\
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: FY 1977 Regional Operating Guidance
FROM: John R. Quarles, JrjL-£-
Deputy ^^-
TO: Regional Administrators
Attached is the FY 77 Regional Operating Guidance. This
document provides the basic operating guidance for the Regions for
the coming fiscal year, including general program direction, pri-
orities, and the specific outputs and reporting requirements that
will be used to follow regional progress. This year we have again
included a list of national priorities to provide an overview of
the relative importance of the major regional responsibilities.
All of you, as well as State and local governments and non-
government individuals, have participated in preparing the oper-
ating guidance. These efforts have greatly strengthened the guid-
ance, making it more representative of "real world" needs. At the
same time, we have significantly reduced the burden of the system
while maintaining those essential elements necessary for effective
implementation of the "Management-By-Objectives System."
The MBO System has become a MOST IMPORTANT management tool in
guiding the Nation's pollution abatement program. It is a system
on which Russ Train and I heavily depend as do the National Program
Managers. The FY 1977 regional guidance is particularly significant
because many of the major statutory milestones under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act and the Clean Air Act, as well as
others, come due. The real measure of progress of the Nation's
pollution abatement effort will be against these dates. As always,
it is very important that our program plan be developed around the
guidance and be precise and aggressive in assuring maximum com-
pliance with these milestones.
-------
I would point out that implicit in all the objectives are the
requirements for the strongest possible partnership with the States
and local governments and for intergovernmental cooperation and
public information and participation generally. I cannot over-
emphasize the importance of these in all of our programs.
A lot of hard work has gone into the preparation of this
guidance.' Russ and I are greatly appreciative of these efforts.
I urge that all key regional personnel study the entire package.
Enclosure
^^LAttASVVt^Ul*,
-------
FY 77 REGIONAL GUIDANCE
Executive Summary
The Purpose of "Management by Objectives"
For over three years the Formal Planning and Reporting System (FPRS)
has been the foundation of EPA's planning and management process. KPRS
is a type of management-by-objectives system designed to serve a
decentralized organization like EPA. It establishes a framework for defining
quantifiable activities and objectives, and it provides Agency Management
with information about achievements. The basic mechanism for conveying this
information is a periodic milestone report showing progress versus commit-
ments. But'these numbers are not the only means for management oversight.
The numerical reporting system can provide only partial understanding of
program operations. Problem identification starts with numerical reporting,
but problem solution must come from the manager's detailed knowledge of a
particular program. This detailed knowledge cannot come from numerical
reporting.
FPRS should, therefore, be more than just another reporting system.
It should be used as a basis for communication between program managers
and program personnel, and as an aid in problem identification.
Partnership with State and Local Governments
EPA is committed to ensuring that the State and local governments
are able and willing to accept a larger responsibility for pollution control
problems, especially those best handled by the governments closest to the
problems.
This year's guidance has been reviewed by the States prior to its publicatior
to help assure that our efforts are coordinated. Also, the basic guidance
for both the air and water control agency grants activities has been integrated
into the air and water guidance sections.
-------
fn mining output commitments with the States, the Regions
uld ,u /e a realistic assessment of each State's current manpower and
training problems which could significantly impact their particular program
areas, lo help correct some of those problems, you should fully utilize all
Federal b'ock grant manpower and education programs such as CETA Voca-
tional Educa ion. Regional programs should encourage State pollution control
agen .-i "" ;o es'ab'ish cooperative agreements with the CETA state prime
sponsers and State Vocational Education agencies to meet manpower needs,
Any assessment of the States' prospects for correcting critical manpower and
ski!1 problems, especially at the technical and sub-professional levels, should
consider hese important resources available to the States.
Civil Rights
Among the activities which support the highest priorities are equal
emplo-> n jtr opportunity and Civil Rights programs. In these areas, 'you should
empha> r/ • EPA 'a commitment to the furtherance of minority hiring on the EPA
—
constru projects, the utilization of minority -owned businesses when
contr ^Ijii _lor supplies and services in both direct and indirect procurement;
assuraa*. i.liat r:nplovment practices of grant recipients as well as services
' provided by EPA grants are on a nondiscriminatorv basis; and that employees
on EPA construction projects are paid ;he prevailing wages rates as
required by the Davis -Bacon Act.
\
Resource Targets
Preliminary resource targets are included as part of this guidance. Final
Regional resource targets will not be available until early March. Preliminary
estimates are that Regions will be receiving approximately 100 new positions
in FY 77 (this figure does not include a probable 10 position cut in Regional
-11-
-------
pesticides enforcement). These additional positions will be allocated
on the basis of need. Therefore not every Region is assured of an increase
in every program category. This shift of 100 positions from Headquarters to
the Regions demonstrates in real terms that EPA's commitment to decentrali-
zation remains firm.
Planning Schedule
The schedule for the remainder of the FY 77 planning cycle has been altered
somewhat. Please note the new deadlines and be prepared to meet them.
April 26
May 1
April 30
May 21
May 21
May 22
June 24
June 25
July 15
August 15
September 1
October 1
October 1
Program Plans including program element resource
schedules due from Headquarters.
Initial State program plans (with initial State construction
grants project priority list) showing output commitments due
to Regional Offices.
Regional review of Headquarters Operating plans.
Regional Plans (including state outputs and Program Element
resource schedules) due to Headquarters.
HQ Review and comment on Regional plans and negotiation
to arrive at final plans.
Administrator's/Deputy Administrator's tentative approval
of operating plans.
