood lead levels do not fluctuate widely in the short run; the rate of excretion of accumulated lead is generally slow enough for current blood lead level to provide at least an indication of exposure prior to the last few days. The absorption of lead from the ingestion of deposited lead dust tends to make blood levels less sensitive to day-to-day fluctuations in the ambient air levels. The risk of hematological or neurobehavioral effects or other health damage can be gauged from blood lead levels. The trend over time in the parameters of the blood lead level distribution for a population can thus be a good indicator for assessing environmental results. Dr. Feldman presented data from NHANES II showing an applicable downward trend in mean blood lead levels over the 4 years of the survey, 1976 to 1980. The trend was apparent in various demographic subgroups and at different seasons of the year. Declines were shown for the 1976-1980 time period in the amount of lead used in gasoline production and in ambient air levels. While the decline in the blood lead levels could have been due in part to other factors such as decreased consumption of food from lead-soldered cans and the continued downturn in exposure to lead-based paint, there is presumptive evidence that the reduced use of lead in gasoline was responsible for a substantial part of the decline. Carboxyhemoglobin determinations were made on over 8,000 individuals from NHANES II. Carboxyhemoglobin levels are more unstable than are blood lead levels. Carboxyhemoglobin levels are quite sensitive to day to day fluctuations in ambient levels and smoking. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the major health risks due to carbon monoxide exposure are acute in nature. Relatively short-term exposure to exceptionally high levels of carbon monoxide may cause adverse cardiac symptoms or episodes in persons suffering from coronary heart disease. The distribution of days by ambient carbon monoxide levels in a given locality is extremely skewed. To use body burden measures to assess exposure to high levels of ambient carbon monoxide in a given locality, it is necessary to conduct Carboxyhemoglobin determinations for residents of that locality on a great many different days. Dr. Feldman presented NHANES II data showing the percent of examined individuals with Carboxyhemoglobin greater than 1.5 percent in each of a number of different unidentified communities. The great variability of this measure between communities undoubtedly reflects in part differences between specific communities in the tendency for episodes of high ambient carbon monoxide. However, a particular community where only a small fraction of individuals were found to have relatively high carboxyhemoglobins may have been mischaracterized. There could actually have been only a few days with high ambient carbon monoxide levels during the period of the survey in that community. Brief reference was made to the collection by NCHS of drinking water samples as part of the NHANES I Augmentation Survey. In addition, urine and blood speciments from NHANES II were tested for selected pesticide residues or metabolities. The National Death Index (NDI), administered by NCHS, facilitates the conduct of follow-up studies. It is a file of all deaths in the United States beginning in 1979. It permits the identification of which individuals in a study cohort had died during a given time period. The State in which the death occurred and the death certificate number can be provided to the investigator for each person who had died in the study cohort. This enables the investigator to obtain from the State, the death certificate, containing 22 ------- cause of death information. The NDI can be of great value in the long-term follow up of individuals who have been exposed to possibly toxic substances from a waste disposal dump or an industrial mishap. The presence or absence of high rates of premature death or an excess of deaths from particular causes could provide evidence regarding toxicity. To use the NDI, it is necessary to submit a file of names (both first and last) of those being followed in conjunction with either their respective dates of birth or social security numbers. Certain additional items of identifying information can be useful in either the search procedure or in determining the quality of possible matches. To receive copies of the User's Manual and application forms, write: National Death Index Division of Vital Statistics National Center for Health Statistics Room 1-44, Center Building 3700 East-West Highway Hyattsville, Maryland 20782 NCHS is currently analyzing the 1980 National Natality Survey (NNS) and the 1980 National Fetal Mortality Survey (NFMS). Information was collected from mothers, physicians, hospitals and associated medical sources. These data will be useful in identifying certain fetotoxic substances. Dr. Feldman indicated that such vital record surveys can be extremely powerful tools for environmental epidemiology. For further information regarding the NNS and NFMS, contact Dr. Paul Placek, Division of Vital Statistics, NCHS, (301) 436-8954. Clues to health effects of particular pollutants can sometimes be discerned from geographic patterns of mortality or morbidity. Unusual air, water, or industrial characteristics of localities can occasionally be linked to exceptionally high mortality rates from a specific cause. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has produced, from the mortality data compiled by NCHS, maps showing geographic differentials for a number of causes of death. For further information on this work, contact: Dr. Thomas J. Mason, NCI, (301)496-6425. Dr. Feldman also referred to the following review prepared by NCHS, as a good source of information on data currently available from Federal data collection systems on health effects. Environmental Health DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 80-1248, National Center for Health Statistics 3700 East-West Highway Hyattsville, Maryland 20782 23 ------- Summary of Presentations on Multi-Media Approaches to Environmental Assessment 'The Program Integration Project's Geographic Approach" Speaker: Michael Alford Office of Management Systems and Evaluation, OPRM U.S. EPA 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 FTS: 8-382-4016 Commercial: (202) 382-4016 Michael Alford discussed the overall purpose of the Program Integration Project (PIP), formerly the Toxics Integration Project, and described the design of the new demonstration project which has just begun. The Agency's activities have historically been divided by medium. This approach worked with most conventional pollutants, which are typically high volume and without intermedia transfers. This approach does not, however work as well for toxics, because of the transfer of toxics from medium to medium. The medium by medium approach makes it difficult to be sure, even when dealing with conventionals, that we are addressing the worst problems first. Further, it contains no mechanism for assessing the cumulative burden imposed on any specific industrial sector through the regulatory activity of all the media programs. The purpose of PIP is to look for scien- tifically determined control priorities on the basis of exposure and risk, to consider the economic impacts of existing Federal, state, and local controls, especially their cumulative costs, and to analyze control options within a frame work of cost and benefits for the ultimate goal of achieving greater environmental protection with less cost. The Agency has considered three integrative approaches: the geographic approach, looking at individual high impact areas; the industry approach, looking at all pollution streams of a given industrial sector; and the chemical approach, looking at individual, unusual risk chemicals that appear widely in the environment in different industrial sectors. The Office of Toxics Integration, OPTS, is continuing to work on the chemical approach. PIP will look at the geographic and industry approaches. The geographic approach is based on the premise that there are areas that have concentrations of sources that yield high levels of exposure and presumably unusual health and environmental risks. Within these areas we should define the most cost- effective strategy for correcting the problems, rank ------- them in order of importance, and emphasize state and local controls other than conventional command and control regulation. In 1981 PIP reviewed the Agency data bases for geographic-specific information by county. That analysis suggested that when we look at any given parameter (e.g., population, ozone levels, chemical production, etc.) a small number of counties account for the large majority of the contributions of that parameter nationwide. For example, thirty percent of the total tonnage of all chemicals produced in the country come from ten counties. All the data bases PIP looked at share this same phenomenon. PIP used a rough screening model to combine the scores for each parameter by county. This model estimated that one percent of the three thousand counties nationwide account for between twelve and twenty- four percent of the nation's environmental problems. Chloroform levels in a section of the Kanawha River Valley was discussed as an example of the kind of analysis of a high pollutant concentration area the geographic approach will use. By looking at pollutant loading based on source and ambient data, various options can be developed to achieve different uses. For example, in looking at drinking water, options could include either source restrictions in some reaches of the river (possibly in combination with increased dis- charges elsewhere) or other control options such as moving the intake upstream from a major source. In focusing on individual cities in the demonstration project planned for this year, PIP will review the current regulatory plan at all levels of government for that local area i.e., who is being regulated and what are the actual environmental problems to see if the regulations match the problems and if some problems are unnoticed, unmanaged, or over-regulated. They will look at what are most cost-effective controls, not just the high cost source-oriented controls, but also other options such as the interruption of exposure pathways. In the long term, this is the direction that PIP is proposing. By combining various sources of data we can develop intermedia priorities, interpollutant priorities, and interplant priorities on specific local conditions in areas of unusual risk. "NEIC Multi-Media Assessments" Speaker: Gary Young National Enforcement Investigations Center U.S. E.P.A. Building 53, Box 25227 Denver, Colorado FTS: 8-234-4650 Commercial: (303) 234-4650 Gary Young described the multi-media assessments the National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC) is undertaking as a way to select facilities for com- pliance inspections. He described a multi-media case study of the Niagara Frontier in northern New York State, the procedure used for multi-media complaince audit inspections, and issues and related activities for further development of the multi-media concept. In the Niagara Frontier study NEIC used "FINDS" (Facility Index System) developed by Region 2 to generate an inventory of known municipal, industrial, and commercial facilities and active or inactive waste disposal sites. The initial list of more than ten thousand facilities in the two counties included in the study was reduced to a second list of 940 facilities identified as potentially significant sources of chemical substances. The location of the facilities on the second list was graphically displayed using a Region II computer graphics programMAPS. Using overlaps of different data set maps, NEIC was able to identify instances where several different names were recorded for the same facility. NEIC then developed rating criteria to define the relative significance of actual or potential releases of chemical substances to the air or water pathways or as a result of hazardous waste handling. The criteria were designed to group facilities by the degree of activity in each pathway. A high rating against the criteria did not indicate that the facility had a significant environmental problem; it simply indicated that the potential for release was high. From this listing NEIC identified a series of follow-up activities for New York State to undertake with support from EPA. A second case study, in the Beaumont-Lake Charles, Louisiana area, was a pilot of the multi- media compliance audit inspection concept. After a review of facilities similar to the inventory produced for the Niagara Frontier Study, a plan was developed for compliance audits of facilities rated as having high potential for release of chemical substances. The plan consisted of reviewing background information on each facility from existing data bases; developing a specific project plan including justification, tasks required to fulfill the objectives, and how the results will be reported and when; and, finally, notifying the facility of the intent to inspect to ensure that the facility's technical and legal personnel would be present at the inspection. Based on the results of the pilot study, Mr. Young suggested several issues which should be addressed to improve multi-media compliance audit inspections: better training of EPA personnel is needed to develop technical skills necessary for multi-media assessments; present data filing systems need to be revised to be consistent with the uniform data generated by the multi-media ranking scheme for facilities; and the philosophical basis of compliance monitoring needs to be reoriented from the present emphasis on demonstrating high levels of compliance to greater efforts to identify violations*and probability of continuous compliance or continuous violations. In conclusion Mr. Young mentioned three related NEIC activities: a draft procedures manual on multi-media compliance audits has been developed and is available for review; the initiative to verify compliance with consent decrees is continuing; and NEIC is working with the Regulatory Reform Staff to develop the concept of environmental auditing. 26 ------- Panel Discussion on EPA and State Roles in Managing for Environmental Results Introduction by Lewis S. W. Crampton, Director Office of Management Systems and Evaluation Mr. Crampton began the session by noting that during OMSE's visits to the Regions, the issue of EPA versus State roles in managing for environmental results was repeatedly raised as a major concern. Especially as the Agency delegates more programs to the states and our role becomes more of an oversight rather than program management role, the question of how we work with state environmental officials to manage for environmental results becomes all the more important. The panel members were: Gene Welsh, Chief, Water Protection Branch, Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Robert Burd, Director, Water Division, Region 10; Bern Steigerwald, Director, Regional Programs Office, OAQPS; Ned Notzon, Acting Director, Office of Analysis and Evaluation, Office of Water; and David Gibbons, Chief, Environmental Branch, OMB. Mr. Crampton asked the panel members to discuss several specific questions in their discussions. Once a program is delegated, how can EPA promote managing for environmental results? Who is ultimately responsible for setting environmental priorities, EPA or the States? Who should be held responsible for whether the desired environmental results are achieved? Should states be accountable? How should we best work with the states to achieve environmental results? How do we best promote managing for environmental results with voluntary SEAs? Managing for environmental results depends on the collection of good environmental data. Many EPA grants to the states have been cut. How can we best ensure that EPA and the states have the data they need? The full text of the panel members' discussion follows. 27 ------- Individual Presentations Presentation by Gene Welsh, Chief, Water Protection Branch, Georgia Department of Natural Resources I would be presumptuous to speak for all the states in this country. I think I'd be fortunate if I can express a little philosophy for the State of Georgia. I think the philosophy that I express has been carried out in Georgia. And, I think our basic philosophy is that the environmental program in the state of Georgia will be run by the State of Georgia. For the benefit of you people who are not aware of it, we have taken on all the delegations except UIC, which is in process right now. But, we basically believe that the state should run the environmental programs. Following that philosophy, I think we need to discuss the roles of the federal, state, and local governments which lead into priority setting. We believe that the federal role should be one of standard setting and overview, that is, funding those high priority national issues, such as superfund or construction grants and supporting research and development. I think we should also follow the concept of the existing legislation, that is, a state cannot or does not want to carry out some of these environmental programs, then it probably falls on EPA to do it. And, EPA certainly should be in a position to provide the technical assistance that many states may need. The state role, in our view, should be one of operating the control over the environmental program. This would include carrying out national program priorities, delegation of national programs, measurement of the results, and the monitoring. Don't lose sight of the fact that many state programs have priorities established by their own elected officials. I think we must keep in mind, that there are national priorities and there are state priorities. The third participant in this ball game, so to speak, is the local government. We believe that they should manage the facilities, be they industrial or municipal. They should do some monitoring. They should operate some types of local programs, such as they do in air pollution control. And, they should carry out their responsibility somewhat under the overview and supervision of the state, similar to the state- federal relationship. If we accept these approaches, then the priorities follow. There are certain national priorities established by law, backed up by funding, which must be established at the federal level. It would be a mistake to establish those priorities without some state discussion or some state inputs. I think that national priorities can be arrived at through an open discussion between the state and the federal agency. By the same token, as I indicated earlier, there are many state priorities. When the General Assembly in Georgia appropriates money, or passes laws for enforcement, they establish their own priorities on many areas. I think we must recognize these state priorities. They may need to be discussed and worked out with the federal agency to assure that they're consistent and compatible with the national priorities. I believe that the way to work with the states is to pursue two very important points. One is a full partnership approach. The second is open communication. I think we have achieved much of that with our associates in Atlanta, with the Regional office, because we do have good communications. Let me give you an example of some of the communication we're having right now. The Region is allowing us to develop our own Section 106 water program plan, under our own guidance, provided it's consistent with the law, the regulations, and the priorities. But, we will develop our own progr?«;n plan. And, we will define those activities or it>ose results we intend to accomplish. This is going to be a first attempt at giving the state the flexibility to carry out its own defined plan. I don't know whether it's going to work. We're going to try it. But, I think that it's going to be a innovative approach, and well worth the try. As you well know, states come in about fifty-seven different varieties. There are many states interested in carrying out environmental programs. There are many states that couldn't care less. I think the thing that I would recommend throughout all of this is that we do not get too hung up on generating new data or instituting new reporting procedures, so that we get to the point where we're so busy reporting data or collecting data that we lose sight of the forest out there, that is, environmental control. We've seen experiences within our own state of agencies who are so busy preparing reports, that in a short time they do not have much to report on, except the number of reports. Finally, I think we've got to keep in mind that we're here to control and protect the environment. And, we ought to manage it on the basis of much of the data which is already being generated. Thank you. Presentation by Robert Burd, Director, Water Division, Region 10. Our experience in Region 10 in managing for environmental results hasn't been that much different than what you've heard from the other Regional offices. But, I would like to say that we've had a good reputation in Region 10 as being able to work well with the states. And, I think that is true. We've worked with the states in Region 10 for five or six years on managing for environmental results. In fact, when we started five or six years ago, I think we even used that term, managing for environmental results. At that time we agreed that we ought to take a look at what's good for the environment. We started a process of doing state by state assessments to find out where the real problems were, and to try to direct our resources to those real problems. I would like to mention, by the way, in hindsight, that the workshop should spend some time thinking 28 ------- about pollution prevention, as Region 9 commented yesterday. It's particularly important to the western Regions. I hope out of the workshop this afternoon and tomorrow we can come up with some creative ideas on how to include pollution prevention in our managing for environmental results strategy also. Getting back to environmental assessments, what we did in Region 10 was to work with the states to produce what we call the environmental profiles. That term has had both good and bad reception here at Headquarters. But, this was a tool for managing for environmental results, where we and the states got together and produced a document that identified the problem areas and laid out some programs, as well as priorities in dealing with those problem areas. We put out the first profile in 1977. We made a mistake in that one in that we lumped all the states into one profile. They objected to that because it seemed to them that we were comparing the bad features of one state versus the good feature in another. Following that, we came out with separate profiles for each state. Profiles turned out to be something the states reluctantly went into, but eventually became very enthusiastic about, because it gave them a good tool that they could use when talking to their Governor, talking to the legislatures, talking to the public, their constituents, about the real environmental problems in that state. They have picked up on that. Even though we are not at Region 10, anyway, producing environmental profiles this year, the states are continuing to do those assessments, and have found them to be quite useful. I would like to offer something constructive here, and hope to stimulate some dialogue. I don't want Lew Crampton and the other folks at Headquarters to get away without having to participate in a real meaningful way in this workshop. So, I'd like to talk a little bit about some constraints in the Headquarters guidance and what that guidance may or may not do for us in terms of managing for environmental results. An example: Headquarters' guidance told us that the Idaho Air Program had to be run the same way as the New Jersey Air Program. And, I think it took some discussion on that point before we convinced folks that maybe Idaho's program doesn't need to be the same as the New Jersey Air Quality Program. I'd also like to speak to the reporting systems that have been required, in the past anyway. The Regions have tracked around four hundred separate counts, or beaning counting as we all call it. Some of those bean counts, I think, weren't too meaningful in terms of environmental results things like how many public meetings were scheduled; how many press releases did we come out with; and, one I know I had to track in the Water Division was the number of EPA approved designated management agencies implementing approved plans or parts of plans for control of national priority problem areas. I really didn't think that that was a very constructive activity for me to track. Some days there were more people keeping track of these beans than there were doing something about creating a good environment. We often said we had to do it because it kept Headquarters happy. And, we obviously want to keep Headquarters happy. But, we think that the Regions and the state, working in a partnership, can manage for environmental results, rather than for maximizing bean counting. The guidance that we're seeing this year is very good and very constructive and goes a long way in avoiding the excessive bean counting that we've seen in the past. As far as delegations and reporting go, John Spencer (Region 10 RA) talked to the Governor of Oregon the other day about taking on further delegations. The Governor said he would only be interested if EPA let the State of Oregon run the program the way that they thought it best to run that program. The State would want us to minimize oversight and minimize reporting. In effect, they don't want EPA telling them how to run their program. They will meet the goals that we set up, but they don't want us telling them in minute detail how they're to accorr plish those goals. On the point of reporting requirements, my suggestion to Headquarters would be that any reporting requirements that we do have to comply with do match the guidance that Headquarters sends out. We shouldn't be telling Idaho that they have to run an air program just like New Jersey's. And, we shouldn't necessarily be telling any state to ignore an minor permits, to only concentrate on majors. This thought came home to me when I was doing a mid- year review in Idaho last week. We began the mid- year review by displaying a major basin in Idaho, ranking all the streams in Idaho by a water quality index, and then taking a look at our construction grant activities, permitting activities, and apportionment activities relative to that water quality index to see if they matched up. Out of that discussion the state of Idaho pointed out that many of their real water quality problem areas were caused by minor discharges, and yet guidance that they've gotten in the past, anyway, was to focus on major discharges and not to worry about minor permits. Not to worry about enforcement against minors. And yet, here was Idaho telling us that the major water quality problems now in that State were due to minor discharges. That often is true in the West where you don't have, in some streams anyway, a lot of flow. So, this is a point we may need to address in head- quarters guidance. Thank you. Presentation by Bernard Steigerwald, Director, Regional Programs Office, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards I'm going to focus on the setting of air priorities. It's a job I've been involved with at the Headquarters level, and I've seen it operate some at the state and Regional level. Air has, I think, the same problem that most of the older environmental programs have. We have become stable in size and we don't have enough resources to do the statutory job. Therefore, priority setting becomes key to us and it's something that we do have to face very year. We heard yesterday that the Air program has no 29 ------- problem setting priorities because we are air quality oriented and we automatically manage for environmental results. Talking to a lot of the Air people, we think that that's unfair. We do have great problems setting priorities. The air quality standards are there, but some of the problems stem from the fact that air quality is highly variable, often changing block by block, and hour by hour; that looking at exposure, which is a better measure of the problem, is more complicated than it is in the water program because we haven't got any faucet to sample and because people are mobile, and they do move through air of highly different quality. We have the ambient air quality standards, it's true. They are often based, by law, on extremely rare events. You often have to characterize an area, a whole city, by the highest day or the highest hour in a five year period at the worst site. That leads to problems. Many state agencies think that we have set the air quality standards at a level unnecessarily strict to protect public health. And, they don't agree that that's a good measure of the environmental insult. We have a lot of problems with the source receptor relationships. We have long range transport. We have transformations taking place in the air. So, we end up having problems agreeing with states on what are the actions that should be taken. And, finally we have many sources whose control influence people directly: automobiles, and so on. So, there are many technical reasons why it's not easy to set priorities with the states. If you add to those the normal philosophical one of what should the federal government do, and what should the state do, I think that we end up with a wide range of priority setting modes in the air program. I don't believe that we're going to be able to define the best, or the norm, or the proper role. I've seen states that don't follow our guidance very well, and some that do almost everything we say. It's not clear to me that one has any better air program than the other one does. We'll talk about that a bit later. For purposes of our discussion here, I've put down a few factors that might influence the role of the federal or the state government in setting priorities. One consideration that we haven't heard much about is who pays the bill. It's not a good thing to talk about, but I believe when you sit down to negotiate priorities with a state, that does come up. And, air grants are not priority grants. We pay out about seventy million dollars in grant money, the states put up about ninety million dollars, and the local agencies put up about fifty million dollars. First, we pay ten percent of the bill in some states. We pay seventy-five percent of the bill in other states. I think that has a big influence as far as I can see on who comes first when you start to pick the priorities and pick the options. It also, I think, puts the locals in the picture. We have not talked here much about the local agencies. But they do pick up a significant share of the tab for air pollution control work. I think they have to be considered. Second, the Air Act details what should be done in many cases and who should do it. It not only sets goals, but it outlines tactics. It defines procedures, and it says who's going to carry out these procedures. And it says when you're suppose to attain the standards. It gives the allowable PSD increments. It tells you the sources that have to be covered. It gives you the basis for extending time to attain. It even spells out what the make-up of state air boards should be. It talks about permit fees. It's a very, very detailed bill not just goals, or here's the general philosophy, but here's how it will be done. I think that has to be taken into account. Third, we have litigation which is an extension of the Air Act, and it often sets absolute priorities. There are many situations, like on prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), where Congress or the Courts have imposed their priorities on whatever a state wants to do. And, in those cases we haven't got all the options to do what the state wants. Fourth, we have differing state capabilities. Many states are large in the air pollution area; they are experienced. They feel they know what's best. And, I think that they often do. And, they want to go their own. Many other states are new at the air pollution prevention business and small. And, they tend to go along with EPA's judgment in these matters. We also have to consider the general attitude of the states towards the federal government. You can take Texas or you can take Alaska and you can take other states, and their whole attitude toward the federal government, toward what is the proper role of the federal government, is vastly different. There are complicated by the political timing. They're complicated by the personalities in the Regional office and the state. And so, we've seen different attitudes change overnight as you get a new governor in a state. And, I think that has to be taken into account. And, finally, I think that the top EPA policy makers, in defining what should be our partnership role with the states, should take into account the question: How much do we trust states? The answer can push us one way or the other. In summary, I think that the role of the state is highly variable; that we shouldn't be aiming at some norm. I think that it's so complex that you've just got to give the Regional offices the right and the flexibility to make the appropriate compromises at the time that they have come to hard programatic decisions. Thank you. Presentation by Ned Notzon, Acting Director, Office of Analysis and Evaluation, Office of Water I can make my remarks somewhat brief, because so far nothing's been said that I think any of us would really take exception to. It is clear, however, that there are a lot of conflicts. In terms of the Office of Water, and in terms of who's responsible for setting environmental priorities, I don't think there's any question among all the senior management that the states have the lead in setting environmental priorities. There's a clear perception that they're closest to the problems, that an environmental debate has to take place before priorities can be set, and that the interested parties in this debate are the local governments, the communities that will be ------- affected, and the industries that will be impacted. There is also a perception that in general, there's no other place you can get all the data together. There's also a sense, particularly as we get into looking at toxic pollutants, that there will be an extreme scarcity. And, unless you want to have a situation in which somewhat arbitrary national criteria are applied to local situations, where they may not be appropriate, you may well need local data generated. And, the most likely people to generate such data would be the industries that otherwise might be over-regulated. The same answer comes out when you ask who's responsible for achieving environmental results. In the programs that are delegated, it's clear that the states have the lead role. For non-delegated programs, the state is not willing to act or is not able to act. In that sort of a situation, EPA would have to take