Submission by States of final project priority lists.
Approval of final State project priority lists by RA's.
Transmittal of information to Headquarters.
September 1 Submission by States of final State program plans,
Approval of State plans by Regions. Regions work with
Headquarters to revise output commitments to reflect final
State plans. Final approval of Regional operating plans.
Beginning of fiscal year.
-iii-
-------
Publ •• Affairs
Although there are no specific outputs in this document for public
affiurK, the Office of Public Affairs has been asked to define short and
long range Agency goals, to suggest Regional activities that should be under-
taken to achieve those goals, and to develop procedures to evaluate the
Headquarters and Regional performance in supporting public affairs
programs. EPA must ensure that State and local governments, environ-
mentalists, industry, farmers, consumers, youth, and the general
population understand the Agency's policies. Public opinion can have
a critical impact on EPA programs. Regional Administrators should
have sufficient resources devoted to public information programming so
that our public affairs goals can be achieved.
FY 77 Reporting
An Ad Hoc Operating Committee on Reporting has been established
to und Lake a comprehensive review of Agency reporting. Of specific
interef to the Committee will be EPA's reporting impact on State and local
governr ents, arid individuals as well as other segments of the private sector.
The principal focus of the Committee will be public-use reporting, inter-agency
reporting and internal and ADP based information and data systems. It is
critical that all Regions vigorously support this effort.
A second interest area for FY 77 will be strengthening the
Reports Management Program (RMP) in each Region. Information
is a costly resource that should be subjected to the same management
over sight as our other resources. It is important that each Regional
-iv-
-------
Administrator give full support to this program and insures that all
information flows through approved channels, and that the reporting
costs are reasonable in view of the benefits expected.
The relative reporting requirements for FY 77 as compared to FY 76
are:
Total FY 76 FY 77
Output Units 110 98
Activity Indicators 124 112
Reporting Units* 14378 13572
* Reporting Units: Number of output units and activity indicators times
their reporting frequency times the number of reporting organizations
(i.e. lo Regions or 55 States and Territories).
Water Quality
In FY 77, the Agency's highest water quality priorities are the improved
management of the Construction Grants program, the compliance assurance
of major dischargers with NPDES permits, the reissuance or modification
of municipal discharge permits with inadequate treatment, and the
implementation of the water quality management planning process ( "208
program").
The Construction Grants section of this guidance is subject to change as
the result of the proposed operating guidance amendment that was sent out for
Regional review Feb. 9, 1976. Regions should review this proposal carefully,
since it will serve as the basis for FY 77 program planning if approved. Also,
-v-
-------
at some time in the future outputs and activity indicators will be developed
dealing with upgrading the quality of construction grants.
Another area of great concern is the results of the Standing Work Group
on Water Monitoring. The Work Group is defining minimum programs for
ambient and effluent monitoring, which will provide a basis for FY 78 moni-
toring outputs. The Work Group will be examining and reorienting water
monitoring programs where necessary.
Water Supply
The public water system program will see a great expansion in activity
this year as more and more States move towards primary enforcement
responsibility. EPA and the States will have to work closely to ensure that
Regional-State resources are being applied in the best manner to achieve the
goals of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program will likewise receive
••»'
increased attention as the UIC regulations are published and implemented. EPA -
State cooperation will be a cornerstone for the management of this vital effort.
Air
Current efforts should identify factors affecting non-attainment in each
AQCR by July 1976. Once the reasons for non-attainment have been identified,
an action plan must be developed and implemented to correct the problems on a
prioritized basis. This action plan will include increased enforcement, SIP
revision, or whatever is required. Given the complexity and variation of air
pollution problems nationally, a rigid system of setting priorities for all AQCR's
is not appropriate. There will be some 40 additional air positions for the
-vi-
-------
Regions (20 for Enforcement, 20 for Abatement and Control).
A Standing Air Monitoring Work Group has been established to perform
the same type of analysis for the air program as mentioned earlier for the
water program. The charge to both groups is the same: How much data
is needed for what purposes; how should it be collected and stored; by whom;
and at what cost? State and local government officials will be involved
in these work groups.
Pesticides
In spite of a one year extension for applicator certification, the Regions
will have to work hard to see that acceptable State plans have been approved and
are being implemented. Pesticides enforcement will continue to implement the
the use enforcement program while at the same time continuing producer and
marketplace surveillance at an effective level. This year priority emphasis
is to be placed on strengthening Federal/State cooperation in the enforcement
of Fli RA. A new cooperative enforcement grant-in-aid program approved
for FY 77 will facilitate this effort. The Regional pesticide program should
be concerned especially with involving States with program planning and
execution. State participation is essential for a successful program since
EPA's pesticides resources are too limited'to provide the broad coverage that
is needed. Similarly, Regional staff this year should make a special effort
to interact with farmers and farm organizations and promote a better
understanding of EPA's pesticides programs.
Solid Waste, Radiation, and Noise
The Regional solid waste, radiation, and noise programs will continue to
-vii-
-------
emphasize giving technical assistance to States and localities. In the solid
waste area, it is particularly important that we stress the development of State
and loonl plans for the proper disposal of solid wastes. The radiation program
will emphasize the review of EIS's for nuclear facilities as well as technical
assistance.
Fee ;, ^ i Activities
it oults in both EIS review and new source preparation are particularly
important if EPA is to make satisfactory progress toward the goal of pollution
prevention. With respect to Federal facilities compliance with applicable
environmental standards, EPA must continue to stress the high visibility,of
Federal performance and the importance of demonstrating leadership and
cooperation.
-vm-
-------
Regional Guidance Outputs Summary
Water
Output Title:
Output Units;
Key to Abbreviations:
Frequency -.
Q
SA
A
Reporting Units -
T
E
ST
ByS
BY AS
Activity Indicators;
Output Title:
Output Unite:
1. Municipal Construction
A. # of new Step 1 awards (Q, By S)
B. # of new Step 2 awards (Q, By , )
If of new Step 3 awards (Q, by S)
Total Estimated Obligations (Q. By S)
# of Step 1 projects completed (Q. By S)
f of Step 3 projects completed (Q. By S)
# of Step 3 projects completed (Q. By S)
Total PL 92-500 Project Outlays (Q. T)
Quarterly
Semi-Annually
Annually
Total for Region including State lead activity
Total for Region exclusive of State lead activity
One total for all States' activities
State-by-State reporting
By approved (NPDES) State reporting
Output Title:
Output Units;
3.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
1.
E.
Activity Indicators: 1&2
3&4
6
2. NPDES Permits
A-D # of permits issued or reissued
(includes new sources). Major &
Minor Municipals & Non-municipals
(Q. By S)
# of major municipal permits modified.
Major Municipals, (SA. By S)
# of dischargers identified that must
have a permit. Major. Municipals &
Non-municipals (SA, By S)
# of permits issued and in effect. Major
Municipals & Non- municipals (SA, By S)
# of major, non-municipal permits modified
(SA. By S)
I of major, non-municipal permits for which
modification is requested (SA, T)
7. # of major non-municipal permits for which
modification is dented (SA, T)
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
A-D Reconnaissance inspections. Major
Municipals & Non-municipals (Q, E&ST)
E-H Sampling inspections, Major
Municipals & Non-municipals (Q. E&ST)
Permittees in compliance with final
effluent limitations. Major Municipals
4 Non- municipals (Q, T)
Permittees in compliance with con-
struction schedules, Major Municipals
t Non-municipals (Q, T)
Permittees in compliance with permit
conditions, Major Municipals (Q, T)
I-H
K-L
M.
-------
Activity Indicators:
Output Title:
Output Units:
Activity Indicators;
Output Title:
Output Units:
Activity Indicator6:
Output Title:
Output Units:
Activity Indicators;
ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS
N. Unresolved requests (Q, E)
ENFORCEMENT
O-P Notices of violations. Major Municipals
& Non-municipals (Q. By AS)
Q-R Administrative Orders, Major Municipals
6. Non-municipals (Q. E)
S-T 309 Referrals, Major Municipals &
Non-municipals (Q, E)
1-4 Permittees in violation with final
effluent limits. Major Municipals &
Non-municipals (Q, E&ST)
5-8 Permittees in violation with construction
schedules, Major Municipals &
Non-municipals (Q, E&ST)
9-10 Permittees in violation with permit
conditions, Major Municipals
(Q, E&ST)
11&12 NPDES violations referred by State,
Major Municipals & Non-municipals
(Q. ByS)
Construction Grants EIS's
A. # of final EIS's filed with CEQ (Q.T)
None
New Sources EIS's
None
1. ti of new source applications received
(SA. T)
2. # of final EIS's filed with CEQ for new
source NPDES permits (SA, T)
3. If of new source permits denied because
Of adverse environmental effects (SA, T)
4. # of negative declarations on new
source NPDES permits (SA, T)
Federal Facilities (Water)
A. Annual on-site inspections of major
and minor sources either reconnaissance
or sampling (SA, T)
1. # of known major Federal sources
subject to NPDEJfe including non-files
(SA. T)
2. # of major sources out of compliance
(SA.T)
3. # of major sources in compliance (SA, T)
Output Title:
Output Units:
Activity Indicators;
Output Title:
Output Units:
Activity Indicators
Output Title: 9.
Output Units:
Output Title: 10.
Output Units;
Activity Indicators;
4. 0 of major permits issued (SA, T)
5. S of minor permits issued (SA, T)
Water Quality Management Planning
A. ii of State and areawide planning agencies
with all relevant interim outputs
completed (SA, T)
B. H of States in which the v, ater qua^y
standards review and revision process
required by section 303(e) has been
completed by the State and any revisions
have been approved by EPA (Q. T)
C. # of State and areawide planning areas that
have selected Best Management Practices
for appropriate key outputs of the plan
(SUSPENDED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.)