the lead. Nonetheless, there are a couple of areas in which EPA has a responsibility, not in terms of necessarily achieving the environmental results, but in terms of being aware of the environmental results and helping to influence future choices that, either the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch may set. EPA has a responsibility to report, both to the public and to the Congress, on what the status of the environment is. Are our waters clean? To what extent are they clean? To what extent are they dirty? To what extent are we learning about new problems? To what extent are old problems being solved? This need to report presents a conflict because one way to generate all that information would be to set up an elaborate reporting mechanism. And, many times in the past, that has been what was done. What we've tried to do in the Office of Water is to take most of this sort of information and centralize it in one document, which is the states' 305(b) report. In previous years we had specified formats and said that if states would answer certain questions, we would array the information in a meaningful way to present to Congress or to the public. What we frequently found was that a number of states would ignore the format and have extraordinarily good analysis. And, other states would check in all the boxes, but when you probed further, you found they had very little data to back up their assertions, or lots of conclusions and not a lot behind them. Hence, their conclusions were suspect. What we've done is to try to re-focus the 305(b) report on five questions that we're interested in. And, if these questions are answered, then the state will have a great deal of information about the waterways on which decisions can be made and priorities can applied. We're not asking for the data behind the answers to the questions, nor are we asking for these to be submitted in any sort of a format. It's a free format report. This puts a tremendous burden on us. A couple of years from now when we go to talk to Congress, it's going to be very hard to assess nationally what's happening. On the other hand, it allows the state to devote almost all of its attention to answering the questions that they want to answer, to set priorities, and to measure results. The other area that is a problem is identification; I think this is the area where almost all of the monitoring for environmental results has been concentrated in the last five or six years. The flip side of that, measuring for environmental results, relates to what you look for after control programs have . been implemented. And, this is an area that's been almost a vacuum as far as EPA is concerned. Almost all of the measuring for environmental results goes on after a program has been carried out. And, people are saying how are we going to prove that this program was good so people will trust us to administer programs in the future. In both monitoring for problem identification and in monitoring for environmental results, the really critical player turns out to be the Regional office, because it's going to be the Regional staff that have to answer to everybody. When a state comes in and says these are their waterways and these are their problems and this is the impact of point source controls, the impact of non-point source controls, and this is our assessment of whether it's worthwhile to go out and do these things. The Regional office will have to decide whether we think that State has a lot of data and thought behind their analysis, or whether we think this is just a conclusion, whether there's nothing to back it up, whether they're shirking their responsibilities. The other problem that arises is just the whole timing of the planning and budgeting cycle. When you set up a program, you identify a problem and now you're all set to implement the program, and then look for results. If that time interval is longer than a year and a half, it's completely longer than the whole planning-budgeting process. Right now we haven't even internally set fiscal year 1984 programs. We don't know what they're going to be. We suspect what they're going to be, because to some extent they're a logical extension of 1983 programs. But, if you had a problem identified and it was going to take you eighteen months plus two weeks just barely into fiscal year 84 there's no way in the world that you and I can communicate in such a way that we're locked into measuring for those environmental results. It's something that essentially has to be done person to person, project manager to project manager. It has to have a life of its own because the institutional system will not take account of it. The question is, if these are all the conflicts, what can we do in terms of trying to see to it that we do come to a reasonable assessment of problems and that environmental results do get measured. It seems to me there are really three things that can be done. One is a lot of interaction with the states at the problem identification stage, not necessarily the priority setting stage, but in terms of coming to an agreement. Yes or no, where are the problems? The state has the lead in setting the priorities. To some extent EPA may be able to provide technical assistance or guidance, particularly in looking for toxics or where we expect to find them, or in suggesting biological surrogates to minimize the amount of laundering that has to take place. 31 ------- Second is, up front before control programs are set up or before program strategies are developed, to achieve a consensus on what we want to look for at the end as a change. As, how are we going to tell whether or not the environmental results that were postulated were actually achieved. Are we going to look for a return of different species? Or, are we going to look for the improvements in dissolved oxygen levels? Or, are we going to look for the elimination of metals and sediments? And, third, as much as possible we need to institutionalize our approach, to lock it into the programs. If everyone in the agency changes jobs every two and a half years, we don't want all this to disappear at the same time because we don't have a budget planning process to keep track of it. And, so, you've got to look for ways to lock that in. For example, in a construction grant application, part of the construction grant application can include the follow-up monitoring to establish whether you had dissolved oxygen levels, whether you still have accumulations of sludge in the bottom .of the river. In a permitting decision you can put a lot of requirements on the permittee. If monitoring requirements are in his permit, somebody ought to remember a year and a half from now. On balance there's no question but that this is the thing to push. There are a lot of problems associated with carrying it out, and almost all of them, depend on the Regional staff, in terms of making them work. Thank you. Presentation by David Gibbons, Chief Environmental Branch, Office of Management and Budget Hopefully, I will be able to give you some idea about finances. I usually start out sessions like this by making a statement about the assumptions that really go into the entire funding programs for states and what is to be achieved with those funds. And, usually when I make this statement, half the room gets up and leaves and the other half applauds. We'll see how it goes. Certainly, it gets people on edge. I'll'start with this statement: The original intent of the legislation in terms of grant funding to states from the federal government was to provide funds, help the states set up the program, and get out. And, that means that from our perspective as budgeteers, the sole responsibility for environmental results lies with the states. There's one odd twist to this, which is that, unlike a lot of statutes, most of the environmental statutes do have a federal backup if the states decide they don't want to do it. That's where, from our perspective, all of the negotiation starts taking place on how funds get used, and who gets how much; because it is used as an incentive to get states to take on added responsibilities over time. Whether you agree or not with that original premise which OMB has been using for a long time to budget for grant funds on the EPA budget, I think that you will agree that, in fact, that has occurred. It has occurred because when a new program is instituted, you will see that we fund it at fairly rapid increases through the first three, maybe, four years, after which, theoretically, we would institute fairly rapid declines in financial support as the states take on more and more of the financial responsibility and substantive responsibility themselves. In fact, over time what has happened is that the funding level has tended to become constant. It has been reduced in real terms by the inflation rate for a long number of years. I think those of you who are in the states are realistic about the fact that this has occurred, and have had to make adjustments in your own planning process and your own funding requests to state legislatures in order to try to accommodate the fact that federal dollars in real terms are declining, and, as I'll discuss in a moment, that you can anticipate that they will continue to decline. Whether or not the actual dollar levels you see in the federal budget decline or stay constant, in real terms, states are taking on more and more responsibilities. In terms of what we look for in the future, I think that it is this Administration's position quite clearly that the states are primarily, if not solely, responsible for achieving the environmental results that are intended in the various pieces of legislation. And, it is also this Administration's position that the current legislation has been a major inhibitor in allowing the states to adopt those responsibilities. As you also are aware, I'm sure, most of the major pieces of environmental legislation are up for re- authorization this year. If you look at these re- authorization packages as we send them up to the Hill, you will see that there are very definite trends in the legislation towards increased flexibility and increased responsibility on the part of the state. For example, we just sent the water bill up yesterday, and there are some very major changes in the pretreatment program, which will allow state and local governments to self-certify that they can run this program. It even shifts the base of that responsibility from technology to water quality. And, that is a very fundamental kind of shift. I think you will also see in several pieces of legislation where we are going to attempt to eliminate some of the mandatory provisions in these Acts, like inspection and maintenance programs in the Air Act. Whether we'll be successful or not, I'm only trying to indicate the drift and the trends that you can see from this Administration. We're also trying to institute substantial reductions in federal oversight of state activities through the personnel levels in the agency and through some regulatory reform activities which will reduce the kind of reporting requirements that states have been facing in the past, and the construction grant amendments and the subsequent regulations, which I think are now out, at least in proposed form. I am told they reduced reporting requirements by over thirty percent, so that states should have the opportunity to spend a lot less of their resources and their manpower on responding to federal requirements and spend a lot more time and resources trying to achieve actual environmental results. However, inevitably, the discussion about achievement of environmental results comes down to who pays and how much. As I said before, there's 32 ------- already a trend, just in real terms, towards lower federal spending, lower federal contributions to these sets of activities, and a higher state contribution. What you see in the 1983 budget is a very significant reduction in actual dollar levels for state grants from $225 to $180 million. That's spread across all of the programs in differing degrees, but, there is an overall reduction and, whether we get the bipartisan substitute, the freeze level, the balanced budget substitute, or which ever of the nine bills that I am currently trying to track up in Congress, none of them provide for increases. The best the states would be able to do, or the best that can happen in terms of higher dollar levels, is basically the 1982 level, which was about $225 million. I think that we all have to come to the realization that we can back out of a lot of oversight at least the onerous part of oversight. We can also reduce reporting requirements. The bottom line still is going to be that the states are. going to have to make adjustments in their own management of their own affairs to try to not only get the responsibility, but the financial independence to carry out that responsibility. I'm not sure if you all have copies of the President's 1983 budget, but there is a page in the theme document that addresses state grants. It makes one very important point that I would like to bring to your attention, which is that there is now a fairly strong assumption that states will and must institute permit and license fees in the operation of their program, to recover funds, to either meet what is in the federal statute or to obtain additional funding, to go out and do the kinds of activities that they would like to do on their own. I think about seventeen states, now, have actually gone to their state legislatures and obtained this kind of authority. One of the things you will note in the Air Act and the Water Act, and the Solid and Hazardous Waste Act, all of which are currently on the Hill, is that we are trying very hard to put in those statutes and clarify it where it is ambiguous whatever language is needed to give states the authority to charge permit and license fees. We look at this, in a sense, as an untapped reservoir. There's a lot of discussion that we've had with state directors over the political feasibility of trying to institute these kinds of charges. I am not here to say that I think this is an easy thing to achieve, but I think it's an absolutely necessary one. And, I think that the ball has to get rolling along this line. Once the states start initiating these kinds of user charges, they will not only be able to get more environmental results, but they'll be able to do a lot more of the things that they think are important as opposed to what the federal government might be mandating. Thank you. Discussion MR. WELSH: I would like to make two comments on what Dave has said. First of all, we're moving towards state funding of environmental programs. Then you're going to see state assumption of responsibility, and EPA will have a hard time getting much out of them in terms of reporting. The exception, of course, is the 205 (g) program, which is funded with federal money. But, the general philosophy we get from the General Assembly in Georgia is that he who provides the money writes the requirements. Keep that in mind, because I think that is exactly where many state Assemblies are coming from. Point number two: I agree with the fees for permits, except our experience in Georgia is just the reverse. If you issue a permit for several years, the charge of issuing that permit and maintaining surveillance on it runs into thousands of dollars. The economy or the attitude is not there to support that. We recently took fees off of two permits in our land reclamation program, which is a state program. We found that the cost of collecting the money and accounting for it exceeded what we were taking in. So, I think that this is something we've got to look at very carefully; fees may be a partial support, but they're certainly not going to bear the full freight. MR. STEIGERWALD: I'd like to ask Dave about industry or the states' concern over consistencies. It seems like that's a fairly strong driving force that, at least, industry does not particularly want fifty state programs that are widely different. And, the states are concerned over permit fees, over new sources coming in. They don't particularly want some states to be able to decide to be really soft and possibly, therefore to influence them economically. Can you comment on that at all? MR. GIBBONS: Yes. When I addressed the National Governor's Association, they raised that point with me as well. I'll be the first to admit up front that I don't have the absolute solution to the problem. A lot of states want to institute permit fees on the basis of the discharge, itself, either tons of pollutant emitted or pounds of toxic pollutant emitted out of the water discharge. Other states simply want to recover the cost of operating the program. As Gene pointed out earlier, sometimes the cost of recovery is equal to what you're getting; and, a lot of that has to get worked out. I can say one thing, though. One of the pushes that we have made and have been fairly successful with in most of the legislative review is to extend the permit period from five to ten years. I think that may help. Hopefully, if we stretch out the permit period a little bit, and, maybe do something slightly different with new sources versus existing sources, you can get around some of these problems. I am not saying that this kind of approach is problem free. And, certainly, if states think that tht can go to their state legislatures and get more mon to substitute for the federal dollars out of their general revenues, then that's their option. My own sense of it is that it's not only federal dollars that are declining. That state legislatures are also starting to reduce theirbudgets, and the environmental agencies are not immune from that, just as they are not at the federal level. So, I think that what we're trying to do is to suggest a new idea. And, I think the 33 ------- states basically have been put on notice. I don't really see a way out of starting to institute these kinds of fees. But, I do admit that there are some problems with it. I'm the first to admit that we don't have all the solutions. MR. BURD: I'd like to ask Gene how he feels about the State/EPA Agreements because that's a mechanism where we can do much of the up front kind of agreement negotiation that Ned talked about. What experience have you had? MR. WELSH: I think the State/EPA Agreement in our particular case has matured. It has moved away from programmatic issues and is getting into multi- media issues which you have to resolve on an Agency-wide basis. I think it has matured to the point where we have a good working relationship set up with the Regional office to zero in on a few priority issues, not great numbers of them. And, I think it will continue. MR. GIBBONS: Does it make 3 difference whether the funding is attached to that State/EPA Agreement? MR. WELSH: In our case, no, Dave. Because I think if you have a priority problem and you want to resolve it, you'll find a way to fund it. That's what management is in our case. MR. CRAMPTON: Any questions out there in the audience that you'd like to ask of any of the panelists here? MR. ABRAMSON: What kind of contingency plans do we have? MR. GIBBONS: There are, as far as I can see, no great contingency plans. Certainly the President has made it very clear that federal personnel is on the decline, not on the incline. And I fully expect that pattern to continue. I see no turnaround in that for the next few years. So, in terms of having massive increases in federal personnel to manage the state programs which get returned, there won't be any, not at this time. MR. CRAMPTON: EPA, and my Office in particular, are getting involved in working directly with states and state organizations to deal with the question of mitigating the impacts of decreased grant funding. The first shot in this effort was fired out in Region 8, where they did a study on this in a great deal of detail. We convened a group of folks from Headquarters programs and from the Regions to further refine that study, and we now have a set of initiatives which is now circulating among the Headquarters program offices. Once that's done and we've also shared it with the Regions, we'll then go to the state associations. Eventually, we expect to get into a direct dialogue with the states in terms of what makes the most sense and what can we really bring off here in terms of: (a) reducing the reporting burdens that are on the states that take up their funds; (b) making the grant process itself more flexible; and (c) helping states come up with alternative sources of funding. But, with respect to the big question, if all of a sudden fourteen states were to give us back their air program or their water program, there is no contingency in EPA for that right now. MR. NOTZON: There's one other mitigating circumstance. It's unlikely that states would say: Today we've got a hundred percent of the program; you've cut our budget; therefore, we now want zero percent. What you're really going to have is something in between. The states will say, we don't wf»nt the ultimate responsibility for this, but we're willing to do this much work, as long as we can influence the program in these ways. MR. CRAMPTON: I think in the context of this panel, Allan Abramson has asked a legitimate question. But, with respect to what we're here about, it is a fact that certainly with respect to the Air and Water programs, I think EPA is becoming much more of a steward. We really are going to be responsible for monitoring what's going on with respect to environmental results. 34 ------- Panel Discussion on Planning, Resource Allocation, Accountability and Evaluation Introduction by Lewis S. W. Crampton, Director Office of Management Systems and Evaluation The panel on planning, resource allocation, accountability and evaluation addressed those important aspects of the management process that should be used to enable us to get the job done and to produce environmental results. Mr. Crampton introduced the panel by saying that EPA's management systems currently emphasize process activities rather than environmental results outcomes and make limited use of environmental data. He briefly reviewed the way environmental information is currently used in management processes. In the planning area, operating year guidance has emphasized expectations with regard to processes, with almost no emphasis or reference to expectations about expected environmental results of those actions. Although the Office of Management Systems and Evaluation is working to develop a strategic planning system for the Agency that would consider environmental status and trends and set environmental goals, such a system is not currently in place either Agency-wide or within most programs. With respect to resource allocation, the budget is developed without explicit consideration of current environmental status or anticipated problems. Some program administrators may build these considerations in when preparing their budgets, but there is no comparison at the Agency level of problems and needs within and across programs. The Administrator's accountability system is currently oriented to goals and objectives using numbers of activities completed. We are mainly talking about bean counting without factoring in the importance of one activity over the other from an environmental results standpoint. We have to work to improve the accountability system from this standpoint. The Agency has no policy that the success of a program should over time be determined by measurable or observable improvements in environmental quality. To date, only a few measures of program effectiveness have been developed that are related to improvements in the environment. Environmental data is not often used by managers. EPA puts little emphasis on using information on environmental status or on the effect of EPA actions on the environment to manage its activities. As a result, managers have little incentive to maintain 35 ------- good, complete data, to integrate all available data for analysis of problems and trends, or to push for better monitoring. In addition, ambient, source, or other environmental data available to the Agency are generally not reported in a form useful for planning, resource allocation, program management, or program evaluation and redirection. And, technical reports and other analyses are not well reviewed to determine their policy implications, nor are they normally disseminated to key Agency managers for their use in decision making. These issues were identified by Mr. Crampton as being the heart of the panel discussion. He asked the panelists for their views on how the Agency can better incorporate environmental information into planning and management activities and how we can evaluate our long term and short term progress in making environmental changes. The full text of that discussion follows. The panel members were: John Wise, Director, Office of Policy and Resources Management, Region 10; John Chamberlin, Deputy Director, Office of the Comptroller; Randy Smith, Chief, Resources Management Branch, Region 10; and Billy Adams, Deputy Director, Environmental Services Division, Region 4. Individual Presentations Presentation by John Wise, Director, Office of Policy and Resources Management, Region 10 The theme of the workshop we've been attending for the last day and a half is appropriately titled, "Managing for Environmental Results." Many of the ideas, however, that we've discussed so far really deal with a somewhat different subject measuring environmental results. We have spent a lot of time talking about various ways to characterize the status of the environment. We've talked about environmental status reports or profiles. We've heard some very creative ideas about how some of the Regions are using their data and applying it to various programs, such as water quality in Region 8 and Region 6, and air quality in Region 5. I think these are very impressive and very important ideas to share. But my concern is that we must also expand our horizon to a significantly higher plane. We must expand our vision to focusing on managing, truly managing, for environmental results. Specifically, we need to manage the Agency for environmental results. And I really want to underscore managing the Agency. Because I think this is an Agency-wide perspective. If EPA is to accomplish environmental results, as I think we are all now dedicated to doing, I suggest that the Agency must establish an overall environmental management process. We must define the environmental mission of this Agency. And we must put in place a management structure and process to carry out that mission. This management structure must incorporate the traditional disciplines of planning, resource allocation, accountability, and program evaluation. This panel is going to speak to those four issues. My immediate task is to provide some stimulating ideas on the planning phase. Specifically, what I'd like to do is to define for you and share with you a concept of planning which I hope may stimulate us on behalf of the Agency to manage for long term environmental results. My concept of an Agency-wide planning for environmental results system would incorporate eight features. What I'll do is walk quickly through them and itemize them, then step back and explore them a little bit more thoroughly in the subsequent remarks. The eight features that I'm going to focus on are: 1) the statutory mandates, 2) the media orientation, 3) the time horizon, 4) the strategic nature of the planning process that I envision, 5) a need to balance abatement with preventative measures, 6) a need to integrate the planning process with the budget development process, 7) a need to integrate the budget process, the planning process, with the annual operating plans, the State EPA agreements, and the program grants that we offer to the states, and 8) a foundation based on the accomplishment of environmental results. Now, with those eight points in mind, as a conceptual framework, what I'm going to do for a few moments is just sketch out what I mean by each one of those points. Let me warn you that much of this is really conceptual. And it is my purpose to be conceptual. I want us to start thinking about an Agency-wide process. First of all, statutory mandates. Our planning, clearly must honor the express intent of Congress. We cannot do otherwise. The Administrator has very explicitly said, as EPA policy, that we will focus on statutory demands. And, if necessary, to the exclusion of all other discretionary activity. The statutory mandate provides us with the best possible basis for establishing environmental goals and objectives for environmental results planning. The second feature is the media orientation. This, of course, is widely known and accepted by all of us. But let me just underscore it. Planning should continue to be oriented toward a media focus. Because, number one, that's the way our statutes are mandated. Number two, it relates directly to the manner in which we find our environment. And number three, and importantly for John Chamberlin, ^that's the way our budget is built. The time horizon is also very important. We've got to get out in front of ourselves. Accordingly, we need to look at a systematic planning process that spans an advanced period of three to five years. I say five years because that's far enough out to make reasonable projections, and yet at the same time it's far enough in to make programmatic changes in the process that we're contemplating. The fourth feature is that it's strategic in nature. Strategic is not really a magic word. It just means that we need to orient ourselves to developing overall strategies of how we're going to accomplish our statutory goals and objectives or how we're going to accomplish environmental results. The strategy will clearly establish the criteria for prioritizing our activities to produce the highest environmental payoff 36 ------- for the Agency as a whole. I think Rebecca Hanmer had some very profound words when she outlined to us the Office of Water's intent to do a permit strategy a strategy for issuing the second round of industrial permits. In that, she clearly articulated a strategic perspective, and clearly set up criteria which would prioritize what that strategy were to accomplish. The fifth point, and one that's very important for the Western Regions in particular, is that we have to find a balance between those activities necessary to abate a pollution problem or a public health problem, and those activities necessary to prevent new problems from occurring. Also, in the same breath, we have to take those steps necessary to preserve the gains that we've already made, such that our accomplishments are truly lasting and long term in nature. The sixth point, and one that is critical to the overall concept of this panel, is that we have to seriously begin to integrate our environmental planning with the budget cycle. The statutory bound, media oriented, long range strategies would provide the basis for budget development and budget justification. I think that a well developed strategy in direct response to statutory goals and objectives should provide a very defensible position, a very defensible basis for us to go to OMB and the Congress with a budget that is sufficient to finance the kinds of activities that we want to perform under the strategy. It's important to get that into the budget. And that's really important from a long term perspective, because, as most of us know, we are now entering the 1984 budget cycle, while we're still operating in 1982. We have to get out in front of ourselves. Related to this, is we also have to integrate the planning process with the annual planning cycle. This is our bread and butter; we operate on an annual cycle. The near term component of this three to five year plan would become the basis for what I call an environmental action plan which would be implemented in our familiar ways of EPA's operating guidance, the State-EPA Agreements, the program grants that we negotiate with the states, and indeed, our very own regional work plans. Lastly, the environmental results. And this is really the outcome of the whole process. I think that the implementation of the annual program plans by the Regions and by the states, if it's done consistent with this overall strategy, would really accomplish the statutory goals and objectives and yield the intended environmental payoff. At the same time, competent measuring of those environmental results, using many of the techniques that we've discussed here in the past day and a half, could really contribute to the continuing planning process. It would guide us toward that next increment of improvement, or it could act to preserve the gains that we've already accomplished. Now, having said all of that, and also having warned you that is was conceptual in nature, let me confess that it is very theoretical. It's a concept, one that perhaps ought to exist, but let me acknowledge that it doesn't. And there are two big problems that we have to overcome before we would ever get to this place. First of all, the first problem is, we have to get in front of ourselves. If this is truly to be advance planning, we've got to invest the resources now to develop these environmental strategies, these media oriented strategies, to effect our actions in a 1985, 1986 and 1987 time frame. The 1984 budget cycle is on us right now. It may be too late to do it now, so we've missed a year. That is inherent in the cyclic nature of the budget process, so we have to get ahead of the curve. The second major problem is one that is familiar to all of us. And I'm going to say this partially to set up John Chamberlin. This is the resource allocation process. As all of us well know, resources are allocated to each of the ten Regions by means of so called workload allocation models. Our experience with these has sometimes been good often been bitter. The models are theoretically intended to place the resources where the problems are, and if they were enabled or allowed to operate freely, they would do just that. Resources would flow to where the environmental problems are. However, by some measure of what I call greed, we all seek to maximize Regional gains and minimize Regional losses. And the outcome of the workload allocation process simply becomes a status quo, with adjustments made at the margins. You go up a little bit here, and maybe go down a little bit there. But basically, all we've accomplished is to preserve the status quo. And if that's the way we're going to allocate resources to the Regions, we cannot aggressively move toward an environmental planning perspective. Another way to characterize the resource problem is what I call the ownership issue. It seems that each national program manager expects that their resources would be dedicated in each region for their programs. It's not a direct demand, it's a clear expectation. That the activities in your workload model are really the activities that you will perform for the balance of the year. And this, to a large measure, locks us in, and prevents a Regional Administrator from really moving away from the rigidity of a workload and modeling process, toward accomplishing something productive in terms of environmental results. So I think these are some inherent problems that we have to overcome, and overcome rather quickly, if we're going to get on with the business of environmental planning. Now, having painted myself into a corner, I'd like to offer a radical solution. I call it radical because it's different. But it's needed. Because if we are to break the resource allocation deadlock, as I see it, we have to do something different. We have to get to a position that enables us to devote the energy to accomplishing environmental results. What I want to propose, or just suggest for starters, and hopefully this will come up later in the workshops, is the following idea. Suppose the Agency took its total operating budget and skimmed ten percent off the top and put that into a separate fund. The remaining ninety percent would be allocated to the regions in the traditional manner, 37 ------- using workload allocation models. Hopefully better models, but, nevertheless, some kind of an allocation procedure. That ninety percent would fund what I call the base environmental program, consistent with the national program manager's guidance. Each Regional Administrator would be accountable for performance of his base program. Now, what becomes of the ten percent which we've skimmed off and put into a bank account? I will call this an environmental results incentive program. With this incentive fund established, each Regional Administrator (RA) would propose an environmental results performance contract to accomplish one or two of the top priority environ- mental projects in the Region. Each Region would compete. Each RA would compete with the other RAs for that money. And the allocation of that fund would be made based upon environmental payoff to the Agency. These are big, glamor products that have immediate and visible payoff to the Agency. The RA could manage these funds in any manner that was productive. He could use it to fund direct EPA staff, he could fund contracts, he could do a cooperative agreement with the state or any combination of the above. It would be discretionary cash that they could devote to a specific objective. The RAs jobs would rise or fall on the performance that they're able to make in accomplishing this environmental result. I know this is a radical proposal. I know it's different. But, at least it's a suggestion that would take us specifically towards managing for environmental results. Now, I want to summarize very quickly, and leave some time for the other panelists, that out of all that I've said, and much of that's conceptual, that we really do need to focus on moving beyond the so called measuring effort in which many of us find ourselves, to a managing system for the Agency. We just have to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and put a management system into place. And I hope that the comments I've made do serve to stimulate, not only the panel, but the audience and the workshops later on this afternoon. Thank you. Presentation by John Chamberlin, Deputy Director, Office of the Comptroller I was listening carefully to what John said and I won't respond to all of it now. But I will say that of these three pieces we're going to talk about, planning, resource allocation, and accountability or evaluation, it is my firm belief that if we are going to make some substantial change in the degree to which we take environmental results into our system, probably the most important place to put it in is as he suggests, in strategic planning. In the past, we had, at least on paper, the requirement that national program managers develop strategic plans by media. Where that happened it was quite helpful. When you have a strategic plan, that makes it a lot easier for the Administrator to put together a rational budget guidance, taking into account environmental results. I think the other most important place that we can make a change is in the evaluation of programs. In the Comptroller's Office, we are locked into a one year cycle. We can only do evaluations that can occur in a year. But an awful lot of the problems that the Agency has to deal with don't fall in neatly to that cycle. And there have to be evaluations of those programs, with the results of those evaluations fed into the budget process whenever they occur. And finally, the resource allocation process. If you had strategic plans and evaluations, obviously, we can refine and improve the workload models. I don't know that I would agree with Johns' suggestion there, but the technical construction of those models can clearly be improved, even if you didn't include environmental results. But certainly, if you did, you can improve them. I'm going to go quickly now through the resource allocation process that we follow. I think most of you are familiar with it. So I will try to move right along and then I'd like to get back to your questions, to some of the other issues that John raised. I don't know that I agree with Lew's assessment of the resource allocation system as a black box, but we can talk more about that too. The process, as you all know, starts with the Congressional enactment of authorizing legislation, that sets out the statutory deadlines, gives us a general program design and the basic legislative intent with regard to environmental results. Then each spring, the Administrator issues budget guidance to her National Program Managers. That guidance lays out the broad program priorities, identifies key issues to be examined, provides resource targets, and lets people know the process that's going to be followed to develop the budget. The National Program Managers take that guidance, develop their budget proposals for the out year, and submit the proposals to the Office of the Comptroller. We review the submissions for their compliance with guidance, and identify problems and policy options for the Administrator. The Administrator then holds hearings with each of the National Program Managers in which she includes the lead Region in each hearing. This year she is going to have a separate hearing for the Regions to let the lead Region critique each National Program Manager's submission. After that set of hearings, OPRM makes an internal passback to the program managers. They appeal that, and the Administrator makes final decisions and sends the budget to OMB on the fifteenth of September. OMB reviews that budget, usually holds hearings within the first week after they receive it, and passes it back to us in November. We go through a series of appeals, and normally have a budget settled by late December. In January we submit a Congressional justification to the Congress, of the President's Budget. By that time decisions have been made by appropriation, by media, by program element, and by object class. This is important in what we're talking about because, by that phase in the process, you are getting really narrowed down as to your flexibility. It takes an enormous effort by then to switch between appropriations and there are limits on us as to how much we can move between program elements, and even object classes. We have ceilings on some object classes, and are limited on moving into or out of 38 ------- Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits, depending on the year. I think for this group to spend too much time thinking about how you shift around then, is misdirected. The Administrator, the program managers and the Comptroller then present this budget to the Congress, the various authorizing Budget and Appropriation Committees in both Houses, and that hearing process frequently drags on into early May. Once we have sent the budget to the Congress, we start the workload analysis process. This is the place where I think the Office of the Comptroller can probably do the most to at least satisfy Regional concerns. We in the past have kicked the process off, gotten the National Program Managers to start developing the models, and encouraged them to include Regions. As you know, some have done that better than others. There are some excellent models around, and there are some around that aren't quite so excellent. The workload analysis process hits us at a time when we are very busy putting together a Congressional justification. So it's not a time when we tend to be able to put a lot of our staff on improving the models. But it is something that we intend to improve by starting earlier next year and trying to improve those models to take into account environmental results to the extent we can. What the models are intended to do is show how much each Region would need to accomplish all of the activities under that particular program element in a perfect world, if there were no resource constraints. Obviously, there are resource constraints. We can't carry out all those activities nor should we probably. We certainly as a nation can't afford to. So, you get the ideal world. Then the National Program Manager has to say "this is what I would do if there were no constraints. Given the constraints I have, how will I shift, how will I distribute these resources?" That's why, you're paying these people to manage national programs. They should have some pretty good ideas of where the environmental problems are in their programs. And in my view, when they make those decisions, they ought to be putting their resources where they have environmental problems. It's a little naive to think that the only criterion upon which they should make their resource distribution is environmental results. We don't want to have to manage a Region, or any other part of the Agency, with a big swing up in resources or a big swing down. From either the point of view of a particular Region or the Agency as a whole, you don't want to have enormous shifts going on each year as the sexy items of the year or the problems shift. You have to moderate that possibility for shifts to some extent, or you will have havoc. The Regions get the results of the raw distribution, modified by the National Program Managers' judgements. They then have a chance to review those and appeal them to the Administrator. She makes final decisions and issues resource targets for the operating plans. The Regions then develop their operating plans, send them in, and we review them. The Administrator approves them and, from then on, they are modified only to keep them in compliance with Congressional action or any subsequent executive actions. I'd like to point out one thing: that we have a lot of complaints about the resource models in this allocation process. It's very significant to me that in the 1983 operating plans, not a single Region proposed a single reprogramming of a single permanent, full time equivalent for 1983. In other words, what they're saying in those plans, is that with the resources they have, they think at least the permanent full time work years, and as a matter fact, the other than full time work years, are distributed in. an optimal way. No one suggested a reprogramming, although there were some minor shifts of dollars to cover personnel compensation costs. Thank you. Presentation by Randy Smith, Chief, Resources Management Branch, Region 10 The basic question that you have to ask once you've planned what you're going to do, gotten the resources and gone out and started to do it, is: Are we accomplishing what we intended to do? And I think that accountability systems, reporting systems and program evaluations are all designed to do that. Let me say a word about how they differ. First of all, accountability, particularly at the Regional level, really means individual performance tracking systems. And those systems have a few characteristics. They have specific commitments made in advance, targets or milestones. They have clearly defined responsibility to those targets or milestones. They have reporting on those and they have rewards. In Region 10, performance agreements and a specific Regional performance tracking system are the two ways that we do that. Reporting systems are another form of accountability. Most reporting requirements, in my observation, use an incentive to look good or not to look bad. They send signals about what's important to the people who design the reporting system, even if they don't include any tie to specific rewards or punishments and even if they don't contain specific milestones or targets. I really think that much of the Administrator's accountability system at this stage falls into this kind of accountability. Finally, program evaluations are really longer term looks at how a program is doing. More often, divorced from the accomplishments of specific organizations or individuals, but they still are designed to answer the same question. Region 10's experience is that in 1980 we decided to try to go after the problem of fitting environmental results into an accountability framework. We set out to design an accountability system that was organized by media. Within each media, we had four levels of indicators. We tried to get a performance indicator of the change in ambient conditions that would result if the program were successful. We tried to set up targets or measures of performance or sources, compliance levels, emissions, that sort of thing. The third level was the actions that we expected the states to accomplish in a given year. And the fourth level was the EPA actions. 39 ------- Originally, we had an idea that we could put together a performance tracking system that covered the whole ball of wax. We found that we couldn't. We spen* about three months working it up and when we put it together we found that we really had overreached ourselves. One of the reasons that we had is that a performance tracking system, or an accountability system, in the narrow sense really needs data that is timely. You can't have significant lag times built in. You cannot have data that has a lot of variability due to other causes built into it. And you cannot rely on data that is not readily available or that costs a lot to collect. If you think of those characteristics I just outlined, much of our ambient data falls into that category. So, in short, indicators of change in ambient conditions, in my mind, really don't belong in performance tracking systems. There are some cases where we can find something that fits. But by and large, I think it will take more effort and it will cost more than we're really willing and able to do. So what can we do about it? What we proposed in our submission which went into the background paper on overall management, is that there be annual reporting on the results of EPA programs that ties together reporting in environmental terms, reporting on what the programs are designed to do. In effect, what I'm saying is that environmental status reports by themselves divorced from programs are fine in that they tell you what's going on. But they don't directly tie into the management of the program. If you tie that together with data on compliance and you tie that together with data on what the programs are doing, then you've got to look at what a program in total is accomplishing. What we suggested is that each RA and each AA could annually report to the Administrator in terms of: What are the problems in my area? What is their current status? How are my programs directed at those problems? And what changes do I expect to see in the next year? The AAs could frame their evaluation of Regional programs in the same way. And the Regions could do the same with states. As Bob Burd mentioned this morning, he conducted his mid-year review of the Water program in Idaho by going through essentially that framework. And we have tried to set up our SEAs in that way. I think that kind of framework followed consistently could produce a fair connection between what we know about the environmental condition and what our programs are doing. Finally, periodic evaluations of individual programs can really get at the longer term issues. They can, in an in-depth way, get at the links between changes in source compliance and ambient levels. They can help us understand cause and effect. They can take a longer view and, as John Wise said at the very beginning, that is quite important. I think it's necessary to do more of those. That's what I have to say about accountability and evaluation. I wanted to take another minute to make a couple of remarks about the tasks that the workshops will address themselves to. And they're sort of related to the reporting requirement problem in part. There have been a lot of shots taken at some things that were really a part of the Planned Program Accomplishment (PPA) system. The PPA system is basically dead, but the death of PPAs, to me, doesn't mean that there are no reporting incentives left in EPA that run contray to an environmental results philosophy. There are a lot of reporting systems in this Agency besides the Administrator's accountability system. They include the reporting systems run by each program. They also include the workload models. Each of these affects the way the Regions act; they affect the way the states act. I think one useful question for each workshop to address is: What reporting requirements exist? Are they environmentally oriented? Are they counterproductive? If they're counterproductive, what changes could be made? That I think would produce one set of agenda of things for this Agency to work on. Finally, another way of analyzing what needs to be done to manage better for environmental results is to look at: What controls the decisions that get made in each media, what laws, what regulations what guidance? What requirements allow flexibility among states and Regions? I know what Region 10 was saying earlier about the need to let Idaho run a different program than New Jersey. What are the requirements that force us to try to make programs more similar to each other than they should be? What are the requirements that cause us to run programs in ways that diverge from an environmental focus? And what can we do about those? Answering these questions is another way of coming up, I think, with an agenda for action. Thank you. Presentation by Billy Adams, Deputy Director, Environmental Services Division, Region 4. I came with the Agency or the Public Health Service in 1962. And at that time I'm not sure what kind of a management system we had, or what kind of accountability system we had. But we did have the flexibility to operate our programs to meet the needs of the Agency at that time. In 1971, when the Agency was formed, we were operating under a management by objectives concept. The general goal of the Agency at that time was to achieve a quality environment by minimizing the adverse impacts of manmade pollution. We had a series of intermediate steps that we had to go before we could reach that goal, and we're still not there. I think it's time that we took a look at where we were, where we have been and where we need to go. That's the way I have approached the strategy I have for managing for environmental results. In 1968, when I came to Region 4, the first thing we did was to establish a data base. We collected environmental data and analyzed it for the conventional parameters at all river basins in the Southeast. That information was used to develop the use criteria for the water quality standards that were 'Mr. Adams' full list of possible indicators for accountability and evaluation is included in the summary of proceedings in Appendix III. 40 ------- developed. It was also used for the permit limitations that were placed on the states' programs. We moved on from there to the achievement of ambient air and water quality standards. The BPT regulations that we were supposed to set for regulating the discharges and emissions really were never implemented, but we moved on with a series of administrative actions whereby we were issuing permits, conducting compliance inspections, and taking enforcement actions. In 1974 we initiated a very active compliance monitoring program in Region 4. We looked at some fourteen hundred discharges that year. The next year we reduced the number down to seven hundred, as the states began to pick up the activity as they assumed the program. By 1976 all of the states in the Region had committed to assume that activity, although they may not have accepted delegation. I think it's time to establish a new set of objectives or activities to drive the activities and the needs of the Agency at the current time. We're locked into the resource accountability system and the workload models. I can tell you for Region 4, if our resources are going to be based on the planned program activities (PPAs) in those models, that's where our activities are going to be, regardless of whether that's where need exists. In a lot of areas we need to let the states take over those activities. We need to adopt an overview role for those activities and establish a new set of criteria which will drive our federal activities. My proposal is that we first assess the current data base. Quite frankly, if I were a Congressman, I don't think I would approve an EPA budget, because the Agency couldn't show me any improvement in the environment, based on environmental data, that has resulted from the expenditures it has made in the past. Getting that data base is our first need. That data already may be available. It may be in a state's files. But right now we don't have the flexibility to go in and look at the data. In Region 4, in a lot of states the data is there, the biological data as well as the chemical data. For toxics data, however, we and the states would need to monitor. If studies are necessary to get adequate data I think we should work with a state and initiate a program to get the necessary data. The next thing I think we need to do is to document the environmental results or abatement control actions. We need to develop a protection and restoration plan. And then we need to implement that plan. This all sounds fine and dandy, but there are a few barriers that we will probably run into. One is the resource constraints that we may have in determining the current data base. Two, is whether we are going to be able to tell after we get through with all this work, if we really have a cleaner environment than we did in 1970. We can tell if the conventional parameters are better, but I'm not sure that we know what the toxics status was at that time. With some three thousand new compounds being introduced into the environment almost yearly, I don't think we really know what our data base is or what the environmental impact of those compounds are. We really don't know what the use is to be protected. And to what extent does pollution contribute to the impairment of the use? What is necessary to restore or enhance the use? Are we collecting good quality data? As you know we are now in the process of implementing quality assurance plans throughout the Agency to improve the data that's collected in the future. I think we have a good base for doing this. But I don't think we have sampling and analytical techniques that we need to measure toxics, especially in Air. It was Region 4's experience, in Memphis, Tennessee, with the Hollywood hazardous waste dump site, that we do not have that capa- bility, nor does it exist in OANR. We also don't know enough about the fate and transport characteristics of pollutants we measure. What environmental significance do they have? What indicators do we have to measure the health impacts of air pollutants, water pollutants? I think we also should develop accountability systems for the Administrator that are oriented to environmental results. Since she is responsible for providing clean water, she should know how many water bodies are fishable and swimmable and how many stream miles do not meet that goal. We can measure that by the percent of total miles of water bodies with fishable use classification or higher. That accountability system would be one way that we can get the Agency focused on environmental results in a very short time frame. And that is going to drive other activities for our program managers. For instance, I think that the AA for water would be concerned about the uniformity of water quality standards and associated criteria. The measures that he could use are: the miles of major water bodies with fish and wildlife use classifications or higher; miles of major water bodies with use classification less than fish and wildlife; the number of states with current acceptable water quality standards; the number of revisions needed to the standards; the comparability of use classification and associated use classification from state to state; the miles of water quality limited stream segments. Another measure that the program offices would be interested in and should be responsible for are the development of basin evaluations comprehensive basin evaluations. This idea is in agreement with what Eric Eidsness is saying, and Rebecca Hanmer told us yesterday, that we need to look at the waste load allocations and the total maximum daily loads. They are to be completed for each basin. We should look at the adequacy of the ambient water quality monitoring programs to determine results; the number of waste water treatment plants with acceptable plant performance; the number of major POTWs constructed with federal funds that are providing secondary or better treatment; the miles of major water bodies affected by discharges for industrial facilities; and the identification of major non-point sources causing water quality degradation. The Administrator's environmental results accountability system should reflect what progress there is in the hazardous waste clean-up program. One way of measuring this and evaluating the effectiveness of this program is the percent of 41 ------- hazardous waste landfills under a management control plan. Activities for the program officers would be the number of sites for preliminary and secondary evaluation; the number of hazardous waste sites with ground water contamination potential; and the number of hazardous waste sites causing water quality degradation. Another activity that should trigger some action by ORD would be determining the fate and transport of toxic pollutants. Those are the types of indicators I think we should evaluate environmental results against. Thank you. Discussion MR. WISE: I'd like to explore an issue with John Chamberlin and I respect what he has said about the structural constraints. I want to discuss for a moment with John about an issue which both of us are well familiar. But it's one that's important important to the Agency if we're going to a process of managing for environmental results. The problem is that we are locked into a budget structure at a micro-level of detail at program element and object class codes. Once that appropriation is made, we are locked in. And we have to get Congressional approval to reprogram. That kind of structural constraint within the accounting/budget scheme really precludes our ability to move resources to points of maximum payoff. The question I have for John is, can we begin to explore with the Appropriation Committees some way to break that deadlock? MR. CHAMBERLIN: Yes, of course we can. The history of it is somewhat interesting. Until 1976 or 1978 our budget structure was much more flexible. When we changed subcommittees, the new subcommittee did things by object class. As a result, they have enormous power to encourage us to do things the way they want it. They tell us what program elements they want to see, and they tell us what object-classes they want to see. In their view, we were, in the past a little too footloose and fancy free, so constraints got put on. We used to have ten percent reprogramming authority between appropriations, between media, but in their view we overdid it, so now we cannot reprogram anything between appropriations without an act of Congress. And we're restricted to a $250,000 limit between program elements. Those are things that they have increased the restrictiveness on us over the past two or three years. We can explore this, it's not locked in, but I think the prognosis for some drastic change is not really excellent. MR. CRAMPTON: When we get into the work groups later, and we start to look at recommendations of things to do, I would urge you to try to divide your recommendations up into two categories. The first are the so called radical proposals, and I don't think they're that radical, but the kind of proposal that John Wise put forward, and the second would be the kind of proposal that would fit within the existing system, or would be a manipulation of it. An example of a radical proposal would be let's just do away with all the workload models. The other type might be the more modest proposal which might say, if we're stuck with the same workload models this year, and the assumption is that we're going to work to change them in the following year, can we get an agreement from the Office of the Comptroller not to spend much time evaluating any requests that we would make to make changes internally in our own operating plan? That is something that it seems to me is feasible, always understanding Congressional strictures and so forth. There is some room. It's not a rigid zero sum game here. But, I also urge you to make more radical proposals. We need to get both. Because, as far as I'm concerned, things are not set in concrete. It certainly isn't as far as the Administrator is concerned. But we also have to deal with reality. And there may be ways to manipulate the system that will make it more effective to our own purposes. MR. CHAMBERLIN: I don't know if you're asking me for a commitment that we won't look at repro- gramming. Because I can tell you that for any reasonable reprogramming request, we will recommend that it be approved. Obviously there are Administration policies. The Administrator herself has policies. And there are also laws, that we will see don't get violated. But if you all are suggesting a reprogramming into something that makes sense, we will support it. MS. CARUTHERS: I'm Leslie Caruthers from Boston. I had a question for John Chamberlin. I thought I heard you say that you assumed from the fact that none of the Regions requested reprogramming in their operating plans for 1983 that we were therefore satisfied with the workload models. That simply cannot be true. MR. CHAMBERLIN: I didn't quite mean that. I meant, I have to assume that you were satisfied with the results of the workload models in your Region. MS. CARUTHERS: We may have agreed to the overall distribution of resources, but there are a number of reasons for that, maybe it would help you to know them. I don't want you to go away thinking that the Regions think that decision units are (a) alright, and (b) focused for environmental results, necessarily. First of all, most of us are trying to figure out how to adjust our workforces to meet the 1982 cuts, and secondly, trying to absorb our reorganization. And third, in the states, as in the Regions, there's a major uncertainty as to what really is going to happen with the 1983 budget. Under those circumstances, and considering the fact that it is not unprecedented for programs to retaliate if you reprogram out of their decision units, I think it would be very unusual to find any Regions, or very many, asking for reprogramming. It's a minor point and I don't want to get off into a discussion about it, but I was a little alarmed. 42 ------- MR. CHAMBERLIN: It's not a minor point. The reason it surprised me, Leslie, is because we have made a major effort this year to take care of the retaliation problem. We have made this known to the Management Divisions and the DRAs. The base for the 1984 budget is your operating plan. So, if you want to change and you want that carried over, that will do it. Now obviously, the Administrator gets a whack at it; OMB gets a whack at it; and the Congress gets a whack at it, as they should. And so there are no guarantees in this game. But, in the past, not all the way in the past, but in the recent past, the President's budget has been the base for the out year planning. And so any operating plan changes you make got lost in the wash and you were subject to retaliation. But we made the change known and in that climate nobody suggested any reprogramming. MS. CARUTHERS: I think there is reprogramming for environmental results going on in the Regions that does not show in any of our reports. MR. CHAMBERLIN: I am sure you're right. Of course, the problem with that is that as long as it's done that way it never shows up in a workload model. UNIDENTIFIED: Well, Lew, we're going to go through this exercise, the purpose of which is to put environmental results much higher on the list. But, in the end, the RAs are going to sit down and cut the deals that say, where you really have a one man, one vote situation, or one Region, one vote, how can the Agency deal with the fact that environmental problems and environmental results are not spread on a basis of one-tenth per Region? That is a major continuing concern to my Region. We can go through this exercise. And we can all spend a lot of very valuable time doing it, but if at the end of the process we have one man, one vote, in a system that it basically makes all Regions equal, I assure you that our end result will not be environmental results. MR. CRAMPTON: There speaks, of course, someone from a large Region with a lot of environmental problems. But of course this is an issue that from time immemorial has plagued the whole resource allocation distribution process. And it's something that ought to be dealt with in those workshops as well. I'd be curious to know how some of us who from the smaller regions feel about the issue of resource allocation to environmental problems. Because if you follow the implications of environmental results, what you're saying is that we're going to put our resources where the problems are, not necessarily where the active DRAs or RAs are. We're not going to follow that same old process. I hope that we'll get a lot of good recommendations out of the workshops. 