(SA. T)
D. # of areawide plans which have been sub-
mitted to the State for pre-adoption review
(SA, T)
E. # of Phase I Basin Plans adopted by the
State and approved by EPA (SA, T)
1. # of State and areawide planning areas
with regulatory programs (SA, T)
2. # of State and areawide planning areas
which have identified management
agencies. (SA, T)
Water Monitoring
A. # of State Laboratories evaluated (SA, T)
B. I of NWQSS stations with current data (Q, T)
1. H of State quality assurance programs (SA.T)
2. # of State monitoring strategies (SA.T)
3. H of data transfer & STORET agreements
(SA.T)
Municipal Operations
A. # of municipal O&M inspections (Q, T)
Oil and Hazardous Substances
A. # of SPCC plan inspections (SA.T)
1. * of cases referred to Coast Guard for
prevention action (SA.T)
2. § of cases referred to EPA for violation
(SA.T)
3. # of spills requiring removal action by
EPA (SA.T)
4. H of spills removal actions monitored
by EPA (SA.T)
5. H of SPCC Plan Amendment field
inspections (SAT";T)
-------
Output TUIe:
Output Unite:
Activity Indicators:
Water Supply-
Output Title;
Output Units:
11. Ocean Dumping
None
1. # of dump site applications (SA..T)
2. # of dump site permits (SA.T)
3. # of enforcement actions (SA.T)
1. Water Supply
A. # of Public Water System State grants (A,T)
B. # of Public Water System primacy deter-
minations (Q, T)
(C&D suspended until further notice)
C. #ofUIC grants (A.T)
D. # of UIC primacy determinations (Q,T)
JFA
Output Title: •
Output Units:
Activity Indicators:
Output Title:
Output Units-
Activity Indicator:
Air
Output Title:
Output Units:
Activity Indicators:
Output Title:
Output Units:
Output Title:
Output Units:
1. EIS Review
A. % of draft EIS's with pre-draft liaison (SA.T)
B. % of EIS's reviewed on time (SA.T)
1. 0 of draft EIS's reviewed (SA.T)
2. # of final EIS's rated ER. EU. or 3 as draft
(SA.T)
3. # of draft EIS's rated ER, EU, or 3 with pre-
final consultation (SA. T)
2. Manpower Development and Training
None
1. Ratio of State environmental training
needs funded to the State planned needs
Activity Indicators:
Output Title:
Output Units;
Activity Indicators:
4.
Output Title:
Output Units;
Activity Indicators
1. AQCR Status Report
A. Completion of status report (Q. By S)
None
2. SIP Emission Limitations in Non-attainment
AQCR'S
A. # of major sources in compliance (Q, T)
B. if of major sources in violation (Q, T)
C. f of major sources of unknown status (Q. T)
D. # of minor sources in compliance (Q, T)
E. # of minor sources in violation (Q.T)
F. * of minor sources of unknown compliance
status (Q.T)
G. # of major sources inspected (Q, E and ST)
H. t of minor sources inspected (Q, E and ST)
I. # of enforcement actions (Q.T)
1. # of formal inquiries sent (Q, E and ST)
Activity Indicators:
Output Title:
Output Units;
Activity Indicators;
Major Source SIP Emission Limitations
Compliance
A. # of major sources in compliance
with SIP standards (Q. By S)
B. # of major sources of unknown comi.!;ancc
status with respect to SIP standards (Q. 3y S)
C. # of major sources in violation of SIP
standards (Q, By S)
D. # of major sources in compliance with
scheduled increments of progress (Q, By S)
E. # of major sources of unknown compliance
status with respect to scheduled increments
of progress (Q, By S)
F. # of major sources in violation of scheduled
increments of progress (Q, By S)
G. 0 of major facilities inspected (Q, E & By S)
H. # of enforcement actions taken by EPA
(Q. BY S)
1. # of formal inquiries sent (Q, E & By S)
2. # of field surveillance actions taken
(Q, E & By S)
3. # of notices of violation issued (Q, E & By S)
4. # of abatement orders issued (Q, E & By S)
5. lot civil/criminal proceedings initiated
(Q, E & By S)
FEA Combustion Source Prohibition Compliance
None
1. # of sources or which administrative
process is complete (Q.T)
NSPS Compliance
A. H of operating sources in compliance (Q.T)
B. H of operating sources of unknown compliance
status (Q. T)
ti of operating sources in violation (Q.T)
# of sources inspected (Q. E.&ST)
# of States delegated enforcement of NSPS
(Q,T)
# of enforcement actions taken by EPA (Q.T)
Number of enforcement actions taken
by all States in Region (Q, ST)
# of NSPS sources for which construction
has commenced (Q.T)
C,
D.
E.
F.
1.
2.
6.
New Source Construction
A. # of State permits audited by EPA (Q, T)
1. # of permits issued by all States (Q, ST)
2. # of permits issued by EPA (Q. E)
i
X
-------
Oufpu; Title:
Ou:put Units:
Activity Indicators:
Output Title:
Output Units:
Activity Indicators;
Significant Deterioration
None
1. # of source reviews completed (SA, E)
Fuel Additive and Vapor Recovery Regulations
7.
--- —£"- — — -*- ~v • ^, * j j. vw jjw»A«l
if of unleaded fuel inspections (Q. T)
# of unleaded gasoline samples tested (Q. T)
# of Stage 1 vapor recovery inspections (Q, T)
ff of contamination detected (Q, T)
# of administrative complaints issued (Q T)
# of notices of violation issued (Q, T)
% of facilities in compliance with Stage I
regulations (Q.T)
% of facilities in compliance with Stage II
regulations (Q, T)
# of enforcement actions taken by
states (Q.T)
# of §113 notices of violations issued (Q, T)
Output Title;
Output Units:
Activity Indicators:
Output Title:
Output Units;
Activity Indicators:
Output Title:
Output Units:
Activity Indicators
Pesticides
Output Title:
Activity Indicators
13. Accurate emissions Inventories
None
None
14. Reports on Ambient Air Quality Data
None
None
Output Title:
Ouput Units;
Activity Indicators:
Output Title
Output Units:
Activity Indicators;
9. Federal Facilities Compliance
# of on-site inspections (Q, T)
It of major sources in compliance (Q, T)
# of major sources in violation (Q, T)
# of major sources of unknown compliance
(Q. T)
4. t of major sources covered by current consent
agreements (Q.T)
10. Compliance with NESHAP Requirements
Output Title:
Output Units:
Activity Indicators:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
1.