43 ------- Summary of Workgroup Discussions and Recommendations Introduction by Lewis S. W. Crampton, Director Office of Management Systems and Evaluation Before the workshop broke up into individual workgroups, Mr. Crampton spoke briefly to workshop participants about the specific charge they were to address in those workgroups. He asked the group first of all to deal with big picture items, the big contextual issues, but not to spend a lot of time talking about, for example, the importance of environmental results and how difficult it is to manage for environmental results with our current budgeting system. He asked them instead to focus their work and recommendations on the following questions: First, what do we need to do to improve the availability of useful data? Do we have the information we need? How are we going to get information from states? Do our monitoring networks, as they are currently established, get the job done? Second, what kinds of improvements need to be made in our management systems, planning, budget, accountability, guidance, SEAs, and oversight to manage for environmental results? Third, what kind of recommendations do you have, and what kind of agreement can we get, on the usefulness of the trend indicators and status indicators we have? He said that, based on the recommendations in the workgroups, OMSE would make some decisions about the kinds of measures to use in the accountability system, and the kinds of measures or indicators the Agency should use in reporting to Congress and for internal use within the Agency for management decisions. Fourth, what are the most effective ways of reporting on our progress in managing for environmental results both from the standpoint of our internal decision making and from the standpoint of marketing ourselves to the world at large? The group then broke up into workgroup sessions. A complete list of questions considered by the workgroups can be found in Appendix IV. There were concurrent sessions on managing for environmental results in the Air and Water programs followed by similar sessions on Drinking Water and RCRA/Superfund. At these sessions, each group 45 ------- appointed someone from that group to summarize for the full workshop the discussion and recommendations of that workgroup. The full text of these summaries is presented below. Presentation of the Water Quality Workgroup by Jack Hoffbuhr, Water Division Director, Region 8 The Water Quality workgroup's discussion focused not on whether there is life after delegation, but on whether there is life in STORET. In starting the discussion, I would like to refer back to the three key factors that Irv Dickstein mentioned in Region 8's presentation on Walter Quality the fact that in order to do that you need, (1) envi- ronmental goals and objectives, (2) management commitment, and (3) reliable environmental information. Keep that in mind as I go through the questions that were posed to the workgroups, and see whether, in fact, those three factors are met by what we discussed. The first question we were to address was whether or not management systems are currently in place to allow the Agency to manage for environmental results. We had a variety of responses on that within the work group, from "The last thing we need is another management system, whether it is in place or not", to 'There is already one in Headquarters and all we have to do is stimulate it somehow." As a matter of fact, Eric Eidsness, in the Office of Water, has produced a document that is a combination of guidance and an accountability system. Attached to that is also an evaluation system where the Office of Water will come out next year and evaluate all the water media programs. The way it is now it is rather fractured Construction Grants does one. Water Quality Management does one. Drinking Water does one, during different parts of the year. What this will do is combine those evaluations and measure the Regional water programs overall, based on the indicators and the measurements that are in that accountability system. In addition, each program, for example. Drinking Water, Construction Grants, Water Quality Management, is working on a strategy for this coming year. The consensus of the work group is that what we really need is to get a little bit more in front of ourselves and quit fighting fires. We should do some long range planning, set some goals for where these programs are going, set the environmental objectives, and then come up with strategies to meet those objectives. Perhaps this will drive the type of accountability system we have, the kind of data we collect, and what we do with that data. So we saw a need to go beyond what the Office of Water has done this year to another step and come up with a strategy for each media and then put together a combined strategy for the Office of Water on where these programs are going. Some of that is being done in the Water Programs. For example, Rebecca Hanmer, talked about the permit strategy that is being used, and that is more long term in scope. There is a water monitoring strategy under preparation right now. I am not sure as to what the scope of that will be but I hope it is longer term than just for the next year. We really need something that tells us where we want that monitoring program to go, because it really will determine what type of information we gather. Within the strategy we certainly think that one of the issues that is going to have to be faced, is how we balance the prevention aspect of our responsibilities with our clean-up tasks. In other words, how do we keep clean what is already clean? We really do need some sort of method of balancing prevention, and then some way of measuring it. What the strategies also should get at is the question of what we want to show with the programs. What is it that we really want to say about water three years or five years from now? That is the key to the type of data we gather, the type of reports we write, and the type of measurements that we decide to use. We have not really done this yet. So, the first key factor is to set environmental objectives, and also determine what it is that we want to say about them, or how we plan to meet them in three to five years. The second question was whether the Agency has the data it needs to manage for environmental results in the program. We had a wide variance of responses during the workshop, everything from the opinion that there is plenty of data in STORET crying to get out and be used, to other responses including the view that even if the data in STORET were used it wouldn't show us whether or not we are managing for environmental results because it was intended to show trends, not cause-effect relationships. But the consensus of the workgroup was that we do have lots of data, and it probably is useful. It can be used to show trends, and also it can be used to indicate how streams are doing compared to the water quality criteria established by the states. There are data gaps, however. For example, we probably can't say much about the biological health of the stream, other than by inference from the chemical data the pH is right, the DO is right, and so there has got to be fifty pound trout there. When you don't catch any that is your fault, not the stream's fault. You probably can't show, using the data, whether or not our criteria are overprotective of a particular stretch, without doing more intensive surveys, inlcuding biological surveys. And we probably can't show improvement in many, many cases where we would like to, using the present data. We may not be able to show improvement due to the Construction Grants Program in certain cases, because perhaps some of those fixed stations aren't in the right places to do that. You might be able to make some very general comments but perhaps nothing too specific. Also it would probably be difficult to show improvement due to best management practices as a result of some of the area wide agencies because of the same problem. So that gets to our second point, and that is, credible or reliable environmental information. We do have a lot of environmental information in STORET, and other places. Regions are making good use of that. States are making good use of it. However, there do appear to be some gaps, as I mentioned. I 46 ------- think one caution of the workgroup throughout is that we don't want to make the full swing and do nothing but biological surveys in the next few years and throw out all the chemical data, because you need a balance of both types of information in order to make rational decisions regarding priorities in the Water Program. The third and fourth questions are: what indicators should you use to show environmental status and environmental results for the water media? Again, we had a full range of responses. Some said that the Regional Administrator should be pulled behind a boat through water quality limited segments, others that the Regions should be required to come up with their own measurements in environmental results, so that you would essentially have ten different ways of showing that we were doing what we were supposed to do. I think everyone pretty well decided though, that it is not a good idea to have each state or each Region go off and develop their own measurement system, although we certainly don't want to destroy anyone's incentive. The consensus was that there should be some sort of a measurement system in general terms that we are all following, so that we can have a national report. But on the other hand if a state or region develops a slick method of showing environmental progress, they ought to be allowed to do that, and perhaps that could be factored in some how in an addendum to the report in order to show a specific case success stories, fn other words. When we started talking about indicators and what should we be measuring, I think we essentially categorized those things into three basic areas: (1) ambient monitoring, (2) pollutant removal, and (3) activity indicators, in other words, the old PPA system, essentially. We thought that these three areas all need a closer look. And we certainly didn't have time to look at each one of those in very great detail to see if there are indicators in those three areas that could be used successfully to show environmental results and environmental progress. And perhaps some of those can be different than what we have used in the past. For example, concerning ambient information, I think the thing the public is worred about is, "Can you fish in it and can you swim in it? Does it smell bad? Is it going to give me a rash?" What we are doing now may not answer those questions. However, if we probably use some other measures, such as, fish kill, maybe even fish production. Those figures are available, and certainly they have visibility. These are not anything new. The Agency has used these in the past, certainly. I think they have kind of fallen off in favor, but it may be worthwhile taking another look at them. Another way, of course, to do ambient monitoring, is the traditional monitoring networks which we have now. One thing that we might want to consider in this area is to take a look at what other Agencies are doing. And we have typically cooperated with U.S.G.S. and state agencies in looking at data, but I am not sure that we have taken a hard look at a lot of other agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers, that also collect data. Also, there are the industrial groups that have done a lot of biological monitoring in applying for energy permits, or other things. We probably should take a look at what is actually out there before we try re-inventing the wheel and spend a lot of money on data production. We did not come up with a check list of indicators that everybody was uniformly excited about to use in measuring environmental results and status. I think we felt that the regions and the states, and we did have a couple of state representatives in the group that gave us some good ideas, have developed systems. We really need to take a look at those before we decide on a set number of indicators that we are going to live with for some time. So, we would strongly recommend that, either through the monitoring strategy group, or some other group, that a look be taken at what the regions and the states are doing before we come up with a set list of indicators that we will use. Finally, once we have the data, and we are satisfied with the indicators we are using, how do we report it? There was a discussion on exactly what or who are we looking at. Are we looking to report this to the public? Are we looking to report it to Congress, or just to the administrator? I think we decided that we don't want to be in a position of preparing a report for each specific community or group. The reporting system we come up with ought to be something we can use as a tool, and perhaps the Administrator may decide to use part of that for a report to the nation, so to speak, on environmental quality as far as water is concerned, and certainly use portions of it in reports to Congress. I think everyone felt it was a good idea if each R.A. did submit an annual environmental report to the administrator on the status of the environment within a region, and in our case, the status of environmental results in the water area. The regions felt that the basis of that regional report as far as water is concerned, would be the 305 (b) reports received from the states, and in some cases, that may mean that improvements are needed in the 305 (b) reports in order to get the type of information that the region and the administrator are interested in. I think the recommendation was that the regions then would probably summarize the 305 (b) reports from the states in a status report, both to Eric Eidsness and to the Administrator on what water quality is like within that particular region. Well, in summary, I think the group felt that a good time was had by all, that we got to say a lot of things about data that we have been dying to say for years, but we needed far more than an hour in order to come up with answers to the specific questions that were asked. I think the key recommendations would be that we do need some long term environmental objectives in the water program, and that in setting those, we must balance prevention with our efforts to clean up segments. Certainly, we ought to take a hard look at what we have before we generate anything new, identify the gaps, and hopefully from that be able to determine what we want to say about the water program, what type of information we need to say it, and then the best way to go about saying that. Thank you very much. 47 ------- Presentation of the Air Workgroup by David Howekamp, Director, Air Management Division, Region 9 We had a lively session, but as I went through my notes I did find areas of consensus and many divergent views. We had enough time to cover four areas: planning, allocation of resources, indicators, and reporting. We never got to data, and maybe that was a good idea, because we didn't have a lot of time for other discussions. In the planning area, I think we did have a consensus that there is a need for a three to five year strategy prepared by the Regional offices on a state by state basis, or perhaps an area by area basis. We keyed on John Wise's presentation right before the workshop. I think across the board we all felt that we really are lacking in that area in most Regions. Some Regions, I think, are doing that. Region 8, in particular, said that they have a five year strategy for some of their states. Beyond the consensus on that issue, we came up with several issues. First of all, the states definitely have to be involved in developing such a strategy. But we have to be careful not to tax them too heavily, with declining resources and the budget cuts, it is something we can't add on. It has to be reasonable. Second, the size and complexity of the strategy must vary with the state. Dave Kee used the example of Minnesota as a place where he wouldn't spend a whole lot of time developing the strategy because it is basically a clean state. Others responded that perhaps all you need is a prevention strategy, a very short two page document, or something like that. One thing that we found in our discussions is that you really have to define upfront what a strategy is. I think a lot of us had different conceptions of what a strategy document amounts to. One of the possibilities that we came up with, and it is certainly not the only one, is that a strategy document consists of an environmental assessment based on the national standard and, probably, emissjon levels, an action plan, and then a yearly update, once you get the basic document in place. A yearly update could have changes in the trends on national standards and emission levels and then adjustments to the strategy to make it a living document. Some of us brought up that there is a possible need for a headquarters Air Program strategy. But most of our discussion really keyed on the need for a state by state strategy prepared by the Regional office in conjunction with the state. The concern on a national strategy was that Headquarters perhaps wouldn't be able to live up to the commitments laid out in that strategy. Next, we talked about allocation of resources, and we had a ninety percent consensus here. One Region was in the minority. Ninety percent of us, by Region, felt that the current workload model in Air was adequate. It was pointed out that it is based, to a certain extent, on environmental indicators. About. twenty-five to thirty per cent of the work years are based on those kind of indicators. But the remaining, seventy to seventy-five percent really funds the base program in the Regional offices. It is the critical mass concept. Those critical mass factors relate to program operations and size, rather than environmental results. One of the issues we came up with is that the strategy should impact back on the workload model, that is allocation of resources. The problem there is the way we have structured ourselves with overhead, etc. We are really only, talking about only twenty-five to thirty percent of the resources. The point was made that the critical mass, or base, of the Regional offices is probably going to change this next year, or in the next year after that, because enforcement and programs are not put together. So there should be some economies of overhead or scale. Finally, we talked a little bit about John Wise's proposal for a ten percent pot of resources reserved for environmental results: It was met with mixed reactions. The biggest problem raised was dealing with the year to year fluctuation, mostly with positions. If you really move the work years around from Region to Region, to match an environmental need, you could have severe dislocation. I think we have seen that in enforcement decision units over the past few years, where there was some wide fluctuation that really was counter-productive. On environmental indicators, we again had a problem with perceptions about what environmental indicators were going to be used for. Here again, some clear defining needs to be done at the front end. Some people were thinking in terms of the accountability system, while others were thinking in terms of planning and resources. But the consensus when we got to the bottom line after a half-hour discussion is that in the near term, environmental indicators probably should not be in the Administrator's accountability system. What regions should be accountable for are the indicators that are developed and are factored into planning or strategies. This is in the near term. We talked about two levels of indicators. The first is a three to five year level of indicator, basically for measuring trends, and for strategy development, priority study, and generally focusing on problems. We all felt that the national ambient air standards as they exist are adequate for this. A good point was made that you really should factor in population exposure in some fashion so that you really get the impact of your problem based on health. We talked a little bit about welfare effects also. I think the consensus was the real focus environmentally is for public health in the national primary standards. A second level of indicator could be classified as year to year. And again we agreed that emission levels are a good surrogate. Perhaps they could be area specific or pollutant specific. A couple of people pointed out that voluntary compliance and other indirect actions, that we or a state might take, should somehow be factored in because it does have a positive effect on emission levels. It may not be the result of a classic enforcement action or a records development. Theoretically, if you have a good system for measuring emission levels you should have a way to show this, but perhaps not. The third point is that emission inventories are generally pretty 48 ------- weak in most states, and therefore you need to target what you are going to be looking at in terms of sources or categories. The last thing we looked at was reporting. One point that was made was that there really is a different level of reporting for states, Regions, and Headquarters. The state needs a certain amount, generally the most, information for their day to day operations. The Regions need less for oversight and technical assistance. Headquarters needs even less that that that, basically a report for Congress and for national program management. We really didn't have a consensus on the number and type of reports. There was a disagreement here. Some felt that two reports would be the way to go one aimed primarily at the public, an external report focusing on trends and profiles, and another internal report that was more management oriented, with more detailed back-up information. Others in the group felt strongly that that was the wrong way to go, that one report is appropriate, and we could get into some real problems with consistency if we had two Reports. The point was made in this group as well as the Water group that you really don't need any new reporting systems. A lot of the systems currently exist in various areas of the Air Program. There was also concern that any new reporting not be instituted until FY 1984, since the states have not been plugged in at all. The State-EPA Agreements and grants for FY 1983 are underway or are almost done in some cases. For the immediate future, indicators should really only be used for planning and strategy development in order to see how it goes. We should then begin a new way of reporting towards the end of FY 1984. That was it, thank you. Presentation of the RCRA/Superfund Workgroup by Stephen Wassersug, Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region 3. In general, we had a fairly good consensus in our group. There was a real feeling that something needed to be done in the entire Superfund/RCRA area. This is possibly due to the emerging program issue, the sensation that what is happening here is that we are not telling the full story. In fact, most people agreed that we were in fact not managing for environmental results. This is a high interest program, and there is a lot of intense pressure from the Congress, local communities, and everyone else. There is a great difference between Air and Water and the Hazardous Waste programs. There was a feeling here you are dealing with ambient standards per se. You are dealing with issues that relate to dump sites or Superfund sites. So that gives you a different feeling, perhaps, in trying to localize the problem and deal with the issues as we are facing in the RCRA/Superfund area. We were dealing with things from the beginning of the dumps site program which generated a lot of attention and a lot of interest. The feeling of the group was that something has to be done to show that we are in fact managing for environmental results. There was a general feeling in the workgroup that we are not managing for environmental results, but that partial things are being done in the program area that may be considered to be managing, perhaps on a site by site, basis. At this point in time, however, we are not doing any kind of a full system that could really be called managing for environmental results. Should we have a system? Yes. Short term? Some people felt we should have a one or two year system, or that at least between now and two years something should evolve. There was also a strong feeling that we should have a planning system that was long term, something perhaps over a five year period. There is one comment I want to make here which I think is very important. I introduced this into the group because I happen to be working on a national task force right now to develop a workload model in the Superfund/RCRA area. This is the issue or reviewing the priorities, the resources, and the concerns. I think one of the things that is happening here is that there is a tremendous feeling, and it came out of the group, that we were being asked to do everything in the hazardous waste area. We are being asked to manage all these sites, deal with the heat from the public, the Congress, and so forth. So that what is evolving right now, at the same time that we are talking here about managing for environmental results. There is a task force that has now evaluated the resources that are allocated to the RCRA/Superfund area, and is looking at those resources based on a priority basis. What should evolve out of this effort is something that will analyze the priorities in the program, define those and perhaps give us an expression of where those priorities should be set. The concern is that it doesn't necessarily reflect management for environmental results in perhaps the way we have been talking over the last two days. In dealing with RCRA/Superfund, we are dealing with two programs. There was concern that we not lump those in a sense into one program, although we are talking about the total hazardous waste picture, and looking at it from that perspective, it is one issue. But in managing for environmental results, we are also talking about two separate and distinct program areas. Now, this is interesting. I guess I was a little concerned about trying to deal with this workshop because, unlike the information which existed in Air and the other programs over the years we did not have STORET or very much of a data base. But I think there was a general consensus again that a lot of information is available, through the abandoned sites, the Superfund lists, the notifier lists, and various other types of information like this which provided an excellent place to start, and could be used as the basis for developing the kinds of strategies and indicators that could be used for this particular program. I think there was a consensus that we could all begin to look at this. Perhaps what it comes down to is that the information is there and maybe it is a matter of interpretation in terms of how it is being used and how it ought to be explained. In terms of the sites themselves, it was recognized and brought out by a number of people that we do prioritize right now. It may not be that in certain areas and certain 49 ------- Regions we are prioritizing the same way in each and every case, but there are priorities that are generally set in terms of dealing with some of these sites. In terms of the information that is available on each site, when we talk about the universal site list, we are talking about thousands and thousands of sites. It doesn't mean, in fact, that complete information is available for all of them. Certainly for many, we have no information, and that has to be reflected. Perhaps just dealing with listed sites, getting information and removing them from the lists ought to be an indicator. In other cases, the indicator may be simply improving upon the information and then dealing with the clean up in that program area. A lot of people had ideas as to what indicators might be appropriate in dealing with Superfund. Some suggested that the definition of Superfund equals cleanup, but others felt that we need to define what we mean by cleanup, if we use cleanup in some fashion as an indicator. For example, do we use actions per site, rather than dollars. I think there was a comment that the dollars we are spending on a site is not necessarily a good indicator of cleanup of managing for environmental results. On the Air side, they mentioned minimizing the risks of hazardous wastes to a segment of the population. What was discussed here was that if you have population affected around a certain site, perhaps from a drinking water standpoint, the comment was that as you deal with the site in some way, you are not removing the risk, but maybe we could say you were minimizing the risk. The other indicator discussed was population directly exposed. We would have to work to define what that might mean in terms of the population exposed vis-a-vis one site or an area. There was also a concern that the voluntary efforts and actions taken by the states, and the voluntary efforts that may be taken by the companies to clean up and deal with these sites, are not in fact reflected in any system today. When you look at the total environmental results picture, they may be a better indicator in the long run, or there may be more actions and more effectiveness in using many of these as an indicator, than perhaps the sites that EPA is cleaning up. So some way those voluntary efforts need to be reflected in the system. There is also a down side to this which I will get into later on, and that is the additional reporting burden which might be placed on a state and what that means and how to deal with that. From an ambient standpoint, it was suggested that maybe what we ought to do in order to look at the long term picture, is to look at ground water trends. Since this appears to be the only program collecting that data at this point in time, maybe that would give us a fairly good assessment of how we are doing as we clean these sites. We talked about the hazardous ranking system where you rank the site, you score it, and you give it a number. After you clean up the site, maybe you give it a new number and re-rank it. Maybe a good indicator would be the quotient of one number over the other. Everybody recognized that out of the hazardous ranking system you are making an evaluation of the population, and you are looking at them from a standpoint of groundwater and other environmental factors. A closer look could be taken to see whether or not that could be used for determining environmental results. In addition, perhaps the work that some regions are doing regarding biological assessment, might be tied into the efforts in the Spills Program area. The question was asked, should we look at direct health effects? And the response back was that it would be suicidal. The CDC and perhaps others agencies are looking into that, and also the issues and the feeling of the communities about the direct health issue. We also discussed how we properly relate back to the communities regarding the clean up of sites without talking about the health issues. So there is a problem how we deal with that, and I guess that must just be recognized. On the RCRA side, it was suggested that compliance is the proper management tool. Simply having the sites or a percentage of the sites in a compliance category, may be as good a picture as you can get for RCRA in terms of managing for results. We talked about improving the state reporting, and I underline the word "improve". The feeling was, I guess, that Superfund/RCRA has come into the program a little late, and maybe is a little resource poor. We do not have the advantages of the amount of reporting and certainly the data base that had been collected in the other program areas. The issue is, how much reporting should there be that is not burdensome, but where the states would also try to show the same picture of managing for environmental results? We are all going down the same road right now, and we are all trying to reflect the same story. How could we work with the states so that that story is reflected and so they also can tell the story in terms of their need to close or deal with the sites in their state? The need for an annual report was brought up in our discussion in terms of defining the managed waste. Are we going to have inspections or surveys, or are we going to have an annual RCRA report in this whole waste area? If we cut reporting at the very beginning of this program it was suggested, without a good data base, that may not be the way to develop the picture that we would like to show that there is a program that is being managed here, going from a paramount of waste that is in the environment, uncontrolled, or spoiling the environment to the amount of waste now in the environment that is under some form of control. We talked about permit strategies, and thought we should avoid counting. Maybe we could look at the waste that goes to high technology incinerators. We can see we have a lot of indicators here. And the last indicator we talked about was individual success . stories. More effort should be spent on that. A couple of Regions brought out that perhaps we are not spending enough time showing within certain geographical areas or site by site, what the effect and what the position actions have been. I mentioned the state reporting issue before, but I 50 ------- will bring it up in another context. One of the problems in this particular area with the state reporting is that there are no state Superfund grants. So you are working with the states in a manner in which certainly you can't require some of the reporting that you can in other areas. There is a real concern in the Regions, that we look once again to make sure that the states are adequately put into the system with the adequate support, so we can call on them in developing the data and the entire efforts of carrying out the job that is there. Everybody felt we needed to have a planning system that is going to direct us, rather than the system we have now which causes us to react. In that system, we should look and define where and how much heat the Agency can accept, knowing that we have a resource limitation, knowing that it is all a volatile issue, but that we must deal with some of the heat. That has to be looked at from the strategy standpoint. We must deal with the public opinion issue. In dealing with any reports we issue for example, a report which maps out in one state the sites or the amount of waste generated in that area, or the amount of waste stored each of these reports are going to generate another public reaction to the entire hazardous waste problem. It is not necessarily going to solve it, and it is not necessarily going to tell the community that there is a solution. Therefore, in trying to manage environmental results here, we have to be very careful to deal with the public opinion issue. In summary, we need a reporting system. Our group was open to suggestions. The available data that is already in the system, with better interpretation would probably produce some pretty good results as far as developing an environmental results picture, although there may not be information from a trend line standpoint, because we are talking about an emerging program. The workload model and the new priority setting that is being done in this program area alone should be dove-tailed into this entire picture. Environmental results is a high Agency priority. The increased data gathering, though, if it evolves here, is going to mean more resources, and will raise tough state issues. Environmental results and the issues they raise have to be looked at rather carefully. Thank you. Presentation of the Drinking Water Workgroup by Allan Abramson, Director, Water Division, Region 7 A small, but gallant band met in the hot-box at the end of the corridor, and discovered that the Drinking Water program is at least thrice blest. First, it is, compared to everything else, extremely simple. Second, it deals exclusively with humanity, rather than critters. And three, it is predominately a public health program, which means that it is directly in the arena