# of sources subject to NESHAPS (Q,T)
# of sources in compliance (Q. T)
t of sources inspected (Q, E&ST)
§ of enforcement actions taken by EPA
(Q. E)
# of State delegations (Q. T)
# of enforcement actions taken by States
(Q. ST)
11. Air Pollution Data
A. # of State labs meeting quality assurance
criteria (Q. T)
1. # of State labs visited (Q.T)
2. # of State programs for evaluation of lab
capability (Q, T)
Output Title
Output Units;
Activity Indicators:
12. Air Quality Data of NAAQS
A. # of pollutant monitors (Q. T)
1. # of monitors visited and evaluated (Q.T)
Output Title:
Output Units;
Activity Indicators:
Output Title:
Output Units;
Activity Indicators:
State Certification Programs Output Units
A. # of States with operating certification
programs (Q;T)
1.
2.
3.
4.
# of private applicators certified (A. By S)
S of commercial applicators certified
(A, By S)
# of private applicators trained (A, By S)
# of commercial applicators trained
(A, By S)
Cooperative Enforcement Programs
A. # of States involved in cooperative programs
1. • # of producer establishments inspected
(SA; By S)
2. // of samples collected at establishments
(SA; By S)
3. # of marketplace samples collected
(SA; By S)
4. # of foreign import products sampled
(SA; By S)
5. # of use, reentry, experimental use
investigations (SA; B)
Sections 24(c) and 5(f)
A. # of States With Section 24(c) programs (Q-T)
B. # of States with Section 5(f) prorams (Q-T)'
None ' i '
i
X
Industry Compliance with Registration
A. j of producer establishments inspected (Q;T)
B. # of import.investigations (SA;T)
C. # of marketplace investigations (SA;T)
1. Number of product labels reviewed at
establishment (Q;T)
2, Number of producer establishment samples
collected (Q;T),
3. Number of section 9(c) warnings resulting from
establishment inspection activities (Q;T)
4. Number of civil complaints resulting from
establishment inspection activities (Q;T)
Number of import entries reviewed (Q;T)
5.
-------
Output Title:
Output Units:
Activity Indicators:
Outpvt Title:
Output Units:'
Activity Indicators:
Output Title.-
Output Uui»S:
Activity Indicators:
6. Numer of foreign import samples collected
9. Number of section 9(c) warnings resulting from
marketplace activities (Q;T)
10. Number of civil complaints resulting from
marketplace
11. Number of criminal prosecutions resulting
from all product violations (SA ;T)
12. Number 01 stop sale, use or removal orders
resulting from all product/producer violations
(SA;T)
13. Number of recalls initiated (SA;T)
K. Number of samples forwarded for chemical
analysis (Q;T)
5. Compliance with Label Direction
A. » of experimental use observations (Q;T)
B. h of use and reentry observations (Q;T)
1. Number of experimental use permits monitored
(Q:T)
2. Number of section 9(c) use warnings issued
(SA;T)
3. Number of section 14
-------
Preliminary 1977 Resource Targets
The preliminary 1977 resource targets provide a summary of the
funds and positions which will be available to each allowance holder
for most major programs. Position increases and decreases for regional
programs are being held in reserve pending completion of evaluations
of regional needs. Final targets will be issued in early March following
decisions on the distribution of these increases and decreases. Since
positions will be allocated on the basis of need, not every region.is
assured of an increase in every program category. Similarly, not every
region will share in decreases, and some regions may lose more than a
straight one-tenth share of a decrease.
Position increases being held in reserve for allocation to the
«
Regions include:
Appropriation and Media Positions
Abatement and Control
Air 20
Water Supply 25
EIS Preparation 10
Enforcement
Air 20
Water Quality 25
The only position decreases not distributed are six positions in
Water Planning and Standards and ten positions in Pesticides Enforcement.
All dollar decreases have been distributed, including a tentative reduction
-xiv-
-------
in Radiation state program support. This change will be more thoroughly
evaluated before final targets are Issued and adjustments made if
necessary.
Overceiling positions, including Permit overceilings, are excluded
from the targets.
-xv-
-------
US tNJVIRDNMl: NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1977 PFSOURCE TARGETS
1977 FUNDS itlOOy)
.'. PPPU '
INTRDPL
ENERGY
PEST
INTrtOPL
PS M &S
R & 0
AIR
WT.R OTY
WTR SUP
SOL *ST
PEST
R>0
NOISE
1MTSDPL
A & C
AI3
wTft QTY
P6ST
PG M &S
ENF AA •
AG H 13
RG H IS
A & R H
GRAND TOTAL
1
'
97.4
97. «
487.6
2,118.2
194,0
77.4
144.0
11.2
39.2
111.4
3,183.0
447.6
1,678.8
98.4
160.0
2,384.8
1,487.2
1,487.2
7,152.4
?
73.5
73,5
496.7
3,964.2
205.9
80.2
329.7
29.0
38.2
356.7
5,500.6
649.8
2,129.4
309.9
137.0
3,226.1
2,208.6
2,208.6
11,008.8
3
12^,5
124,5
719,8
3,358.7
211.2
124.7
142.1
45.4
65.6
330.2
4,997.7
966.8'
2,478.6
158.0
119.4
3,722.8
1,715.4
1,715.4
10,560.4
'
102.4
102.4
600.7
4,987,9
295.0
144.4
404.6
59.2
46.1
159.3
6,697.2
679.3
2,005.9
388.5
117.1
3,190.8
1,724.9
1,724.9
11,715.3
5
162.9
!&?.''