of managing for environmental results, responsible for benefits to people and public health protection. That created a sense of complacency and certainty in our workgroup that we were in the right ball park. We went past a lot of the considerations that the other workshops dealt with rather quickly to an end point of measures. What kind of measures do we want to consider? How do we want to evaluate this program? I will try to summarize our discussions. In terms of the kinds of measures that we came up with, there was fairly general agreement that this is appropriate. Some of these are overlapping, or variations of one with another. So they need a little refinement. But at the end of a relatively short period of discussion, we felt that this was close enough and good enough and probably reflective enough of the program that it could be sold and implemented. These are the measures. They echo what you have heard from other workgroups. The first measure we started with was person-days exposed. In listensing to the other presentations, it really struck me as significant that we are drifting toward person-day exposure rates in all of our programs as a means of measuring the significance and the impact of our programs. Second, maximum contaminant level (MCL) violations were suggested as a means of reporting. These can be refined and categorized by the individual drinking water standard, segregated by significant violations rather than trivial ones that we don't really care about, amplified by attaching to them the risks to public health associated with that kind of an exposure, that is, the risk of bacterial exposure is significantly greater than the risk to your smile because of a fluoride violation. So, it has to be explained to people that not all MCL's are created equal. And one can also distinguish persistent from random violations, that is, the focus on individual systems which tend not to keep their plants operating, versus a lot of small systems which tend to go in and out of compliance all the time. Another kind of a measure to add to that, because these are exclusively focused on MCL violations, would be to publicize and focus on persistent systems which refuse to monitor, persistent non- monitoring cases, and attach to them an estimate of the population at risk because you don't know whether they are in compliance or not, since they are refusing to monitor. So we agreed that that should be in our tracking system. The other end of the spectrum is to track, record, and publish the person-days of those persons obtaining safe water, that is those getting water from systems in compliance. Now, when this one came up. Jack Hoffbuhr and I put our heads together and agreed that that it made us somewhat nervous, because we have this intuitive sense of the Drinking Water program that if you compare the number of those obtaining safe water each year, with this number, those exposed to violations, we will end up demonstrating quite clearly that we are about ninety- eight percent in compliance in the country, and we don't really need a program anymore. And that is a potential problem for those who care about bureaucratic survival. Nevertheless, it may be a valid measure. The next one is a surrogate for these more direct measures of risks to public health. It is the percentage of systems with compliance, or brought into compliance in any given year. Another way of 51 ------- looking at the population, rather than person-days, is to estimate the percentage of the population protected each year. That is just another way of cutting what I have gone over already. In terms of measuring program effectiveness, particularly the state programs, almost all the states have the Drinking Water programs, and they do a lot of things to prevent violations for which they are not obviously credited. One way to track the effectiveness of a state program is to count the number of water supplies put on bottled water or emergency notices each year. This tells you something about the responsiveness of the program to a need to protect public health. You can do that by counting system days on notice and attach to that the population effected, or collapse those two back into person-days effected by an emergency notice each year. It is not a bad way to track that item. Then finally, the measurement that we all tip-toed toward, and then run away from, was water-borne disease statistics, actual public health statistics. My own opinion is that recognizing the difficulty, recognizing all the uncertainties, and the fact that a correlation is not cause and effect demonstration, and that they are very expensive, I feel the Agency should move into the arena of public health statistics and try to do a lot better job than we have in the past. Now this would be an indirect measure, to be sure, but a clear measure of the effectiveness of our programs. So, that is basically the summary of our work group. It really focused on the endpoints and left out a lot of the other considerations that the other groups discussed. Thank you. 52 ------- Panel Discussion on Workgroup Findings After the workgroup presentations, a response panel commented on the findings and recommendations of of the workgroups. Members of the panel were: Harry Seraydarian, Deputy Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division, Region 9; Barbara Metzger, Director, Environmental Services Division, Region 2; Fran Phillips, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6; and John Chamberlin, Deputy Director, Office of the Comptroller. Individual Presentations Presentation by Harry Seraydarian, Deputy Director Toxics and Waste Management Division, Region 9 I got a sense during the workgroups that everybody has a natural inclination towards environmental results. There seemed to be from the indicators that were either discussed, or suggested, a natural tendency to recognize that there are not enough resources to do a complete job, and you are going to have to set priorities and then measure your results. There seems to be an overall consensus in the workgroups of avoiding bean counting, and looking at what we can do to really evaluate the progress in our programs. I did notice a difference between the old programs and the new programs. Having been in some of the old programs, water, especially, and sometimes in air, I can understand why that occurs. It seems like people sit in a room and know what they are supposed to be talking about, and immediately assume their roles, even though they may be a little more forward thinking when they are actually involved in new programs. I noticed that every workgroup agreed to long range planning as far as the water, air, and RCRA/Superfund although I don't think it was discussed in drinking water. Every workgroup also discussed resources. I think the water and air people spent the most time on resources, indicated the difference in regional opinions, and probably got bogged down discussing resources more than they discussed how to address the problems-in the program. There was a general consensus in each group to consider the population affected as an indicator. We do have to develop some tools to address that. Air mentioned that they should look at population 53 ------- affected to give some indication of the public health aspects. RCRA and Superfund and the Drinking Water workgroup also talked about this. Water seemed to be more oriented toward the fish, than populations, and here, we could measure the fish days effected. Some positive trends were indicated as necessary for measurement, for example, prevention and abatement. We do need ways of showing how we are moving towards a better situation for the public and the general environment. But we also have to show what we have been preventing in the long run. Presentation by Barbara Metzger, Deputy Director, Environmental Services Division. Region 2 I think for all the programs, except perhaps the drinking water, the following four major points will apply. First I think the program offices, both in the regions, and in headquarters really need to identify, and rank in priority order, the environmental results questions they want the monitoring programs to answer. Without that, the monitoring programs go off in all directions, serving no one. Second, I think, that, especially in the water, and perhaps in the air and eventually under RCRA and Superfund, some select group has to be set up to determine what parameters, both the old ones and some new ones, should be included in monitoring programs in order to answer program management questions. Third, we must determine how that data should be manipulated so that the data can be presented to the managers as answers to the questions that they have asked. I think we also have to make sure that there are standard methodologies available to measure the parameters in order to obtain good and acceptable data. I think if we start going into biological monitoring, and under RCRA if we want to look at hazardous waste sites, we don't currently have the kinds of standard methodology so that we can generate comparable data, or universally acceptable data. So, there is a role here for R and D in some of these programs if we are going to start changing our environmental results that we are measuring through monitoring programs. And last, but not least, and probably the most important of all, we have go to get our act together up front, two years before the budget comes down the pike, so that when we decide to make these changes there are some resources available to carry them out. Presentation by Fran Phillips, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6 I think all of the speakers this morning have absolutely given us excellent information. I think all the evaluators gave some excellent presentations of what we have done so far. I feel like I am in a position of just trying to reiterate and re-say what has been said before, but let me say it in my own . words because I did take the time to write some of it down. First of all, and I guess to summarize the main point of what I would like to say, is that we must be careful as we proceed, and here are some of the reasons. First of all, I think we heard for the first day and a half, how you can take the data that is already available and identify a problem. Some how we jumped from the problem to an environmental result. As a manager, I had the hardest problem with the gap between identifying the problem and getting an environmental result. That is where I would posit most of your resources are. All the data in the world can tell me I have got a problem in Houston, Texas, and I know what an environmental result would be, but the resources, the talent, the science, in between is the gap that gives me the hardest problem. So, I think we may need to spend some more time on the gap in between problem identification and environmental results. Second, I think you need to be concerned from an overall standpoint, as to the purpose for which we are going to identify and work with environmental results. I would think it would be a complicated, if not impossible, task to try to get environmental results that would cause an overall change in the historical program direction of all our programs, and in the historical statutory directions that we have been given by Congress. I think it is a relatively simple task in all our programs to try to identify environmental results for purposes of telling our story to Congress and telling our story to the public. Next, I would like to give a reminder that in the areas we dealt with, most of us only considered conventional pollutants. There is something about the toxics area that made us all nervous and we didn't discuss it in any great depth. I think that is the thing that causes me more uneasiness in the environmental business these days than anything else. Third, the concept of population exposure. Please be careful with that concept. I think, somehow, it is factored into all the programs that we had in place, from major permits to minor models to air risk assessments. I am very nervous about bringing it to the forefront as a major indicator. It reminds me of a story that I think maybe many of you have heard or read about when a state agency, faced with cutbacks, decided to drop an immunization program that caused young children trimethal double death if not immunized. They dropped it because it only affected one percent of the school children. At public hearing, a little old lady in tennis shoes stood up and explained the gruesome death of her only child, who had not been immunized. She said, "it may be only one percent of the population to you, but it was a hundred percent of my child." So be very concerned about population exposure. Also be very careful about health effects indicators. This, too, has already been developed, I believe, in our long term planning process. It won't work on the short term. You cannot ask me to determine whether I can prove a causal relationship between somebody's cancer and somebody's source before you let me take an action. I need to know quicker than that. 54 ------- In the data area, I would say that what we heard the first day and a half was how each and every region, in its own way, has been able to take the data that has been collected, and translate it into a system to identify a problem. I thought it was very interesting that not one region could stand up and say they had done it for all media for all programs. I think there is a rather simple answer to that and that is resources, not having the available resources to do that. I think an interesting thing to do would be to go back to the systems that have been developed Region by Region. First, look to see if we used all the data that was collected to come up with the problem of identification. Next, on the data collection, in support of that, I would like to say that I heard little in any of the programs, or in any of the discussions of data collection for enforcement purposes, whether you are talking voluntary compliance enforcement or actual, to the courthouse, enforcement compliance. I would say, in our region I know we have gone to Federal Court, effectuated a cleanup with a skew of six samples. I think that can be done, and we need to preserve that tool. Next, and lastly, I wanted us to think very seriously about the institutionalization of environmental results. I don't want us to buy it hook, line, and sinker as something that needs to be in the management accountability system. I think that several people on the program in some way mentioned that. I think the most important planning is that we take into account in our decision making, environmental results. We saw what happened in the environmental impact statement process when the process became an end of itself. I would posit that the most significant thing we got out of the E.I.S. process was considering the environmental results before we took the action. I think the same thing can work here, as long as we factor environmental results into the system. I don't get so concerned about the process. And lastly, saying all those "be carefuls", if I were were to say let us go ahead and do the thing, I would probably rank our media in the following order as to which one that I think you could incorporate environmental results in with the best results. First, I would say, Drinking Water, perhaps because it is the most simple. I would look at the fact that we are going to lose our Drinking Water program as a result of it, but I think it is the simplist right now, most focused, and most delegated. And since that is the mode we are moving into, that might be an easy one to start with. Second, I would take RCRA and Superfund, maybe because that is the newest, but also because I think that is what the public is going to demand. The public and the Congress will demand to see some actual environmental results from that program, and although we have not defined the total universe there, it is focused in that we do have specific sites to work on. Air, I think, is a historical program, and so I rank it third, because it has all the information you need from a data system collection point. You might want to go back and see what do we not need in that program. I think in air, the difficulty is going to be in formating, and getting what you really want. I would rank Water last. I am still not as convinced as you are Lew, that all the information in the water bank, STORET, is adequate data for us to use. I think it is the most diversified and that it is going to be the hardest. In closing, please don't let my ranking at the end effect my other comments. That was very much a personal reaction. Thank you. Presentation by John Chamberlin, Deputy Director Office of the Comptroller Luckily there weren't too many resource allocation questions raised this morning, so my comments will be brief. I think the question of how our current program goals fit in with what has been discussed over the past three days and what Fran just said is fairly interesting. My guess is that if you talk to most of our managers in this Agency, from the Administrator on down, they would tell you that they are already managing for environmental results. And I think they are. I think the problem is that we perhaps haven't had a system that allowed us to show, in the beginning where we were headed, and measure our progress along the way, and then tell people what we did once we were finished. That leads me into what both Jack Hoffbuhr and Dave Howekamp said in following on Jim Wise's comments yesterday. I believe we do need to get national strategies out of each one of our program managers by media. I haven't thought it through carefully enough yet to say, whether on a national basis, we should break it down by state. But there definitely need to be clearly stated national goals. Those probably need to be broken down by state, probably at the regional level. I wouldn't think that should be done in Washington. We also need follow up evaluations. If those can be done in a year or two or three, or whenever some environmental results can be achieved, we can make decisions along the way. As I said yesterday, that kind of evaluation in my view is probably one of the cleanest vehicles for getting these environmental results into the resource allocation system. The one item that did come up with regard to resource allocation is John Wise's idea of yesterday. That was to take ten percent off the top, hold it in a pot, and I guess it would go to the most attractive bidder at some point in the process. I think, I would like to make a few comments on that, and if anybody else has any comments, I would be happy to discuss it. I think we currently have the flexibility to do that. It is an extremely difficult timing question. I find it hard to imagine the Administrator going through this detailed examination of an out-year budget which she will start doing in mid July, and have something in the neighborhood of four hundred work years and sixteen to twenty-five million dollars sitting there in a pot which she wasn't quite sure how it was going to be used, but she would let somebody know in a few years. If she was willing to swallow that, which I don't think she would, we would get a curious 55 ------- reaction from O.M.B. when we say we want four hundred work years for some, as yet undefined purpose. I suspect that we would never get out of that box, and we would even get a more curious reaction from the Congress. But I think that if one were to decide that is the route they want to follow, my guess would be you should tell Regional Administrators now, that they have the flexibility. If they have some environmental project there that isn't funded, the first thing they ought to do is to look at their own budgets, and see if there isn't something of lower priority that could be postponed. They should come in and propose a reprogram to cover their environmental project. If, however, they decided it is really important, but not quite important enough for them to reprogram into, they can always ask the Administrator if there isn't somewhere else in the Agency that she feels she could take resources from. I think, in my view, that this is the wrong approach. I think we should set out national strategies by media tied to environmental results. I think people's performance standards should be written around those. I think people should be rewarded when they achieve them, and given negative incentives when they don't achieve them. I believe that in our workload models, if our national program managers say their problem is in Region 10, and somehow Region 10 doesn't solve that problem, I don't believe that what we should do is shift resources away from Region 10. I think we ought to talk to the management in Region 10. Having said that, I would be happy to discuss it further. Thank you. Discussion MR. STEWART: I am Tim Stewart from the Office of Water. And I would like to respond to one thing, that I am a little bit concerned about. I think we would have to agree with Fran Phillips that we are not really sure we have the data in the Water Program to answer the questions. The work that we have had today does not really in our judgement, measure the quality of waters. As you may know, we have had some problems with the chemical criteria. We also found in many cases, it may not be water quality, it may be habitat, or other types of things that are causing the problem and you really can't tell. So we feel that the monitoring networks are very helpful and a useful tool, but they don't get us to the bottom line. The other concern we have is that we are often not closing the loop to see the effects on environmental control actions. For example, we put a permit in place. We put a construction in place. But then we don't go back to see if that really gave us the environmental result that we thought it should. So those are two concerns I think we have. We are working and developing a water strategy along the lines that have been discussed, to try to address and to get some resolution of the issues. I think we agree there is a need to more clearly define this. 56 ------- Summary of Workshop Accomplishments and Next Steps Speaker: Lewis S. W. Crampton, Director Office of Management Systems and Evaluation My role in summing up here is not an easy one, given the complexity of the task of the workshop, the number of viewpoints on managing for environmental results, and the occasional clash between those viewpoints that took place over the course of the presentation and in the workshops. Nevertheless, we have had a number of solid accomplishments here. I will try to summarize those and then review the recommendations on follow- through that you have made and that my office will pursue. Our first accomplishment was that we met. We all came here, we all sat down, and we all discussed the question of how to manage for environmental results. To my knowledge this was first Agency-wide meeting that has taken place on this subject. We were talking about doing something that is positive from the standpoint of bringing facilities into compliance, cleaning up the enviornment, and getting the job that we as professionals want to get done. We shared a lot of experiences, and we shared a lot of information. I, for one, was suprised, in seeing some of the presentations, at all that is happening in certain areas. Even in the Region I came from. Region 5, I wasn't aware of how far David Kee had taken his approach to getting environmental results in the Air Programs. And I didn't know what Irv Dickstein, Tom Entzminger, and Jack Hoffbuhr were doing out in Region 8. I am sure that each of you will take parts of those concepts, or the whole approach, back with you to your Regions and try to institute those approaches where that is appropriate. We identified several barriers to managing for environmental results. These include the fact that the Agency lacks overall strategic guidance, or front end planning, and priorities with respect to environmental results. This situation is changing. We have discussed the fact that Eric Eidsness and the Water Program are developing planning guidance that takes environmental results priorities into account. Similarly, Rita Lavelle and her staff are developing a strategic plan, a set of priorities for handling situations in the Superfund and RCRA programs. We agreed that the resource allocation process is not flexible enough in most cases. 57 ------- We found that there is a lack of consensus on the indicators of environmental status and environmental results that we should use, and we heard about problems with the kinds of environmental data available, the quality of environmental data, our limited ability to integrate environmental data to give a complete picture, and lack of clarity over cause and effect relationships. David Kee's presentation on TSP in Detroit and Wayne County was very revealing in that regard. His presentation used good techniques in terms of managing for environmental results and narrowing down the Region's focus to concentrate on those facilities that were contributing most to environmental problems. But as David said, it is very difficult to determine whether improvements in TSP levels are due to abatement and control and enforcement activities, or to a downturn in the economy in the city of Detroit. We asked the question, environmental results for what? Why are we interested in environmental results? EPA is interested in environmental results for a couple of reasons. One reason is to report on our accomplishments. We need to make it clear to people whether EPA is being effective in cleaning up the environment and protecting public health. However, we also need information on environmental results to help us make better internal decisions to plan better, to evaluate our programs better, to make better budgetary decisions, and to hold managers accountable. Until we add that information into our decision making formula, the quality of our decisions will be limited. Even if we went nowhere else with this workshop, even if we stopped right here and all went back and did exactly what we have done before, we would have accomplished a lot. But, we went further than that during this workshop. We agreed on a number of actions the Agency needs to pursue. As managers, our charge from the Administrator and other senior managers in the Agency is clear. Environmental results. Environmental results and environmental results. We as managers have to produce them and be able to report on our environmental progress. We simply cannot sit around and bemoan the fact that we don't have all of the data at hand, that we don't have all the issues neatly categorized in one box or another, and that everybody's role is not precisely clear. We have to tolerate a certain amount of ambiguity if we are going to get the job done. You all know that the information we need to report environmental status and results is out there. The techniques to collect, analyze, and report it are known. And we do have some flexibility in our resource allocation process to allocate resources to the most critical environmental problems. If we know what the goal is and point ourselves toward it, we will solve the problem. In this vein; we will try to push the Agency toward the goal of managing for environmental results even though all the questions about how to proceed haven't been answered. Our approach will be go get something out there to you for you to comment on, criticize, or complain about. You may shoot our ideas down from time to time, but we will keep coming back to you with others. I have established a Division in my Office in Headquarters that will work with you on managing for environmental results. You have identified a number of activities that my office, working with you and other appropriate Headquarters and Regional staff, should pursue. Let me try to summarize briefly what those activities are. Strategic Planning Over the short term, we will be working with the Assistant Administrators to prepare short, succinct probably no more than ten page strategic plans and guidance from each AA that focus on how the Agency is going to produce environmental results by medium. Based on your recommendations, these strategies will take a one to three year perspective. Separate documents would be prepared by the Air Program, the Water Program, and the Hazardous Waste Program, at least. In addition to that, OMSE will prepare a short, succinct, strategic plan for environmental results that will integrate the work that is prepared by the AA's, and that will add perspective on intermedia effects and other issues that wouldn't be covered in a presentation for a specific medium. It is possible to tie our budget guidance process, our budget decision making process, our operating year guidance, and all those other things into an integrated, coordinated whole. When I first came to EPA, I looked at documents which display how the Agency plans activities and allocates resources, and there were obviously two missing links. One is the front end planning and projecting into the future. The other is the back end, which is the accountability system. That is, how do we know we actually achieved those results? The accountability system has been developed. Now we need to move to the front end. And that may be the hardest task of all. But we will work on that. All of you know that we have to do this, because the Agency is changing. In all of our programs, such as Air and Water, we are taking on much more of a "stewardship" kind of role. It is not going to be our responsibility anymore to run programs on a project by project basis. That is not our role. We now have to be concerned with questions of oversight. And once we get into an oversight mode in those programs, that has great implications for enforcement and for abatement and control decisions, and obviously for how we work with the states. Environmental Status Reports We will be looking for short, succinct environmental status reports from the Regions, probably state by state, like Region 2 is doing right and an overall state-of-the environment summary of the entire Region. We will work with you to ensure that there is some consistency in approach and in what each Region presents, but if you have another way to report Regional status, and overall it is con- sistent with what other Regions are reporting, we will try not to inhibit your creativity, or get in the way of your describing best what is going on in your Region. 58 ------- We are not looking for a big tome. This is not a redraft of the Profiles effort, necessarily. But the Administrator does want a state-of-the-environment report from each Regional Administrator and my Office will work to integrate that report into an overall state-of-the-environment report for the nation as a whole. An Improved Resource Allocation Process In the area of resource allocation, my office will work with the Administrator, the Deputy Administrator and the Comptroller to improve the resource allocation process so that it more directly supports getting environmental results in the Regions and in Headquarters. We will work to try to find a way, if we can, to develop more incentives for program managers to manage for environmental results, where that can be shown. We want the workload model process to show a bit more flexibility than it does now. Improved Accountability Measures With respect to the accountability system, our objective here is not to load you down with yet more to report. What we will try to do is to replace those measures we have now that are basically "bean" and "widget" counting with better measures from the standpoint of environmental results. We will try to improve qualitatively, as opposed to quantitatively, the kinds of environmental results measures that are used in the accountability system. Those measures, of course are what your Regional Administrators and Assistant Administrators are being held accountable for to the Administrator. This will be possible in a number of places. For example, in the enforcemen; area while we may be starting out reporting numbers of cases, administrative orders, or compliance orders, we expect to move over time toward reporting compliance rates, which of course are the ultimate measure in this area. Pilot Program Evaluations In the area of program evaluations, we will identify one or two pilot projects that the Program Evaluation Division of OMSE and the quality assurance portion of the accountability system will work on which will high- light and display environmental results. Publications We also may initiate a series of publications that focus on current environmental results projects that are going on in the Agency that are particularly noteworthy and should be viewed by others in the Agency. Better Indicators Next, the question of indicators of environmental status and of environmental results. Over the short term, I suspect it is a case of cut and paste of making the best of what we have now. Obviously a long term task is to get better indicators of status and trends and better indicators of results. We will have to identify and fill the data gaps that exist. We will have to start with the true environmental indicators, the best surrogate indicators that we can find, and the "beans and widgets" we need to complete an environmental picture. We will initially need to use a combination of ambient data, pollution removal data, compliance data, and activity indicators (the "beans" and "widgets"). Gradually we want to move toward indicators that reflect the ultimate impact of pollution and Agency actions on people, wildlife, plants and the environment, but we know we don't have that information now. And so we must start where we can. Improved Monitoring Strategies and Resource Decisions Over the long term, we want to work with the program offices Air, Water, Solid and Hazardous Waste, etc. to improve monitoring strategies and monitoring networks. OMSE has acquired most of the functions of the old DAA Committee on Monitoring, which had responsibility for monitoring policy and monitoring decisions for the Agency. In addition, we hope to develop a strong relationship with the Environmental Services Division and Regional program division directors. We will also work directly with Courtney Riordan and his staff on improving quality assurance. One of our principal objectives working with Morgan Kinghorn and John Chamberlin, and others, will be to produce up-front analysis and reports on the status of our existing monitoring networks, so that the budget decisions that are going to be made for FY 1984 in this coming year, will be made on the basis of good knowledge of where we are now with regard to monitoring and where we want to go. Better Reports We will also need to develop more effective ways of reporting. And that too, is a long term task. We have created a constituency with this meeting for managing for environmental results in this agency. There were the last time I looked, about ten thousand people in EPA. We had about a hundred of you here today, and yesterday, and the day before, so one percent of the agency knows about what we plan encourage working towards environmental results right now. This is a small group, certainly, but as far as I am concerned, one percent is enough to create a critical mass, particularly when the Administrator* herself is on board. What we have talked about today in terms of long term tasks or even the short term tasks, isn't going to happen tomorrow, or next week, or even in a month or two. Don't go back to your Regions and expect that the world is going to be turned upside down for you in one or two months. It won't happen. We will have to proceed carefully, cautiously, with a healthy appreciation of the problems that are involved the problems that Fran Phillips articulated so well. We are going to follow the "KISS" principle of "keep it simple, stupid". We are going to move and do what we have to do slowly and carefully. But let's get out there and get the job done. 59 ------- Closing Remarks Speaker: Sherron Hiemstra, Chief Environmental Results Branch Office of Management Systems and Evaluation I would like to make three points. First, I would like to thank you for coming to and staying at the workshop. We appreciate that very much. We know how tight the travel budgets are both in the states and in the Regional offices, and had you not come, we wouldn't have had nearly so successful a group. Second, I would like to thank Lew for agreeing to be the moderator for the full three days and keeping everyone on track. For that he deserves a great deal of thanks from us, which I am sure he will extract in some way. Finally, I would like to say that you haven't seen the last of us. Please don't think that when you leave that will be it. All of those things that Lew listed that we are going to do are going to be done with you, with your participation and with your input. And the more participation the better, both in Regional offices and in Headquarters. I think the next thing that we want to do very early on, is going to be to go around to all the Headquarters offices and try to make the same kind of close contact with those offices that we have made with the Regional offices. In addition, we want to work closely with the states, and with other organizations and agencies that we can learn from. We made a conscious decision to have representatives of organizations here but not to invite a whole range of state representatives until we had a better idea of your interests and concerns in the area of environmental results. While we have certainly appreciated the participation of the state people who joined us, we have a lot of work with the states to do. We are going to be calling on you to help us identify people in your states with whom we should work. So, in closing, please keep in mind that you are going to hear more from us, and soon. You will be getting copies of the proceedings of the workshop along with the handouts that were made available here. Thank you for making this a very successful gathering. 61 ------- Appendix I Agenda Managing for Environmental Results Workshop Tuesday-Thursday May 25-27,1982 May 25 8:00-8:30 8:30-8:40 8:40-8:50 8:50-9:00 9:00-9:30 1:30-2:30 Coffee and Registration Managing for Environmental Results: What We Hope to Accomplish OPRM's Role in Managing for Environmental Results OMSE's Charge and Workshop Agenda OMB Perspective on Managing for Environmental Results Water Quality Introduction Lew Crampton Presentations oh Innovative Approaches 9:30-10:45 Overall Management Introduction Environmental Status Reports as the Basis for Negotiations with States Joint Environmental Planning with Each State 10:45-11:00 Break 11:00-12:00 Air Introduction Reviewing Appropriateness of Monitoring Sites and Non- Attainment Designations The Emission Inventory as the Key to Managing Air Quality Integrated Data Assessment for Problem Scoping and Targeting 12:00-1:30 Buffet Lunch Dr. John Hernandez Deputy Administrator Joseph A. Cannon Assistant Admin- istrator, OPRM Lew Crampton Director. OMSE Jim Tozzi, Deputy Administrator Information and Regulatory Manage- ment, OMB Lew Crampton Kevin Bricke/Joann Brennan/Dan Sullivan, Region II Jim Lehr Region VIII Lew Crampton Tom Holloway Region VII David Howekamp Region IX David Kee Region V 2:30-2:45 2:45-3:15 3:15-3:30 3:30-5:30 6:00-8:00 Comparing Ambient Data with State Jack Hoffbuhr/lrv Standards for Initial Problem Screening Using Ambient, Discharge, and Flow Data for Preliminary Deter- mination of Priorities Use of Biological Information for Water Quality Management Drinking Water Introduction Using Compliance Data to Target State Activities and Evaluate Effectiveness RCRA/Superfund Introduction Data and Information for Setting Priorities and Targeting Resources Break Dickstein/Tom Entzminger Region VIII Myron Knudson Region VI Lee Tebo Region IV Lew Crampton Myron Knudson Region VI Lew Crampton Harry Seraydarian Region IX Program Presentations (30 minutes each includes presenta- tion and brief questions and answer period) Water Quality/Drinking Water Air RCRA/Superfund/Emergency Response Toxics Social United Way South Room/ Ramada Inn Rebecca Hanmer, OW Paul Stolpman, OANR Rita Lavelle, OSWER Don Clay, OTS 62 ------- May 26 8:30-8:45 8:45-9:00 10:00-10:15 10:15-11:00 11:00-12:15 12:15-1:15 1:15-2:15 Coffee Introductory Remarks The Potential for Using Biological and Public Health Data To Characterize the Environment 9:00-10:00 Biological data Break Public health data What are EPA and State Roles in Managing for Environmental Results? Presentation of Issues Panel Discussion Who should be responsible for setting environmental priorities? Who should be responsible for whether desired results are achieved? How should we best work with the States to achieve environ- mental results? Buffet Lunch Introductory Panel on Planning, Resource Allocation, Ac- countability and Evaluation Planning Resource Allocation Accountability and Evaluation Lew Crampton Tom Murphy, Director, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon Jacob J. Feldman, Associate Director, Office of Analysis and Epidemiology Programs, National Center for Health Statistics Charge to the Workshops 2:15-2:30 Break 2:30-5:00 Simultaneous Workshops Discussing: How We Can Better Manage EPA Programs Using Environmental Information in Planning, Resource Allocation, and Accountability/Evaluation Availability of Environmental Information and Indicators. Adequacy of Ongoing Monitoring Activities to Provide Data. Adequacy of Data to Meet Program Management Needs. Use of Data for Planning, Resource Allocation, and Accountability/ Evaluation Concurrent Workgroups: 2:30-4:00 First Session: A. Water Quality Lew Crampton Chair: Jack Hoffbuhr Lew Crampton Panelists: Steve Schatzow, OW Bern Steigerwald, OAQPS David Gibbons, Chief Environmental Branch, OMB Gene Welsh, Chief, Water Protection Branch, Georgia Department of Natural Resources John R. Spencer, RA Region X 4:00-5:00 May 27 8:00-8:30 8:30-8:35 8:35-9:30 9:30-10:15 10:15-10:30 B. Air Second Session: A. RCRA/Super- fund B. Drinking Water Coffee Introductory Remarks Presentation of Workgroups Findings on: Water Quality Air MM RCRA/Superfund Drinking Water General Discussion of Workgroups Findings Break Chair: David Howekamp Chair: Stephen Wassersug, Chair: Myron Knudson Lew Crampton Designated Speakers Lew Crampton John Wise, Region IX John C. Chamberlin, OC/OPRM Billy Adams, Region IV Randy Smith, Region X Integrated Approaches to Environmental Assessments 10:30-11:00 Program Integration Project's Geographic Approach 11:00-11:30 Multimedia Assessment 11:30-12:00 Next Steps ADJORN Mike Alford Program Integration Project Gary Young NEIC Lew Crampton 63 ------- Appendix II List of Attendees Environmental Results Workshop Regions Region 1 Leslie Carothers Ed Coniey Paul Keough Region 2 Herb Barrack Joann Brennan Barbara Metzger Dan Sullivan Region 3 Peter Bibko Greene Jones Stan Laskowski Al Montague Steve Wassersug Region 4 Billy Adams John Eagles Michael Lev! Ron Raschke Region 5 Steve Goranson David Kee Beverlee Lawrence Shirley Mitchell William Sanders Region 6 Ken Kirkpatrick Myron Knudson Fran Phillips Region 7 Allan Abramson Billy Fairless Tom Holloway Rowena Michaels Gene Ramsey John Wicklund Region 8 Irv Dickstein Tom Entzminger Jack Hoffbuhr Jim Lehr Region 9 David Howekamp Michele Pla Sue Sakaki Harry Seraydarian John Wise Region 10 Bob Burd Gary O'Neal Alex Smith Randy Smith John Spencer Headquarters Office of the Administrator John Hernandez OPRM Mike Alford Ron Brand Samuel Bryant Kathleen Burke Peg Burney Joseph A. Cannon Jean Caufield John Chamberlin Joanne Clark Lori Cohen Lewis S.W. Crampton Bill Garetz Sherron Hiemstra Rena Kieval Joan La Rock Loretta Marzetti Tim Matzke Jim McCormick Charles W. Murray Alicia Rood James Sanderson Chris Scoby Cleora Scon Mark Tobey James Vickery Cheryl Wasserman John Wilson OA John Elliott Carol Finch Cynthia Puskar OLEC Michael Brown Colburn Churney Sanford Harvey John Lyon Jim Nelson Bill Peterson Kathy Summeriee Catherine Winer Gary Young ORD Elizabeth Anderson Donald Eh reth Marvin Fast William Lacy Robert McGaughy Tom Murphy William Rosenkranz Carl Shafer Herbert Quinn Sid Verner OW James Chamberly Rebecca Hanmer Arnold M. Kuzmack Fred Leutner Edmond Notzon Jim Plafkin Tim Stuart Peter Wise OANR Peter Cosier Bill Hunt Barbara Luden Howard Right Bernard J. Stiegerwald Paul Stolpman Robert Wright OPTS Joe Carra Don Clay A.E. Conroy Arne Edelman Ed Johnson Karen McCormack Jake McKenzie Judy Nelson Marsha Ramsey Paul Shapiro OSWER Truett DeGeare George Earland Bruce Englebert William Hedeman Barry Korb Rita Lavelle Gene Lucero Carol Schwab Outside EPA Office of Management and Budget Rob Fairweather Budget Examiner, Environment Branch Dave Gibbons Chief, Environment Branch Terry Grindstaff Budget Examiner, Environment Branch Jim Tozzi Deputy Administrator for Information and Regulatory Management General Accounting Office Clarence Seigler GAO Evaluator State Agencies Lyn Eichmiller Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators Leonard Ledbetter Director, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources Gene Welsh Chief, Water Protection Branch, Georgia Department of Natural Resources National Center for Health Statistics Jacob Feldman Associate Director, Office of Analysis and Epidemiology Programs Kate McGuire Chief, Environmental Studies Branch, Office of Analysis and Epidemiology Program Council on Environmental Quality Dinah Bear Deputy General Council Nancy Nord General Council 64 ------- List of Participants Water Quality Workgroup Allan Abramson Billy Adams Frank Andrews Rick Brandes Kathleen Burke Bob Burd Leslie Carothers Lori Cohen Edward Conley John Elliot Thomas Entzminger Billy Fairless Marvin Fast Carol Finch Sherry Hiemstra Jack Hoffbuhr Kenton Kirkpatrick Myron Knudson Arnold M. Kuzmack Joan La Rock Stanley L. Laskowski Robert E. McGaughy Barbara Mitzger Al Montague Beverlee Lawrence Michael H. Levi Loretta Marzetti Robert E. McGaughy Barbara Metzger Al Montague Tom Murphy Gary O'Neal Bill Peterson Michele Pla William A. Rosenkranz Carol Schwab Paul Shapiro Tim Stuart Daniel Sullivan Sid Verner Gene Welsh John Wise Air Workgroup Bill Garetz Steve Goranson Jim Hammerle Tom Holloway David Howekamp Bill Hunt Dave Kee Paul Keough Jim Lehr Tim Matzke Rowena Michaels Shirley Mitchell Gene Ramsey Cleora Scon Alex Smith Bern Steigerwald Richard J. Sullivan Jim Vickery Cheryl Wasserman Robert Wright RCRA/Superfund Workgroup Billy Adams Kathleen Burke Edward Conley Elizabeth Cotsworth Irv Dickstein John Eagles John Elliott Carol Finch Steve Goranson Sherry Hiemstra Tom Holloway Paul Keough Barry Korb Stanley L. Laskowski Jim Lehr Loretta Marzetti Robert McGaughy Jake McKenzie Rowena Michaels Barbara Metzger Albert Montague Tom Murphy Gary L O'Neal Fran Phillips Gene Ramsey William Sanders Harry Seraydarian Paul Shapiro Alex Smith Randy Smith Daniel Sullivan Richard Sullivan Sid Verner Jim Vickery Cheryl Wasserman Stephen Wassersug John Wilson John Wise Robert Wright Drinking Water Workgroup Allan Abramson Bob Burd Lori Cohen Thomas Entzminger Bill Garetz Jack Hoffbuhr Kenton Kirkpatrick Myron Knudson Arnold M. Kuzmack Beverlee Lawrence Michael H. Levi Tim Matzke Shirley Mitchell Michele Pla Gene B. Welsh 65 ------- Appendix III Accountability/Evaluation Measures by Billy Adams, Deputy Director Environmental Services Division Region 4 Accountability Clean Water (Fishable/ Swimmable Waters) Uniform WQS and Associated Criteria Comprehensive Basin Evaluations RCRA/Super- fund H.W. Clean-up H.W. Site Evaluations Development of Monitoring Strategy Evaluation Measure Percent of total miles of water bodies with fishable use classification or higher. Miles of major water bodies with fish and wildlife use classification or higher. Miles of major water bodies with use classification less than fish and wildlife. Number of states with current, acceptable WSQ. Number of revisions to WQS. Number of states with comparable use classifications with associated criteria. Miles of WQ limited stream segments. Number of WLAs/TMDLs completed for each basin. Number of revisions necessary to update ambient WQ monitoring program. Number of wastewater treatment plants with acceptable plant performance. Number major POTWs constructed with Federal funds providing secondary treatment or better. Miles of major water bodies affected by discharges from industrial facilities. Miles of major water bodies effected by discharges from POTWs. Number of major non-point sources causing WQ degradation. Miles of stream segments affected by non-point discharges. Number of waste landfills contributing to WQ degradation. Percent of hazardous waste landfills under a management control plan. Number of sites for primary/ secondary evaluations. Number of hazardous sites with groundwater contamination potential. Number of hazardous waste sites causing WQ degradation. Transportation and fate of toxic pollutants Air-Evaluation of acid rain problems Number of pollutants evaluated. Percent of U.S. affected by acid rain. Number of acid rain monitoring systems established. Number of lakes with aquatic life significantly effected by acid rain deposition/runoff. 66 ------- Appendix IV List of Questions Considered by Workgroups The participants in each workgroup at the workshop on managing for environmental results were asked to discuss, for each program, and make recommenda- tions on the following questions: whether management systems are currently in place to allow the Agency to manage for environmental results and, if not, whether changes in the systems should be madei.e., in each program area, what are the tools available or needed: to define environmental goals for clean-up or prevention of degradation in specific geographic areas; to translate these goals into short and long- term objectives that achieve environmental results; to allocate resources to those activities that will have the greatest environmental results; to select indicators to track progress and/or success in meeting these objectives; to use the indicators to periodically evaluate the programs' progress/success in meeting these objectives; and to redirect program activities if necessary. whether the Agency has the data it needs to manage for environmental results in the program; are current monitoring activities in the program sufficient to obtain the data that will provide the best information on environmental status and on environmental results? what significant data gaps are there? What other problems are there with data collection and* analysis in the program? What the best indicators of environmental status are for the particular medium. what additional work is needed to develop these indicators? what the best indicators of environmental results are for the particular medium. how and by whom information from data collection and analysis should be reported. written/printed reports, oral presenations, or both? individual program reports or centralized report? by state, by Region, or nationwide? 67 ------- Appendix V Briefing Package: Environmental Results Workshop Contents Ramada Inn Alexandria, Virginia May 25-27, 1982 Environmental Results Branch Office of Management Systems and Evaluation Environmental Protection Agency May 17, 1982 Introduction Purpose of the workshop What's in the package " OMSE's Next Steps Managing for Environmental Results: Current Regional Activities, Issues and Proposals Overall Management Air Quality Water Quality Drinking Water RCRA Superfund Each of these sections is divided into the following areas for discussion: Current Regional Activities A. Planning B. Technical Decision-Making C. Resource Allocation D. Evaluation E. Accountability Issues Proposals 68 ------- Introduction This package presents background material that was distributed prior to the Environmental Results Workshop that was held May 25, 26 and 27, 1982. Purpose of the Workshop The Environmental Results Workshop is designed so that senior managers: will be more aware of what tools have already been developed throughout the Agency to manage for environmental results; will jointly identify further opportunities to focus Agency efforts on environmental results; and, will develop a consensus on what direction the Agency should now take to further manage for environmental results. What This Package Provides The Office of Management Systems and Evaluation laid the groundwork for the Workshop by soliciting ideas and proposals from senior managers on how the Agency should move toward managing for environmental results and by visiting each of EPA's Regional offices to identify current activities to use environmental data for program manage- ment. This package highlights the current activities, issues, and proposals included in the responses to our inquiry and that Regional staff raised during our visits. The package contains: a description of currrent Regional efforts to use environmental data for overall management of their programs and and a summary of related issues and proposals; and an individual program section for Air, Water, Drinking Water, RCRA, and Superfund that describes current Regional activities to manage for environmental results in each program, identify specific issues regarding use of data in the program, and present Headquarters and Regional managers' proposals for better incorporating environmental data into management of each program. In each of these sections, the material on current activities is organized according to the major program management functions of the Agency planning, resource allocation, technical decision making, accountability and evaluation. We grouped the activities in this way to help identify particular aspects of Agency and program management that need to be strengthened. We have been impressed both with the extent of the efforts already under way to manage for environmental results and with the support we have received. We have found that while environmental data have been used in the planning phase of many programs, the data are used to a lesser degree for accountability and evaluation. And because of the nature of the budget process, environmental data have not been used to allocate resources among Regions based on the nature and extent of the environmental programs needed in each Region. Obviously, we were not able to include in this package every idea or activity that we encountered, but we hope at least to begin the exchange of information to set the general direction for the discussions at the workshop, and to uncover additional activities and ideas. OMSE Activities After the Workshop The Environmental Results Branch will serve as a focal point for promoting environmental results activities within the Agency. In this capacity, after the Environmental Results Workshop, the Branch will follow up with Headquarters program offices, the Regions, and the States on activities identified in the workshop that would contribute to the Agency's ability to manage for environmental results. Some of the activities we may pursue are: Working with the program and Regional offices to identify the best indicators for assessing environmental status and environmental results; working with the program and Regional offices to coordinate the preparation of Environmental Status Reports for FY '82; working with the Office of the Comptroller to determine how environmental status and trends can best be incorporated into the budget process; working with the OMSE Accountability Branch to develop goals, objectives, and measures for the Administrator's Accountability System to track environmental results; and providing support to Agency efforts to improve collection and analysis of environmental data. 69 ------- Overall Management Activities, Issues, and Proposals to Manage for Environmental Results This section identifies current Regional activities to manage all of the Region's activities with an environmental perspective, and presents those issues and proposals Headquarters and Regional managers made regarding overall management of the Agency and its programs from an environmental results perspective. These activities, issues and proposals were identified during ERB's Regional visits and in the responses to OMSE's request for ideas on managing for environmental results. Current Regional Activities Planning Regions use State-EPA agreements to highlight and set environmental priorities. Region 8 sets SEA priorities using environmental data. This has been most successful in the Water Program, where the ESD has developed an analytical methodology for using ambient water monitoring data to identify stream segments that are possible problems and to assign initial priorities among them. Region 2 develops an environmental status report (ESR) for each state. The ESR identifies environmental problems and then uses that information as the basis for State/EPA Agreements. The Region prepared two ESRs and expects all the states in the Region to prepare them in the future. The ESRs at this time are more of a narrative than a graphic presentation, but the Region intends to move to the use of more graphics and less narrative in future reports. Region 10 uses SEAs as mutual performance agreements based on a negotiated list of 25 problems in each state. The Region has requested that each state prepare an environmental assessment as a precursor to the SEA development process this year. Some Regional planning systems focus on long-term environmental objectives. Region 10 has instituted a system to identify long term (3-5 year) environmental goals with specific one year objectives and to track progress on those goals. The goals and objectives are revised annually; activities are tracked quarterly. The objectives of the tracking system are explicitly put in managers' performance agreements. The basic cycle for the Region 10 system is as follows: A retreat for senior managers is held each October to review long-term environmental goals (e.g., all areas in attainment in three years); these goals are usually couched in the language of environmental problems. Individual prog'rams develop short-term objectives or "administrative targets" that they believe will allow them to meet the long-term goals. These are tracked quarterly. The goals are also used in the SEA negotiations for the coming year (10 months in the future). The system is evolving. Region 10 staff ultimately want to move to yearly objectives more directly linked to environmental results, such as ambient quality or intermediate measures of ambient quality (e.g., polluter compliance levels). Regional Operating plans will be used to focus on environmental results. Region 10 is experimenting with drafting the highlight statements for each program's operating plan in the language of environmental results. The purpose is to add specific environmental objectives into the plan. As a pilot, two or three programs in the Region have developed results- oriented highlights for the FY '83 operating plans. The highlights will refer to goals and objectives in the Region's tracking system and to items identified by the Administrator. Development of a Regional strategy for environmental planning. Senior staff in Region 5 met recently to discuss how to incorporate an environmental results focus into the planning of Regional program activities. The Regional Administrator established an environmental planning committee consisting of representatives of each program office in the Region to develop a strategy for environmental planning in FY'83. Media coordinating committees are set up to develop workplans based on the priorities in the stragegy. Coordination of Regional ambient monitoring activities. In December, Region 2 completed an internal study on "The Use of Ambient Monitoring Data in Regional Decision-Making." This report made several recommenda- tions that are now being implemented. These recom- mendations include the establishment of a Monitoring Management Branch to better coordinate ambient monitoring activities and to improve the quality of monitoring data. Initiation of a pilot geographic approach to an integrated assessment of toxics problems. Region 3 participated in a pilot study that EPA headquarters conducted of the toxics problems in the Kanawha Valley of West Virginia, particularly in the City of Charleston, West Virginia. Region 3 participated in identifying sources discharging to the area, modelling the discharge from these sources, and assessing the impacts of different ways to control for toxics problems. Development of an Enforcement Strategy to Focus on Cases with Greatest Potential forlEnvironmental Results Region 2 is developing an enforcement referral strategy to focus on cases which would result in the greatest public health and environmental benefits. This effort applies to all enforcement activities within the Region. Technical Decision-Making Development of multimedia data bases. Region 2 is working to integrate two data systems, the Facilities Index System (FINDS) and the Region's environmental mapping system (MAPS) so that the 70 ------- integrated data base can be better used for a variety of decisions, including design of monitoring programs and targeting of enforcement actions. The ESD in Region 10 has been working for two years on a multimedia data base which, when completed, will integrate all available environmental, demographic, industrial facility, and chemical process information and display it by geographic area. The effort was initiated in order to set up a toxic priority pollutant monitoring system for (surface) waters. In the last year, the focus was broadened from toxics to include a multimedia assessment of water quality data. Region 10 staff are currently working on a joint project with Oregon to develop an operational multimedia data base. The project will pull together ambient data, source data, and biomonitoring data, as well as narrative descriptions of water quality from the literature and from field investigation. Evaluating the Use of Environmental Indicators. The ESD in Region 2, 4, and 6 have formed a task force to evaluate the use of environmental indicators as measures of management effectiveness. Accountability/ Evaluation Review of priority areas Region 4 is preparing reports on changes which have occurred in priority areas which were intensively surveyed in 1972. One Regional staff person is going back through state files to compare pollution levels in 1972 to current levels. One report on the Birmingham, Alabama area has been drafted so far. Region 3 would like to collect samples from the Monongahela River to compare new data with the data collected in the priority basin study in 1972-1973 but has very few resources for this effort. Development of a Regional Accountability System Region 7 The Regional Administrator in Region 7 has asked the Planning and Management Division to design an evaluation/accountability system to evaluate EPA and state progess in improving environmental quality as a means of getting beyond "bean-counting". To develop the system, the Division has asked the states what measures are appropriate to judge the success of environmental control programs. One of the states' major suggestions was to have joint State/EPA audit teams conduct program audits of the Region's as well as the States' performance. Publication of annual environmental quality reports Region 1 publishes a "Regional Administrator's Annual Report: Environmental Quality in New England" at the end of each calendar year. The report is a narrative summary of Regional activities in every EPA program with some graphics to display the status of the enviornment by media. Major problems are also identified. The report is primarily intended as a public information document, but is also useful for the Region as a mechanism to force the programs to collect and assemble data and to demonstrate results from year to year. Overall Management Issues During ERB's Regional visits and in the responses to OMSE's request for ideas and proposals on managing for environmental results, EPA managers raised a number of issues that they felt need to be resolved as part of the Agency's effort to manage for environmental results. How Can We Resolve the Apparent Conflict between Environmental Results and Other Agency Policies? Managing for environmental results was perceived to be a policy that conflicts with several other priorities of the Administrator. Delegation to the States. Once a program is delegated, how can EPA promote managing for environmental results? Who will be ultimately held accountable for environmental results? What is the role of EPA vs. the States? Reductions in monitoring resources. Managing for environmental results depends on data of adequate quality and such data is often expensive to obtain. State agencies conduct most of the ambient monitoring required by EPA, and EPA funds a substantial part of the state monitoring programs through grant funds. Because state grant funds are being reduced, states are cutting their expenditures for monitoring activities. EPA has not provided guidance as to what monitoring should be continued. EPA has also made cuts in Headquarters expenditures for monitoring activities. Headquarters and Regional staff felt that in some cases these cuts were made arbitrarily, and without a careful look at what data we actually need. Reduced Reporting Requirements. Can we maintain a a policy of reducing the reporting burden on the states and at the same time expect to get environmental information we need to manage for environmental results? Making State-EPA Agreements Voluntary. Those Regions that have made progress in managing for ER have tended to rely very heavily on the SEA process as the principal method for planning and tracking progress to correct agreed-upon environmental problems. Can the Regions as effectively use this mechanism to promote managing for ER now that the SEA process is voluntary? There Is Too Little Long-Term Planning. The Agency and individual programs lack an Agency-wide planning process to identify major environmental problems and trends, describe long range plans to deal with them, and establish near term objectives (1 -2 years) by which senior managers' performance can be tracked. Regions reported that they can not planthat they are forced to do "fire fighting," responding to problems on an ad hoc basis. Administrator's Accountability System (AAS) Focuses on Numerical Quotas, Not the Environmental Impact of Activities. Both Regional and Headquarters staff were concerned that the AAS currently reports against numbers of activities completed without taking into consideration that some activities may take longer and be more difficult but, if completed, will have greater environmental impact than easier activities. They urged that somehow the AAS be modified wherever possible to reflect the environmental importance of the activities tracked. 71 ------- An example of how this might be done was provided for the SIP process. One Region suggested that reports on the completion of SIPs should give some weight to their impact on the environmentthat SIPs that would have the greatest environmental impact should get priority attention when backlogs were being reduced, etc. Regional staff said that the way the accountability system is now designed, it encourages the completion of the easiest SIPs first in order to make a numerical quota. This concern also applied to other program activities. Programs Are Not Evaluated Against their Environmental Results. Headquarters and Regional staff indicated that the Agency does not routinely evaluate the environmental success of its programs, and that we need to develop agreed-upon indicators of environmental success and then evaluate our programs against them. One problem in doing this that was raised was that environmental results often take a long time to show up. Environmental Results Must Include Preventing Environmental Degradation. Definition and assessment of "environmental results" must not only take into account pollution abatement, but also consider how successfully EPA prevents environmental degradation and maintains current environmental quality where it is already good. We Need to Increase the Credibility of EPA's Technical and Scientific Knowledge. Managing for environmental results largely depends upon the credibility of the Agency's technical and scientific knowledge. If the public doesn't trust EPA's technical competence to determine that a given problem presents little risk, and therefore warrants a low priority, EPA will have trouble getting public acceptance of its priorities. Problems with Data Systems Foil Managing for Environmental Results. The Agency's systems for storing data have a number of problems that hinder their capability to provide timely data for environmental results management. We need to create incentives for states to put data into our.data systems, and to put the data in a timely way. This is particularly true of the STORET system, which some states do not use at all. There is a need for better procedures for generating and transmitting data in order to decrease the delay from data collection to input into ADP systems. There are too many independently managed data systems. As a result, data frequently can not be integrated and interpretation of the complete range of data available to us is difficult. Surrogate indicators do have value. Senior staff in a number of Regions urged that the Agency not totally abandon existing surrogate indicators of program progress in favor of dependence solely on ambient measures of environmental status and improvement. They feel that many surrogates are appropriate and useful although they do have to be used in combination with more direct measures of environmental quality. Data Interpretation Is Tricky. Environmental monitoring data must be carefully interpreted. In the Water program, for instance, information about the location of the fixed station monitors must be considered so that naturally occurring conditions are not misinterpreted as being controllable pollution and expensive treatment plants are not built unnecessarily. ERB staff were also cautioned not to try to integrate data from every study that has ever been done to get a picture of environmental status. Regional staff pointed out that one-time studies done for specific purposes can not be used wholesale to draw general conclusions about the entire country. EPA Must Know How To Interpret Information to the Public and Be Prepared to Commit Resources to Solve Problems Once We Identify Them. EPA is increasingly in the business of going into a geographic area to determine what pollutants are present and whether there is an imminent danger to the public. In many instances, we find the presence of substances that we know are hazardous in certain quantities, but that we have no present standards for. We do not know what their presence at that concentration means from a public health or environmental standpoint. What do we tell the public when we know there are concentrations of chemicals but do not know what harm they may cause? The Regions raised this issue to highlight that, in trying to document environmental status, we need to be extremely careful not to unnecessarily alarm the public, and that, when we do go into an area, we must be willing to follow up on any problems that we do identify. The Budget Planning Process Does Not Explicitly Consider Environmental Problems and Allocate Resources on that Basis. Regional staff consistently raised the concern that the budget process does not currently look specifically at what environmental problems exist in the states in each Region and allocate resources based on those problems. They said that we currently allocate resources on the basis of historical patterns rather than actual environmental problems. » Once Regions have their Regional allotment of resources, they say that they have little flexibility to allocate resources to the real environmental problems in their Regions because National Program Managers expect them to allocate their resources to activities in accordance with the workload models. Federal Budget Development is Out of Phase with State Planning The State budget is set before Regional targets (State fiscal years begin in July) and the Regional targets are therefore too late for use in Regional negotiation of State problem priority and resource commitments. 