1,232.8
9,410.7
253.7
141.9
190,0
"2.1
43.1
334.8
11,649,1
903,8
2,504,5
380.4
181.3
3,970.0
2,126.0
2,126.0
l7,90fi.O
6
102.2
102.2
486.8
2,942.5
189.8
69.1
199.8
20.4
46.5
60.4
4,015.3
501.3
1,503.6
191.5
120.1
2,316.5
1,434.*
1,438.6
' 7,872.6
7
78.3
78.3
290.4
2,278.4
153.0
116.2
196.2
30.1
22.0
80.9
3,167,2
392.1
9«6.7
223.5
116,2
1,718.5
1,181.9
1,181.9
6,145.9
8
68.6
63.6
639,5
1,896,7
215.9
68.6
311.9
70.3
69.1
101.6
3,373.5
429.2
982.7
103.8
115.3
1,631.0
1,410.1
1,410.1
6.483.2
9
125.3
125.3
1,084.8
2,117.6
185.1
89.3
385.0
23.5
37.9
160.7
4,083.9
771.6
860.0
199.9
147.6
1,979.3
1,549.<>
1,549.6
7,738.1
10
9C.5
94.5
465.6
2,444.2
173.4
77.3
44^3
26,7
122.7
3,568.8
577.7
878.3
59.3
122.6
1,637.9
1,264,6
1,284.6
6,565.8
REGIONAL
TOTAL
1,029,6
1,029.6
6,524.7
35, 5J9.1
2,076.9
989,1
2,497.9
375,5
434,4
1,618.7
50,236.3
6,319.?
16, 00*. 5
2,113.2
] , 336.8
25,777.7
16,126.9
16,126.9
93.17ft. 5
02-10-76
PAGE
-------
US ENVIRONMENTAL PkjrtCT ION AGENCY
PRELIMINARY 1977 K=SuURC£ TARGiTS
PERMANENT PJS1TICNS
77T-1
MEDIA /
APPRN
INTRCPL
EKEPGY
AIR
WTP OTY
HTR SUP
SCL VST
pesT
PAD
IKTPCPL
70X SUB
PG M CS
SCO
AIP.
iiTR CTY
•«TR SUP
SCL hST
PEST
PAD
NCISE
INTf CPL
TCX SUB
PG M CS
AtC
AIR
U7R OTY
WTR SUP
PEST
NCISE
PG M CS
EKF AA
REP £ I
FAC
AC K tS
*G y cs
A & » H
1
4
*
23
IC6
5
4
7
2
I
5
157
26
7C
6
6
108
48
48
2
3
3
2J
. 175
S
.,
16
1
1
20
255
34
as
19
5
146
5t
56
3
5
5
35
164
9
5
6
2
1
15
241
42
91
10
c"
148
54
54
4
4
4
27
225
16
5
16
2
1
8
300
35
81
17
5
138
63
63
5
7
7
53
271
14
6
10
2
1
17
374
41
103
21
7
172
72
72
6
5
5
26
141
tt
3
10
1
1
3
153
26
66
9
5
106
47
47
7
3
3
13
114
7
4
7
1
1
4
151
22
35
12
c
78
36
36
a
3
3
29
78
10
3
17
3
1
6
147
IS
37
5
5
66
43
43
9
5
5
42
^03
11
4
17
1
1
a
Id/
40
31
10
6
93
50
50
10
4
4
19
103
7
3
8
2
1
6
149
24
29
4
5
62
40
40
ADMN CPM CHD CEGC OAWH CWhM
123
123
473
548
65
22
122 35
30
215
7
98
1,600 35
494
316
18 64
120
4 521
152
64
3 2 25 3
45
90 77
3 18 2 949 1,026
153
88
4
43
21
63 34
83 343
251 1,042
251 1,042
RES TOTAL
123
123
473
548
85
22
157
30
215
7
141
1,678
25 815
3 1,803
28 210
161
639
5 174
74
11 140
45
167
76 4,^28
20 482
34 763
4
156
21
5 176
59 1,602
1,293
5C9
1.802
TOTAL
317 460 448 505 625 351
266
259 335
255
337 1,042 1,741
345
949 1,061
135 9,433
02-10-7t
PAGE
-------
FY 77 REGIONAL GUIDANCE
February 17, 1976
-------
INTRODU CTION
Purpose of Intermedia Priorities
The purpose of this listing is to provide guidance to the Regional Adminis-
trator as to the relative priority among the most important program objectives
included in the various sections of the FY 77 Regional Guidance. Regional
Administrators should view the intermedia ranking as general guidance to be
used first in preparing Regional plans, and secondly in reviewing final Regional
plans for consistency with national EPA priorities. This ranking should help
ensure that adequate roBourcoH arc dovotf^J to the finst priority n;il.ional
objectives before major commitments are made to ol<:inenl..s in l.lu: K<-<-OM<| ;m«l
third categories. This does not necessarily mean that a direct correlation must
exist between an objective's rank and the amount of resources assigned to the
activity.
We rerogni/e and assume |.|»at priorities may vary from Kugion to Region.
We also recognize that the national priorities are not necessarily the same as
the priorities of the individual State and local governments. In a country as
diverse as ours, this situation is inevitable, and indeed, desirable.