72 ------- Proposals for Managing the Agency for Environmental Results Planning Each RA should be accountable to the Administrator for reporting environmental problems and anticipated and actual environmental results. Managing for environmental results will work best when each Regional Administrator and Assistant Administrator is held accountable to the Administrator for reporting to her on their existing environmental problems, what they plan to do to correct them, and the extent of the improvement in environmental quality achieved. Such reporting could be included in their performance appraisals and be tracked in the accountability system. To implement this system, the RAs and AAs would meet with the Administrator to describe the expected environmental results from specific proposals and to evaluate the previous year's commitments and achievements (or lack of achieve- ments). (Region 10) Revive the concept of "Media Strategies" These strategies, which the Agency used in 1974, would be developed by National Program Managers to identify major environmental problems, to describe their long range plans (10-20 years), and to establish short-term (1 -2 year) objectives which would be tracked. Previous attempts got too long and bogged down in detail, but if the strategies were strictly controlled they would provide a mechanism for relating performance measures with environmental goals. (OAQPS) Use the Evaluation Planning Mechanism to manage for environmental results (Standards and Regulations Division, OPRM) The Office of Standards and Regulations developed an Evaluation Planning System to lay out a strategy for collecting information about the manner of implementation and the effects of newly issued regulations. This method could be adapted to program planning. The method lays out: 1. the program logici.e., its assumptions and expections. 2. a plan which can be used for evaluating success (or results), i.e., the degree to which expectations are fulfilled and, 3. indicators for possible inclusion in the Administrator's Acountability System. Rely on source data as well as ambient and ultimate impact data to evaluate environmental status. Source data can indicate when a facility is out of compliance (i.e., polluting the environment beyond its allowable level) and can be used for ranking facilities in accordance with problem priorities. Activities such as inspections, development of some monitoring strategies and technical assistance would be performed with the intent of bringing existing facilities back in compliance. The environmental results attributed to their compliance status could be modelled and subsequently used as a measure in determining a program manager's performance. (OANR) Prepare Two Volumes of National Profiles. If national profiles are prepared again, one Region recommended that we prepare two documents. The first would be a graphic summary of environmental quality and trends for public distribution. The second would be a technical description of the data and method used to prepare the first document. This would be useful for managers. (Region 5) Resource Allocation The agency should focus on activities with the greatest environmental impact. For example, for those activities which yield low-level, indirect environmental results, often called "program results", the Agency can: apply decision methods (such as benefit cost analysis, risk assessment, and cost effectiveness studies) to specify the level of results appropriate to those activities. redirect program management toward higher level results through budget and policy guidance. "Lock-in" policy decisions regarding acceptable levels of results by lowering funding priority of low-result program activities during the budget formulation process. We can also assign a "discount" factor to the pricing of these activities in the workload models. Activities with more demonstrable and immediate environmental results would thus be more heavily weighted and would receive a higher percentage of requested resources than other activities. (Region 8) Technical Decision-making Existing data systems could be used to design monitoring programs and to target enforcement actions. The Agency should integrate FINDS (Facility Index System) and MAPS (Environmental Mapping System) two general purpose software packages developed by Region 2 to use existing ambient source and permit data to track ambient problems back to likely sources, to identify potential "hot spots" and to target compliance efforts to sources in the most significant geographical problem areas. (Region 2) Accountability As appropriate objectives and measures of "environ- mental results" are developed for each program, they should be added to and tracked as part of the Administrator's Accountability System. Evaluation "Success stories" were recommended as a way to demonstrate environmental improvements. Regions would submit success stories when they had events to report such as beach re-openings, shellfish harvesting returning to an area, or a once-polluted river being able to once again maintain a fish population. One Regional manager recommended that we look at the indicators that groups like the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation use, and use those as our indicators of environmental status and results. 73 ------- Air Quality Managing for Environmental Results: Current Activities, Issues, and Proposals The Air program is, by statute, oriented towards managing for environmental results. The program uses ambient air monitoring data to designate geographic areas as in attainment or not in attainment with air quality standards. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are the principal planning tool required by the Clean Air Act for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of air quality standards. In SIPs, states provide strategies for bringing geographic areas that do not meet ambient air quality goals into compliance with air quality standards by 1982 and for keeping them in attainment after that time. As part of their SIPs states are to indicate how they plan to to make reasonable further progress towards attaining air quality standards in areas where they are not currently meeting the standards. SIPs are also to show how states plan to prevent the significant deterioration of air quality in areas which are cleaner than the ambient air quality standards require. Other parts of the Air program, while they do not use ambient air quality as directly, nonetheless are tied to long- term ambient improvements. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) have as their long-term goal the establishment of a national base of industries with good pollution controls, thus minimizing future air pollution problems. In the short term, NSPS provide a minimum national standard which allows State and local governments to protect their environment without fear of losing industry and jobs to states with more lenient environmental standards. In addition, EPA sets NSPS priorities according to the quantity of pollution emitted by candidate source categories and the extent to which such pollution may reasonably be expected to endanger public health. ERB staff found that in some Regions, air data are used not only to designate non-attainment areas, but also to set priorities among non-attainment areas and to identify monitoring needs. The extent to which each Region uses environmental data to set priorities and to identify monitoring needs varies. A few Regions are calling upon the States to give them Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) reports toward showing how they plan to attain air quality standards in non-attainment areas and what improvements they have made. In our visits we found general agreement among the Regions that emissions data can be used to evaluate short term progress and ambient data can be used to determine trends and long term progress. We also identified a number of current environmental results-related activities in the Air program. Highlights of these activities are presented below. Current Regional Activities Managing for Environmental Results This section discusses the Regions' current use of monitoring data for program management. We have current activities in this Section around the major management activities they support planning, technical decision-making, resource allocation, and accountability and evaluation. We summarize only the activities that were highlighted during the initial inquiry conducted by the Environmental Results Branch; there may be other efforts under way that we are not aware of. Planning Regions use air data to set Air program priorities in SEAs. Regions use air quality data to negotiate specific Air program priorities as part of their SEAs. (Regions 8, 9, 10). Several other Regions use the SEAs as more general agreements or for highlighting multimedia problems. At the annual senior managers' retreat in Region 10, long term (3-5 year) priority goals are set and then incorporated into the SEA negotiations. States also provide a list of key problems to be negotiated for inclusion in SEAs. Based on the agreements in the SEA, each division then sets one year objectives for its operating plan. Ambient data are used to identify serious non-attainment areas that may require specialized control strategies or additional resources. Region 5's Air Division has initiated a comprehensive study of pollution in several major non-attainment areas. The first (to be completed Spring '82) is a study of TSP in Detroit. The goals of the study are: 1) to develop a systematic way to compile and present data from all available sources, including population data, ambient information, source information, and enforcement actions, in order to better define problems on a geographic basis; 2) to determine the relative contribution of dischargers and other factors (e.g. plant closings) to the decreasing TSP trends; and 3) to develop revised program and enforcement strategies where called for. Regions are developing control strategies to target resources where they are most likely to achieve further environmental results. Region 9 staff are working with the states in their Region to focus on reducing ozone levels because, in Region 9, ozone is the pollutant that exceeds the standard by the greatest margin and affects the largest number of people. In contrast, they have found that SO2 and NO2 problems are very localized and that CO can only be corrected through car emission controls and inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. Regions are beginning to plan control strategies for for non-criteria (i.e., air toxics) pollutants. Region 3 is supporting the City of Philadelphia's plan to assess the extent of the air toxics problem and define an appropriate control strategy. Region 1 is forming an air toxics workgroup of EPA and state officials to assess state activities, to identify additional actions needed, and to define EPA/state roles. Technical Decision-Making Some Regions are improving the presentation of air data in their Air Quality Reports so that it is more useful to program managers for decision making. Most Regions prepare air quality status and/or trends reports. The reports differ substantially in purpose. 74 ------- frequency, and content. The reports are used for different purposes in different Regions. In ERB visits, Regional staff identified the following uses for the reports: 1) Showing location of ambient air monitors and evaluating appropriateness of current monitoring locations. 2) Indicating air quality trends for criteria pollutants; numerical quantification of the extent of changes indication of "up or down" trends 3) Indicating violations; source ambient 4) Evaluating the size of populations affected by violations; 5) Ranking problem areas; 6) Evaluating need for changes in attainment designations. designations. The most significant developments ERB staff identified for using Air Quality Reports to help managers use the information they contain are: Computer mapping and graphics capability in Region 9. Among the graphics Region 9 staff produce are: 1) Three dimensional state maps which plot air quality at each monitor location. 2) Graphs indicating the number of days above NAAQS alert levels and the population of the affected area. Monitoring Activity Coordination (MAC) Reports in Region 7 that identify what monitoring is being done in each State. These reports contain: 1) A map showing the location of current monitoring stations overlaid with maps showing population density and emission density. This gives the Region a basis for determing if presently unmonitored areas should be monitored for standards violations. 2) A map showing the violation status of monitored areas. Using this information, the Region can review siting of monitors in areas that meet the standards, and decide whether to discontinue monitoring at those sites, or move monitors to another site. 3) A map showing current non-attainment areas is overlaid with a map showing areas where current standards violations are occurring. The Region uses this information to evaluate whether geographic areas currently designated as non-attainment areas are consistent with current violations data. The Region 5 ESD has developed computer packages to map an integrated picture of ambient air and emissions data and to summarize ambient air quality status and trends. The computer program the ESD has developed ranks air quality in counties based on: population, point and area emissions by pollutant, the number of violations, current attainment status, and source compliance. In some Regions a strong working relationship between between the Air Division and the Environmental Services Division promotes use of data for decision-making. The Air Coordinating Committee in Region 7 meets monthly and is chaired by the Air Program Branch Chief. Members include staff from ESD, Air Compliance Branch, and Planning and Management Branch. The Committee plays a key role in setting air program priorities and making key Air program decisions. In this way ESD can develop data analysis to meet decision makers' needs. For example, at the request of the Air Branch, ESD did a careful validation of the monitoring data for Kansas City and discovered errors on the high side. As a result a much less stringent SIP was possible. In Region 3, close cooperation between the Air Program Branch Chief in Air and Waste Management Division and the Air Branch Chief in ESD has resulted in identification of major problems due to local anomalies near the monitors that produced the original "'design values" for three non-attainment areas. Much less stringent SIPS are now appropriate. Collection of ambient air data are accompanied by stringent quality assurance requirements. There is strong agreement in all Regions that since the National Air Monitoring System (NAMS) and State and Local Air Monitoring Systems (SLAMS) criteria were established, the air monitoring data are of much higher quality; except for limitations due to the strong influences of meteorology and the limited number of stations, the data do provide a good assessment of air quality against air quality standards. The Regions said this improved quality is is in part because, in the Air program, quality assurance is required by regulation. Resource Allocation Limit Monitoring to Critical Months Redirect the the Resources Saved Region 7 has worked closely with its states to make extensive use of program guidance that allows monitoring to be limited to critical peak months in which violations have historically occurred. The Region is working with states (particularly Kansas) to cut back monitoring for ozone and CO to these peak months to eliminate unnecessary monitoring expenditures. Saved resources are being re-directed to other monitoring in other critical areas. Accountability and Evaluation To evaluate air pollution control strategies, ERB staff found general agreement in the Regions that: Emissions data should be used for evaluation of short- term progress. Ambient data should be used to determine current status and verify long-term trends. Two Regions reported working closely with States to use emissions data to track short term progress of SIPs through Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Reports. RFPs in Region 7 are prepared annually by each state. They include: 1) a list of point source and area source emissions for each criteria pollutant, and 2) graphic analyses of emissions reductions projected in SIPs and actual emissions reductions. State reports vary in quality; Region 7 is working with each state to update emissions inventories to get as accurate data as possible. 75 ------- Region 9 plans to develop RFP tracking as its principal tool for managing the air program. The Region is taking that approach to ensure: (1) that state efforts to develop new rules continue to focus on classes of sources that have the greatest potential for achieving emission reductions; and (2) that emissions reductions projected at the time that a new rule is adopted are actually achieved. Where field observations of the state program indicate that the projected reduction is not being achieved, EPA will work with the state to upgrade the effectiveness of state compliance efforts (e.g., through better training of state inspectors). Where efforts to improve the compliance with a current rule are ineffective, the Region will work with the state to develop a new, more enforceable rule for that class of sources. Air Issues The issues below were raised by Headquarters and Regional managers in their responses to OMSE's request for ideas on managing for environmental results and by Regional staff during ERB's visits. What indicators best assess short term progress in improving air quality? Can methods to correct ambient data for year-to-year meterological variances be developed? What indicators best assess the effectiveness of efforts to improve air quality over the long term? How frequently should Regions update attainment and non-attainment designations based on current ambient and emissions data? Can we further reduce the number of monitoring sites or change their location without jeopardizing the usefulness of the data? How can EPA demonstrate environmental results in air toxics given that there are no historical data, no general agreement on what pollutants are of concern, no accepted sampling techniques, and no strategy or systematic approach for addressing these pollutants? Should Regions be given greater flexibility to allocate their resources in the Air program and focus on their particular environmental priorities even when their decisions may not conform to national procedural requirements? For example, will Region 7 be able to divert resources from processing the Iowa SO2 SIP since SO2 is not a problem in Iowa, Iowa SO2 emissions do not contribute significantly to national long-range transport totals, and the SIP processing will be very staff intensive for the Region? Should EPA review what pollutants we are not successfully controlling and then consider shifting resources now going to those pollutants to other areas? For example, even with the implementation of various control strategies, there has been little or no reduction in ambient ozone levels and many areas remain in non- attainment. Would the funds used to pursue environmental results for ozone (i.e., reduced levels) be better spent on other pollutants? Without the current level of activity on , ozone, would VOC emissions and ozone levels be likely to increase significantly? Should analysis of risk and compliance cost be required for both criteria and "hazardous" pollutants so that the Agency could determine which could be most easily controlled and result in the greatest reduction of risk? States have been responsible for collecting emission inventories for many years but the quality of most of the inventories is questionable. What would be required to achieve adequate emission inventories to track environmental results? Proposals The following proposals were offered in response to OMSE's request or were mentioned by Regional staff during ERB's visits. Indicators to measure environmental results in Air: Select priority areas for quarterly trends reports based on ambient data; at least 5 years of data would be necessary to develop a reliable assessment of trends (Region 1). Publish an annual report on the number and size of non-attainment areas (Regions 1 and 4). Report the number of SLAMS and NAMS not in violation (Region 2). Report the number of AQCRs in attainment (Region 2). Report the number of stationary sources in compliance (Region 2.) Track Air Quality using Ambient Data and Emission Modelling (Region 8). EPA is not systematically tracking the most direct measures of effectiveness in the air program ambient air quality and changes in total emissions for specific non-attainment areas. Region 8 staff proposed that: To assess progress in specific non-attainment areas in the short term, EPA could track changes in total emissions for that area but regular reports from major sources would be required. Some states already collect this information. Colorado uses Air Contaminant Emissions Notices (ACEN) from major sources. Ambient data could be used to verify progress over the long term. Revamp the System of Incentives and Sanctions (OANR). Most incentives now are for-'hnstallation of equipment; there are few incentives for proper operation and maintenance or for compliance with emissions limits. Effluent charges could stimulate greater efforts to reduce emissions. As with municipal sewer charges, a regular notice or bill would encourage reduction. 76 ------- Water Quality Managing for Environmental Results, Current Activities, Issues and Proposals Headquarters The Office of Water developed and implemented a Water Quality Management and Evaluation (WQM) System in FY 82 that provides an integrated view of the entire Federal and state water quality management program. The system will be expanded in FY 83 to include Drinking Water. The system will then cover all programs in the Office of Water. One of the key objectives of the WQM System is to show environmental results. The WQM System highlights the importance of managing for environmental results in two ways. First, environmental results-related activities are included in the goals, objectives and priorities by which Regional offices are annually evaluated. For instance, specific evaluation measures will focus on: Improvement of 305(b) reports to encourage states to use the reports as a management tool for setting water quality priorities to focus on: 1) water bodies with the greatest water quality problems in terms of impaired water uses, 2) water bodies having a high existing or potential economic or social value, and 3) water bodies with problems such that the greatest margin of environmental protection can be provided for the resources expended. Implementation of the revised water quality standards regulations to encourage states to rely more heavily on biological data and local environmental data for establishing water quality criteria and standards and to evaluate existing stream use designations and the extent of current use impairment. Development of updated permit strategies to issue permits and work with states to issue permits to facilities discharging to areas where water impairment exists or is suspected. Tracking effectiveness of POTWs to complete "before and after studies" to analyze water quality improvements from funded projects. Development of monitoring strategies to assist states in designing monitoring systems to collect information in order 1) to identify priority water bodies, 2) to collect data to make standards and TMDL decisions, and 3) to establish cooperative sampling and analysis programs with local, state, and Federal participants. Second, the WQM System includes Case Studies prepared by the Regions as part of their annual review. The Case Studies delineate how a Region manages its programs to solve specific water quality problems in a specific geographic location. In undertaking all of these activities, the Office of Water is moving towards relying on biological data for assessing water quality. The Aquatic Life Survey, which is being conducted by EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, is the first national effort of this kind. In addition, the Office of Water is preparing an FY 83 Operating Year Guidance and Accountability System. The guidance will articulate several national directions that will require or encourage Regions and states to undertake activities that will emphasize consideration of environmental results in program decision-making. Regions In OMSE's inquiry to the Regional offices to determine how the Regions use environmental data to manage for environmental results, we found that in a number of Regions, there have been substantial efforts to improve environmental data and to use the data as the basis for water program planning. Environmental data are most often used for indicating which stream segments are potential problems. The systems developed thus far rely primarily on ambient data from fixed monitoring stations. Since the new thrust from HQ is to incorporate biological data into water quality decisions, it is likely that the Regional planning efforts discussed in this section will be revised to give less emphasis to fixed station data and more to incorporating biological data where possible. Nevertheless, these systems do provide formal procedures by which Regions are identifying potential problem areas. Regions are working to improve their technical decision- making capability through development of biomonitoring programs and evaluation of their monitoring needs. We also found that a few Regions have begun to evaluate state water quality programs. These activities are discussed in the following section. Current Regional Activities Managing for Environmental Results This section discusses Regions' current use of monitoring data for program management. We have grouped activities in this section around the major management activities they supportplanning, technical decision-making, resource allocation, accountability, and evaluation. This section summarizes only the activities that were highlighted during the initial inquiry conducted by the Environmental Results Branch. Planning A number of Regions have developed systems to use environmental data to identify Water program priorities. These systems are, for the most part, based upon ambient data from fixed monitoring stations that measure the concentrations of chemicals in the water. Given the fact that the Office of Water is moving away from chemical criteria to the use of biological data for decision-making, we anticipate that the Regions will revise their systems to incorporate biological data as it becomes available. Methods the Regions are using to identify water problems, set priorities, and design strategies to make improvements are presented below. Consolidating Planning Documents for Urban Areas Region 3 has consolidated into concise documents all past planning documents for each of four Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs): Baltimore; Washington, D.C.; Philadelphia; and Richmond. The documents characterize the current water quality problems, identify the highest priority problems, make specific recommendations, and provide a consolidated schedule of all major program actions in each SMSA. The reports are being used as examples for states to follow in consolidating available planning information for specific geographic areas with water quality problems. Although these are called SMSA Plans, they are to be 77 ------- assembled wherever there are water quality problems, not just in areas designated as SMSAs by the Census Bureau. Using Schematic Mapping by Stream Use Designation to Evaluate Water Quality Trends The Region 4 Environmental Services Division (ESD) has undertaken a program to map all streams by the use designations for which they currently qualify. This system is relatively simple and can be used both to assess trends over time (in terms of changes in use designations) and to identify sites where onsite inspections should be conducted to investigate why some changes have or have not occurred. For each map the Region will: show the use classification of each stream reach and indicate the specific location of monitoring stations; evaluate the number of streams and stream miles meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act; assess the reason for a change in classification by reviewing the ambient data from the stations on the stream segment or by undertaking field studies. Identifying Legislative Mandates and Objectives for Environmental Results Planning In Region 5, the Water Division staff emphasized that data on environmental status cannot drive program activities that you must begin with legislative mandates and program objectives. Only when such mandates and objectives are agreed to can Regions and States manage for environ- mental results. Environmental data would be used to identify priority areas within the legislative mandates and objectives. With this in mind, the Water Division has outlined for each Water program (construction grants, drinking water, water quality management) the legislative mandates and specific environmental and management objectives and measures for each program. Regional staff are meeting with state staff in each state in the Region to refine and reach agreement on specific environmental and management objectives for each state. The agreed-upon objectives will be the basis for all of the Region's activities with the states, including negotiations on delegation and development of State-EPA Agreements. Piloting a Water Quality Management System for State Use In Region 6, the Environmental Services Division, Management Division, and Water Division have worked together to develop a water management system (WMS) which uses ambient, point source, and non-point source data within a state to actively plan and manage all aspects of the water quality program. The WMS is now being used by two Region 6 states. A brief explanation of the WMS follows. Compare ambient water quality data to state standards. Three to 5 years of ambient data from STORET is summarized and compared to the appropriate state standard at each fixed station to determine where persistent violations are occurring. Screen data for significant problems. The analyzed violations data is run through a series of "screens" to eliminate violations that are not "significant." Rank order problems. Monitoring stations or stream segments are ranked to produce preliminary priority lists of water quality problems within each state. Identify potential causes. Potential sources are identified by conducting a computer and file searching for discharges and nonpoint source contributors in the watersheds upstream from significant problem areas. A variety of data bases are used in conducting this search. Produce maps. Maps are prepared for each state showing the location of monitoring stations and of significant violations. Acetate overlays are produced showing the location of potential point and nonpoint source contributors. Develop state action plans. The results of the data analysis and mapping are used in planning and evaluating in the municipal wastewater, industrial effluent and nonpoint source programs. Analyzing and Using Computerized Data to set SEA Priorities In Region 8, the ESD Division, Environmental Services Division (ESD), Water Division and the states have worked closely together to improve the collection, analysis, and reporting of water quality data and to use the analysis to identify priority areas for highlighting in SEAs. Data Entry and Validation. Regional staff work with the states to ensure that they enter water quality data into STORET. The states also validate the data to ensure proper entry into the computer. Improved Data Analysis. ESD uses a computerized system to compare ambient measurements of pollutant levels in STORET to individual state water quality standards. A standard methodology is used to determine the frequency and severity of standards violations and to indicate which possible designated uses of the stream segment may be impaired. Information at each station is analyzed for all possible uses, not just those uses for which the segment has been designated. For each possible use, the analysis includes only those parameters known to affect that use. Standardized Analytical & Statistical Methods for Data Analysis. ESD publishes annual trends reports of STORET data and regularly distributes computer printouts of the analyzed data to the states for their use in preparing their 305(b) reports. Analytical and statisticals methods for 305(b) reports are thereby standardized throughout the Region. Problems are Highlighted in SEAs. The states and EPA use the reported STORET data to identify possible priority problem areas. The states then adjust the priorities based on additional, explicit considerations and the state and Region then, as part of the SEA process, develop strategies and allocate resources to address high priority water quality problems. Using a Multi-media Data Base to Identify Problem Areas and Take Action Region 10 is refining a multi-media data base that will be used to develop monitoring and compliance strategies, identify problems and conduct trends analysis. For instance, they intend to use the system to target sites for compliance inspections or facilities requiring tighter controls. Where ambient data or narrative stream assessments show that there may be significant use impairments, the Region will tap a variety of sources of information about potential contributers to the problem. This approach will allow them to focus on cleaning up specific problem stream segments, even if only "minor" sources are present, rather than simply going after " 78 ------- "majors" or focusing only on large downstream areas where results may be difficult to achieve. Region 10 has designed its system using a combination of the Region 2 FINDS computer system and the national STORET system. Technical Decision-Making Biomonitoring or intensive survey data is being used extensively for identifying water quality problems in some Regions. Region 1 has a long history of emphasizing the use of intensive surveys over stationary ambient monitors and has received good cooperation from its states. A list of planned intensive surveys is codified in the 106 grants as a result of negotiations between the Region and each state. The Region principally provides technical assistance but has taken a more active role when more than one state is involved. Several of the states do publish the intensive survey data in hard copy but it is not entered into STORET. Region 4 has had a very strong biological monitoring program and has encouraged the development of biomonitoring programs in each of the states in the Region (all 8 states now have biomonitoring programs). There are two basic functions of the Region 4 biological monitoring activities: 1) to provide technical support for investigations of site- specific problems, and 2) to provide technical assistance, training and backup to develop biomonitoring expertise in the States. The Region is preparing a Standard Operating Procedures manual for biomonitoring procedures, and for quality assurance of biomonitoring data. The manual will be distributed to all of the states as a guide for their biomonitoring programs. Region 10 has devoted considerable resources to specific problem sites identified by the states in the Region, such as the Spokane River. They emphasize that success is dependent upon up-front commitment to intensive surveys to identify correctly the inevitable site-specific anomalies in each problem area and upon careful assessments to determine the probable implications of these anomalies. Until recently, biological monitoring data were not used by Region 7. The Region's Environmental Services Division is now working on a pilot study with Kansas to incorporate bio-screening into the state's ambient monitoring network. Staff in the Planning and Management Division in Region 7 have a small effort under way to explore potential sources of biological data, such as the State Fish and Wildlife agencies. They are looking first at the availability of data from the Missouri Department of Fish and Wildlife, which has a long history of using field techniques to assess the "health" of fish populations. Evaluating Different Water Quality Models Region 10 staff have been evaluating water quality models of different levels of complexity to evaluate what improvement in accuracy is gained by using models of different levels of complexity. In general, they have concluded that certain relatively simple models are remarkably accurate and, if used instead of more complex models, can save considerable resources. The only exception to this result is in systems with key organisms having high "birth rates" (e.g., systems with rapidly growing phytoplankton). Determining Monitoring Needs Region 4 staff are supportive of a concept developed by Tennessee to decide whether to conduct fish tissue analysis. The state prepares a list of all potential problem areas, ranks them (based on population, permits, location of industrial sources, etc.), and sites as many stations as resources allowed, starting at the top of the list. If analysis consistently shows no contaminant levels of concern, the station will be discontinued; a new station will then be established at the next ranked potential problem area on the list. Region 7 has developed Monitoring Activity Coordination Reports (MAC) to define data needs for each state in the Region. The Region prepares reports for each state that contain the following descriptive information for each water quality basin: a geographical description, the major dischargers and recent violations, existing surface water supplies, waste disposal sites, non-point sources, suspected sources of toxic substances, and the location of fixed monitoring stations. The Region analyzes the data to determine the adequacy of the states' fixed station monitors (e.g., number of parameters monitored and frequency of monitoring). The Region then notes the parameters violating standards in each sub-basin with an indication of the frequency and severity of each type of violation within the sub-basin. The ESD has found significant variation in the monitoring being conducted by each state in the Region and is beginning to work with the states to determine where additional monitoring or different parameter coverage is needed. The ESD is discussing ways to prepare a concise summary of the data in the MAC report because the ESD and the Water Division agree that the current MAC reports for water monitoring are too voluminous to be useful to the Water Division. Resource Allocation Distribution of 208 Funds Based on Negotiated Problems Region 10 requested that each state submit proposals to correct priority problems using 208 funds (they planned on receiving more requests than money was available). The Region then negotiated with each state on the projects to be funded. The Region considered the likelihood of success and the commitment of local government to implementing the project when selecting proposals for funding. Only the most viable projects were funded. Although there is no longer a 208 program, these experiences may be transferable to 205(g) and 205(j) activities. 79 ------- Accountability or Evaluation Annual Report Tracks Multi-Year Problems Region 1 water quality information comes from the 305(b) reports and is reported in the RA's annual report. The annual report continues the format from the 305(b) reports and includes maps of "critical water quality areas" which track outstanding multi-year problems, such as PCBs in the Housatonic River and contamination in Boston Harbor. Study of NPDES Discharges Region 4 staff conducted a study to compare the most recent available data from a select group of NPDES water dischargers to compare levels with those in 1972. They found a singificant reduction in the amounts of wastewater discharged. The Division felt this was a good indication of success but stressed that discharge reductions do not necessarily indicate improvement in environmental quality, which must be tracked separately. Region 5 has initiated an evaluation of the Illinois municipal compliance strategy in an attempt to link program activities to improved water quality. A pilot will be initiated this summer in Chicago to evaluate the effectiveness of the State's program by comparing permit compliance status over time with trends in ambient water quality. The results will be used to redirect program activities where appropriate. Environmental Results Demonstration Projects Required in 106 Grants Supplemental Guidance Region 4 directed each state, as part of the supplemental guidance for the 1982 Section 106 Grants, to conduct demonstration projects to evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken with 106 money. These are basically before and after monitoring studies which could be short-term or multi-year in length. For example, Georgia is evaluating the effectiveness of a spray irrigation project to reduce eutrophication in the Flint River. These reports will be completed in FY 82. No supplemental guidance will be prepared for FY 83; therefore, requirements for the projects will be discontinued. Florida has indicated that they plan to expand this program on their own in FY 83. Issues The issues below were raised by Headquarters and Regional managers in their responses to OMSE's request for ideas on managing for environmental results and by Regional staff during ERB's visits. The emphasis from the Office of Water in Headquarters is to use biological data for decision-making. While Regions generally agree that biological data need to be incorporated into decision-making. Regions are also concerned that the Agency not totally abandon fixed monitoring stations or disregard the large amount of ambient data currently available since they think we need historical data for trends and since they believe ambient data are often needed to interpret biological data. Do states have the capability to do biological monitoring? If not, should EPA take steps to develop their capability? How severely will a lack of baseline data on toxics inhibit efforts to determine the environmental results of current and future toxics-related activities in the water program? Should existing major/minor industrial classifications be revamped to place greater emphasis on site specific environmental considerations? BIO-STORET, a subset of the STORET system for storing biological data is strongly supported by many Regions, particularly as the new emphasis in the water program is to move towards the use of biological data. However, BIO- STORET is still in a pilot testing phase, and resources are very limited for implementation. Does the Agency need to provide more support for BIOSTORET in light of our increased emphasis on biomonitoring? Should the new 305(b) guidance set detailed data reporting requirements and specify a standard format states should follow so as to facilitate preparation of Regional or National water quality summaries? Proposals The following proposals were offered in response to to OMSE's initial request for ideas and proposals as to how the Agency should manage for environmental results or were mentioned by Regional staff during ERB's visits. Possible Indicators to Measure Environmental Results in the Water Program Track stream miles meeting fishable/swimmable water quality using class "B" designated waters from 305(b) reports. This would require the development of national guidance for 305(b) data collection and presentations. (Regions 1 and 4) Track results of biological monitoring (Region 1); assemble data from periodic biological monitoring of key stations. (Region 4) Institute routine before-and-after monitoring and reporting as a requirement of each state grant or construction grant. (Region 1) Collect information on direct indicators, e.g., return of sport fish to rivers, number of beaches reopened, acres of shellfish harvesting areas reopened. (Region 1) Update with current data the Priority Basin Studies done in the early '70's: 1) to determine the extent of and the cause of change over the last decadei.e. with an "evaluation" focus (Region 3), 2) to determine the extent of remaining problems (Region 4). Use the National Water Quality Index (WQI) to assess levels of conventional pollutants. (Region 2) Track the reduction in sources violating NPDES/SPDES. (Region 2) For toxics in water, establish a routine fish tissue analysis and macro-invertebrates program at key stations (Region 2) Develop New Strategies that Focus on Environmental Results (Region 2). 80 ------- Develop a permit issuance strategy which considers public health and environmental effects. Develop a state oversight strategy for NPDES and Construction Grants that focuses on environmental results. Develop a long-term strategy that would require the identification of waterways where standards are not being met and where improvement can be gained by source control. Evaluate the effectiveness of Agency expenditures by looking at where the major commitments are being made, and whether resources are being directed to activities from which the most environmental benefit is likely. Shift from the Calendar Approach for Permit Reviews to Management by Hydrologic Basin (Region 4). EPA currently plans to reviews permits on a set schedule, e.g. NPDES every 5 years. Instead EPA could review all water classifications, standards, and permits simultaneously for a given hydrologic basin under a master schedule that would ensure that all basins are reviewed in a 5-to-10 year period. This alternative approach would allow concurrent examinations of current water quality, stream use classifications, and standards to ensure that permits limits throughout the basin were reasonable and consistent from one program to another. Develop a Sequential Plan for Identification and Abatement of Water Quality Problems (Region 8). 1) Improve the process for designating the intended beneficial use of each stream segment. 2) Ensure that the standards are protecting each and every beneficial use of the segment. 3) Identify segments where the standards are not being met or where uses are not being protected and determine the probable cause. (This would be done using STORE! as well as data from other sources such as the Corps of Engineers, States, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.) 4) Ensure that State and Federal resources are targetted to the same segments where water quality problems are indicated (best done through negotiated SEA process). 5) Conduct adequate intensive surveys within the priority segments to measure improvement. 6) Evaluate improvements and revise the priority list to close the planning/implementation loop. Conduct a Regional Analysis of 305(b) State Water Quality Reports Regions should take responsibility for performing the Regional analyses of the states' 305(b) Reports. The Regional analysis could form the basis for the 305(b) (2) report to Congress, as well as the water portion of Regional "Status of the Environment" reports. (Office of Water) Drinking Water: Public Water Systems Managing for Environmental Results: Current Activities, Issues, and Proposals The Drinking Water program has two primary functions: ensuring the quality of public water systems (PWS) and preventing contamination of underground sources of drinking water from injection wells. The program also responds to incidents of serious contamination of ground water, particularly from volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Both the drinking water and the underground injection control (UIC) program can be delegated to the states with technical assistance and oversight by EPA. The principal measure of program effectiveness for drinking water is the level of compliance of public water systems. The National Primary Drinking Water regulations established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for biological and chemical contaminants, monitoring requirements for public water systems, and specifications for acceptable analytic methods for contaminant level determinations. Systems report violations of the MCLs and failure to conduct the required monitoring. Because noncompliance with drinking water standards means that there is an unacceptable risk to public health, the primary goal of the programs is to reduce noncompliance. Priority is to be given to serious health hazards determined by the toxicity of the contaminant, the size of the public water system, and the degree to which the standard is exceeded. No formal criteria are used to rank non-compliant PWSs. Headquarters prepares an annual compliance report which describes the compliance rate for all PWSs nationwide and the change in compliance rates for the past fiscal year. The UIC program is now being implemented. The regulations have been promulgated and the major effort this year is to implement the program and delegate it to the states. The primary monitoring requirements for the UIC program are 1) that existing wells get mechanical integrity tests, and 2) that wells near injection wells be evaluated as possible sources of contamination of underground sources of drinking water. Current Regional Activities Managing for Environmental Results This section discusses the Regions' current use of monitoring data for program management in the Drinking Water Program. We have grouped current activities in this section around the major management activities they support-planning, technical decision-making, resource allocation and accountability and evaluation. This section summarizes the activities that Regional staff highlighted during the initial inquiry conducted by the Environmental Results Branch; other efforts may be under way that we are not aware of. Planning Regions use violation data from public water supply systems to identify problem areas and set priorities. In Region 8, states submit quarterly reports on public water system violations to the Region. The Region uses the data to identify problem systems which require informal 81 ------- (warning) or formal (enforcement) actions. Priority problems are highlighted and tracked in the SEAs the Region develops with each state. In Region 8, the Drinking Water staff works closely with Construction Grants staff to ensure that locations and design of publicly owned treatment works will not threaten drinking water supplies and to ensure that discharge permits are such that downstream water is protected. This is an informal process, but one the Region says has worked well. Region 3 is looking at new approaches to setting enforcement priorities within the program. Two types of information that will play a key role in setting priorities are: population served and systems with persistant violations. Region 6 conducted an analysis of the compliance data PWSs reported to identify drinking water compliance problems and set priorities for working with the states to resolve. The Region found that most violations occurred in small systems. They had health districts in each state focus on enforcing against small systems with multiple violations. Regional staff noted that as the health districts began to focus on those multiple violators, the number of violations at that system decreased and the number of violations overall decreased. Three states will conduct their own analyses using this system this year. The Region 6 study revealed 5 main problems which were generally present in every state in the Region; (1) small systems have most of the violations, (2) each state has one or more particular types of violations (bacteriological MCL, bacteriological M/R) which accounts for a majority of the violations, (3) repeat violators (two or more violations) account for a large portion of the violations, (4) non- compliant systems rarely notify the public, and (5) more aggressive enforcement actions for recalcitrant violators are generally needed. Evaluation Region 3 plans to compare violations data from the past two years. RegJon 3 meets with the states in the Region frequently and the states submit annual reports that include the number of violations, the number of enforcement actions, etc. In the Spring of 1982, they plan to compare two years of violation data. Issues What indicators should be used to assess environmental results in the drinking water program? In states where there are few injection wells, should the Regions have flexibility to use the UIC funds for other groundwater problems? Proposals Proposed Indicators to measure Environmental Results Track the number of violations of the parameters for which monitoring is required. (Region 1) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Managing for Environmental Results Current Activities, Issues and Proposals The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires EPA and the states to establish a nationwide program to ensure the safe handling, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. To implement the program EPA and the states must know what hazardous wastes are being produced, track the activities of transporters of hazardous waste, develop permit standards for treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous waste and monitor these facilities for compliance with the standards. Because the RCRA program will be so dependent on accurate information on the amount and type of waste produced, how much waste is disposed of, and the manner of disposal, managers both in Headquarters and in the Regional office indicated that having good data will be critical to the program's success. The question they are now asking is, how much data do we need to collect, and who EPA or the states should collect it? Initial draft regulations for the RCRA program required that producers of hazardous waste, transporters, and managers of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities submit detailed annual reports showing the type and number of pounds of hazardous waste generated, transported, stored, treated, or disposed of. However, the Agency is concerned that we were creating too much of a reporting burden on persons dealing with hazardous waste and that EPA would not be able to handle the voluminous information that would be generated by such reporting requirements. It is likely that EPA will only collect the annual report for one year. Revised regulations call for EPA to conduct an annual survey of a statistically valid sample of generators and hazardous waste facilities to determine available capacity for proper disposal, the extent of waste reduction due to recycling, reuse, and recovery; and the extent to which wastes are being managed properly. EPA will also do some field evaluations of the program. Although EPA may change its annual reports requirements. Regional staff told ERB that many states have indicated that they will require such information from generators, transporters, and disposers. At this time there are no arrangements, though, for states to share their data with EPA or to summarize the information for the Agency. Current Regional Activities Managing for Environmental Results This section discusses the current use of monitoring data for program management. The Regions pointed out that environmental data are used primarily for two major management functionsplanning and resource allocationin the RCRA program. The easiest way to look at groundwater quality would be to look at fluoride, nitrate, organics, etc., in public wat systems that use groundwater. 82 ------- Planning Environmental data are used to set priorities for RCRA permitting in some Regions. The sites which are deemed to pose the greatest risk and the highest potential for improvement receive priority. Region 8 emphasized the site-specific data play a role in setting priorities for calling in Part B of a RCRA permit. Factors considered in setting priorities include the presence/absence of secondary containment; location within/outside a flood plain, the previous history of the site, (i.e., general quality of operations, compliance history), the degree of hazard of wastes in the site, etc. Resource Allocation Facility information is coupled with environmental data to target inspections. In Region 1, the Systems Analysis Branch of the Administrative Services Division is using a software program developed by Region 2 FINDS (Facility Index System) to integrate information in the RCRA inventory of generators, haulers, and disposers, with other facility information from permit, compliance, and construction grants activities, etc. to target potential hot spots for inspections. Regional staff are currently loading the Region's RCRA data into the computer. Once that is done. Regional staff intend to look for facilities where data points "cluster" These facilities will become priorities for inspection. Issues The issues below were raised by Headquarters and Regional managers in their response to OMSE's request for ideas on managing for environmental results. Is the RCRA program planning to collect sufficient data to assess environmental results on a national basis? With present proposed rulemaking to replace the requirement for annual reports for hazardous waste generators, transporters, treatment, storage and disposal facilities with a statistical survey of facilities, some RCRA staffers are concerned that EPA will not have a clear fix on the size or nature of the hazardous waste problem or how to judge success in dealing with the problem. Regional staff consistently said that the proposal for a survey of a sample of hazardous waste sites is an inadequate substitute for the annual reports; that we can not take a good sample from an unknown universe. What are good indicators of environmental status and results in the RCRA program? In the last environmental profile exercise, the RCRA program used the number of pounds of waste going to approved landfills as a measure of program success. Region 6 staff said that this was misleading, however, as it made states that have less strict criteria for land-fills look better than states with more stringent approval criteria. Is it possible to measure the effectiveness of prevention? Regional staff said that the development of good indicators of success under RCRA will be difficult since the program is geared to preventing adverse environmental problems. Results are likely to show up long after program actions. EPA is not adequately planning for collection, treatment, and disposal of leachate from municipal landfills. Without considering the likely environmental impact of this leachate, the program is not fully considering the environmental results of the current program. Given the current RCRA regulations, some staff have expressed the concern that EPA is achieving short-term improvements in that hazardous wastes will be disposed of in "high tech" landfills, but that we are not moving to control potentially hazardous leachate from municipal landfills. In twenty years or so this could be a tremendous problem both technically (how to treat the leachate) and financially. Does the grant formula for RCRA need to be changed if we are to manage for environmental results? The grant formula takes into consideration the volume of hazardous waste produced in a state, but does not consider whether the waste is being disposed of within or outside the state. Thus, it does not adequately reflect the true potential for adverse environmental results that the State faces. Also, there is no consideration in the formula for the hazard of the waste. The small generator exemption under RCRA C may pose environmental hazards because small generators may comprise a substially higher percent of the universe of generators than the Agency is currently aware of, and thus large quantities of hazardous waste will not be disposed of in accordance with the disposal requirements required for all other hazardous waste. In the RCRA C regulations, there is a small generator exemption which exempts generators of less than 1000 kg/month of hazardous waste from complying with the stringent wastes disposal requirements in Part C. Instead, the small generator waste is controlled under Part D which allows the small generators to dispose of the waste in sanitary landfills. A related issue is that if the small generator waste is not adequately controlled under RCRA, it may lead to additional sites under Superfund. Proposals Possible Indicators to Measure Environmental Results in the RCRA Program. track the quantity of hazardous waste generated based on a statistcal sample. (Region 1) track the total volume of hazardous waste produced (although EPA has suspended reporting requirements, many States say they will continue to require this data). (Regions 4 and 6) the number of sites which experience post-closure problems could be tracked over the long term. (Region 6) track the capacity for or actual number of pounds of hazardous waste going to high technology incinerator facilities as a measure of safely treated waste. (Region 6) track the number of facilities, incinerators, and transporters found to be out of compliance. Distinguish between instances of substantive non-compliance and administrative non-compliance. (Region 1) ------- track the amount of waste escaping the manifest system. Use data on manifest exemptions, amount and type of unmanifested waste, and extent of manifest discrepancies discovered by the states. (Region 1) Track the reduction in the number of sources. (Region 2) Track waste recovery rates. (Region 7) Set Priorities in the Hazardous Waste Program Based on More Extensive use of Available Information Reconstruct how much hazardous waste was and is being produced, preferably based on annual reports. In this assessment, we need to look at which industries use and/or produce chemicals of concern. Under current RCRA regulations, we only know who is producing certain chemicals of concern. Determine the degree of hazard for the waste generated. Base assessment on "p" and "q" lists in the regulations. Use the above information to set priorities for enforcement. (Region 7) Superfund Managing for Environmental Results: Current Activities, Issues and Proposals The primary goal of the Superfund program is to establish mechanisms for effective response to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that present an imminent or substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. The two basic types of actions involved in this process are removal and remedial actions. Removal actions are generally short-term responses taken to abate an immediate threat posed by the uncontrolled release of hazardous substances at both sites and spills in all media. Remedial actions involve longer term and more complex solutions at hazardous waste sites. In addition, remedial actions are generally more expensive than those involving removal measures. In 1983, the Agency plans to focus the Hazardous Substance Response activities on the containment and cleanup of the most serious hazardous waste emergencies and on continuing and initiating remedial actions at uncontrolled sites posing the greatest threat to public health and the environment. This phase of the response program will require continued participation by the states. To this end, the Agency will continue to develop cooperative agreements and contracts with states that are able and willing to carry out any or all of the remedial response actions authorized by CERCLA. While the Federal government will retain the power to determine when a remedial response action is warranted, states will be strongly encouraged to assume full responsibility for the actual on-site cleanup actions. The Act provides the Federal government with the capability to identify and, where possible, either compel cleanup by private responsibile parties in lieu of Federal response actions or to recover Federal expenditures incurred through cleanup actions when the responsibile party or parties decline to respond. These actions are designed not only to compel private parties to assume responsibility for their actions that have resulted in an imminent and substantial danger to public health or the environment, but also to preserve Fund resources so that the greatest number of sites can eventually be addressed. Current Activities Managing for Environmental Results This section discusses the current Regional uses of monitoring data for managing for environmental results. We have grouped current activities in this section around the major management activities they support-planning, technical decision-making, resource allocation and accountability. Planning Use of environmental data for ranking priority sites The Superfund program depends upon environmental data collected by the EPA, state, and contractor resources at uncontrolled sites. This data is analyzed through use of the MITRE model, a model based on multimedia ------- considerations. The data is used to develop the statutorily required national list of priority sites. The list of priority sites is scheduled for completion in January 1983. An interim list of 115 priority sites was completed in October 1981. Technical Decision-Making Use of environmental data to define necessary remedial actions Once a site is determined to be a priority, EPA takes several steps to determine necessary clean-up activities and whether Superfund monies will be used for site clean- up. A remedial Investigation/Feasibility study is conducted to determine what the problem is, what needs to be done, and the cost. The study must include balancing the cost with the benefit of different types of control or clean-up, An engineering design is then prepared and construction is initiated. Concurrent with this process, the Superfund enforcement personnel will try to identify the parties responsbile and negotiate site clean-up. Multi-media environmental and facility data are used to target investigations at Superfund sites in Region 10. Region 10 has used its multi-media data base in its work at the proposed Superfund site at Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Washington. By comparing the water and air data with the SIC codes and knowledge of chemical processes, the Regional staff were able to identify specific locations where hazardous waste problems were likely to occur and thus determine where to collect samples to analyze pollutant levels. Resource Allocation Superfund resources are allocated to priority sites as ranked on the National list (see previous discussion) Accountability and Evaluation The following are a few of the major environmental indicators that are being tracked in a computerized system at both the Regional and national level. Number of sites where removal is under way Number of sites where remedial action is under way Number of enforcement actions initiated Number of signed cooperative agreements Amount of money recovered through negotiations with generators and disposers of hazardous waste Amount of money being spent by private parties to cleanup sites Issues Should EPA attempt to measure environmental changes at each site or in the surrounding environment as part of an accountability system or, in realizing the high cost of this proposal, should we continue to only track "program outputs" such as the environmental indicators listed above that are currently tracked by the program? Given the fund-balancing provisions of CERCLA, how environmentally sound is "cost-effective clean-up"? The 10% cost sharing and State O&M requirements are necessary to achieve the desired environmental results from remedial activities. What will be the level of State participation to the requirements for 10% cost-sharing requirements and operations and maintenance requirements? What is the continuing Federal role at individual sites after the six-month Federal monitoring period is complete? Are States solely responsible for long-term O&M at individual sites? Most Regions criticized the weight given to different parameters of the MITRE model. They were concerned that the model does not necessarily give the most accurate ranking of priority sites. Proposals There were no proposals for indicators of environmental progress in the Superfund program that have not already been included in the program's tracking system. 85 ------- |