This listing focuses on the operational priorities for the Regional offices.
It can also serve as a useful guide for Headquarters in its support of the
Regions. But Headquarters in general, and the Office of Research and Develop-
ment in particular, must focus not only on current operational needs, but also
on emerging priorities. Thus, while the direct control of toxic pollutants
will probably eventually have the highest Regional priority, this must await
Headquarters policy development and the necessary legislative mandate.
-------
-2-
The Highest Priority
EPA is a regulatory agency. Our highest priority objective is to prosorve,
protect, and enhance the quality of the nation's environment, and in so doing
to adequately protect the public from adverse health effects associated with
environmental pollution. Our achievement of the highest priority objective,
however, must be tempered by the clear realization that we cannot reach it in
a day, or even in a decade in some places.
The role for prevention activities has been significantly increased this
year. The Agency must not just react to current crises, but prevent future one&
Many preventive activities are contained in this list, many more are Region-
specific and should be factored into each individual plan.
The President and the Congress have mandated the mechanism that we
should use in reaching our highest priority objective: full partnership with State.
and local governments, which are by their very nature closer to many of the
problems than we are. This means that the Regional Offices are to provide
sufficient technical, administrative, training, and financial assistance
to State and local governments to ensure that they are able and willing to
accept major responsibilities in all of our program areas. Furthermore,
this means that in determining respective EPA and State/local roles in carrying
out our collective duties, the Regions should give State and local agencies
the first opportunity to satisfy program responsibility.
This intermedia ranking of Regional objectives, therefore, must be viewed
in light of our commitment to achieve a quality environment, and at the same
time to respect the rightrs and privileges of the State and local governments
in reaching that commitment.
-------
-3-
Intermedia Priorities Guidance
I. First Priority National Objectives
1. Attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for the criteria pollutants by achieving compliance with SIP
regulations. These regulations should be reviewed and revised
as appropriate.
2. Manage the Construction Grants Program so that maximum water
pollution abatement is achieved: funds are obligated according
to schedule; environmentally sound, cost-effective treatment
works are constructed; and the fiscal integrity of the program
is protected.
3. Assure compliance by major dischargers with NPDES permit
compliance schedules; To complement the Construction Grants
Program, reissue or modify those major municipal permits
for dischargers with inadequate treatment. Conduct O & M
inspections and follow-up actions to assure compliance by
POTW's with permit conditions and develop effluent limita-
tions for dischargers with inadequate treatment.
4. Assist States in achieving primary enforcement responsibility
for water supply management programs leading to the attain-
ment of the National Drinking Water Standards.
5. Provide assistance to State and area-wide water quality management
agencies (208 agencies) to assure adequate and timely performance
in the development of the water quality management process, with
special attention on the area of non-point sources; and ensure that
Regional/State resources devoted to managing the "208 program" are
adequate.
II. Second Priority National Objectives
1. Ensure that new sources of air and water pollution meet all
applicable requirements so that the quality of the environment
is not significantly degraded by their presence.
2. Assure that the release of toxic and hazardous pollutants is
controlled by writing effective NPDES permits, by enforcing
NESHAPS regulations, and by revising inadequate water
quality standards.
3. Ensure that every State has an adequate program to certify
applicators and to register pesticides for special local needs,
and encourage States to cooperate with the enforcement
of FIFRA.
-------
-4-
4. Review EIS's prepared by other agencies, concentrating on
projects with the greatest potential environmental impact,
including especially EIS's on nuclear facilities.
III. Third Priority National Objectives
1. Assure that the States review existing water quality standards
to ensure that the 1983 goals of fishable and swimmable waters
will be met where attainable.
2. Maintain capability to respond to major environmental
emergencies such as air pollution alerts, oil and hazardous
materials spills, and cases of imminent hazard to drinking water,
including enforcement where appropriate. When such an
emergency arises, of course, response becomes the highest
priority.
3. Review §404 Corps of Engineers dredge and fill permits, focusing
on those which are most environmentally significant, and assist
the Corps in developing general permits.
4. Encourage the proper formulation, use, and application of
pesticides by enforcing registration and labelling require-
ments and providing technical and educational assistance.
5. Promote State activities to plan and implement the proper
disposal of hazardous wastes.
As I indicaied earlier, this list is not inclusive of all Regional
activilies. It ranks major Regional responsibilities in the context of
National program priorities. It is erroneous to think that simply because
an item does not appear on this list, that it is not worth doing. There are
many additional important objectives which must also be accomplished.
Activities Which Support the Highest Priorities
The listing of intermedia priorities does not explicitly include activities
which support the accomplishment of the highest priorities, such as assuring
adequate quality control in the collection of environmental and compliance data,
All of our program objectives depend on the maintenance of an adequate data
-------
-5-
base. Consequently, the upgrading of air and water monitoring efforts at all
levels is critical to the accomplishment of all our programmatic objectives.
Another very important activity is effective communications and public affairs
efforts to gain understanding and support for the Agency "s programs.
Similarly, each Region should ensure that sufficient resources are
devoted to equal employment opportunity and Civil Rights programs
and to those activities necessary to good management, such as economic
analysis, program evaluation, and manpower training and development.
Moreover, in cases where States have assumed operational responsibility
for programs, the Regions must make allowance for oversight and quality
assurance of the delegated activity.
"7" •*• "»t -- * -^ ~ - -/
-------
AIR REGIONAL GUIDANCE
FY 1977
-------
FY 1977
Air Program Regional Guidance
I. Introduction
As in the guidance for FY 1976, the 1977 guidance concentrates on
providing a priority-setting scheme that is to be used by each Regional
Office to determine, with States, the appropriate nature and magnitude
of control activities. Given the complexity and variation of the air
pollution problem nationally, and substantial resource shortcomings at
both State and Federal levels, a rigid system for setting priorities for
all AQCRs is not appropriate. Although overall environmental priorities
are the same as in the regional guidance for FY 1976, there are other
factors that must be considered in determing priorities for action, and
chosing appropriate actions, for specific AQCRs.
A two-fold scheme is incorporated into this guidance. First, environ-
mental objectives are given priorities to guide regional and state
decisions on the allocation of resources, and, second, selected necessary
activities are listed, with an indication of their importance, to provide
an additional basis for decision-making. State and Regional performance
will ultimately be assessed in terms of environmental goals achievement
(i.e., attainment and maintenance of NAAQS, and reductions in population
exposures to undesirable pollutant levels).
-------
8
1 I• Factors Affecting Priorities
A. SIP Control Strategies
The FY 1976 guidance emphasized the need to assess the attainment
status of AQCRs and to develop plans for remedying deficiencies in non-
attainment areas. The FY 1976 guidance has been modified by policy
decisions which have more sharply focused on the need to determine attain-
ment status of all AQCRs and to call for SIP revisions (where warranted
by a determination of substantial inadequacy of the SIP) by July 1, 1976.
These policy decisions have been communicated to Regional Offices.*
The policy recognizes the legal constraints imposed on EPA (i.e.,
SIPs are to provide for attainment by a certain date), the fact that
widespread non-attainment has been documented, and the need to continue
abatement efforts already underway. Since poor air quality may result
from the lack of an adequate State Implementation Plan, the lack of an
appropriate enforcement effort under the existing plan, or a combination
of these, the identification of the factors that contribute to non-
attainment and appropriate corrective actions is a prerequisite for
environmental objective achievement.
As a result of the current policy on attainment status, it is expected
that the factors affecting non-attainment of the NAAQS will have been
identified by July 1976. It is also expected that a plan for action,
*The applicable guidelines and regulations which specify the policies are
as follows: Guidelines for Determining the Need for Plan Revisions to the
Control Strategy Portion of the Approved State Implementation Plan. OAQPS
No. 1.2-011; Memorandum on "Agency Policy Regarding Calling for Plan
Revisions to Approved State Implementation Plans that are Substantially
Inadequate to Attain National Standards," dated November 12, 1975, from
Messrs. Strelow and Legro to all Regional Administrators; and Section 51.12
regulations published June 19, 1975, in the Federal Register and air
quality maintenance plan development procedures proposed in the Federal
Register October 20, 1975.
-------
9
which will result 1n correction of the deficiencies on a prioritized
basis, will have been developed. The FY 1977 program would concentrate
in the implementation of this corrective program.
Increased enforcement activity is to be indicated under the appropriate
outputs. The format enclosed in Appendix A* should be used to indicate
the status of plan adequacy determinations as of the beginning of the
fiscal year and the further commitments for FY 1977. All commitments are
to be based on considerations of resources available and applicable
priorities from among those listed herein. It is likely that not all
SIPs that require revisions will be identified by the beginning of FY 1977.
At any time in the future that an SIP is determined to be substantially
inadequate to attain standards, a revision can and should be ordered. The
decision for a revision has to be based on the careful weighing of a
series of factors (e.g., air quality, emissions, and compliance data),
with each revision to be determined on a case-by-case basis.**
It is the Regional Administrator's responsibility to identify any
SIP which is substantially inadequate to attain national standards and to
call for a plan revision where necessary. Such determinations are to be
made in Fiscal Year 1976 for all areas of the nation (i.e., both AQMA's
and non-AQMA's) for each criteria pollutant; calls for revisions to
existing SIP's which are substantially inadequate to provide for attain-
ment must be publicly announced (without proposal) by July 1, 1976.
*This form is the same as that used to report on FY 1976 Mid-year status.
**Additional guidance on the need for SIP revisions is contained in OAQPS
Guideline No. 1.2-011, Guidelines for Determining the Need for Plan... It
is expected that plan revisions, where required, will be facilitated by
the adoption of control measures that are considered to be reasonably
available. These control measures for CO and Ox are discussed in "Policies
for the Inclusion of Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant Controls in State
Implementation Plans," OTLUP, OAWM, December 1975.
-------
10
These calls for revisions must specify the schedule for submission of
revisions, and must require that emission limitations representative of
reasonably available control technology (as needed) must be submitted by
the State by July 1, 1977, and that any other measure (.generally referring
to the control of transportation sources and land use measures) necessary
for attainment must be submitted by the State within two years, (i.e.,
by July 1, 1978).*
The decision to call for a plan revision should be made only after
detailed analysis of the status of air quality; the restrictiveness of
the existing regulations; the status of source compliance and major enforce-
ment action; and after thorough discussion with the affected State and local
control agencies. EPA must exercise good .judgment in determing whether the
control strategy portion of an approved SIP is substantially inadequate
to achieve national standards on a timely basis. It is EPA policy to
request such plan revisjons only where they are clearly necessary.**
To declare that a SIP is substantially inadequate will imply a need for
new and more stringent limitations. It will take some time to develop
such limitations. Pollution sources might use this situation to resist
coming into compliance with existing regulations and thus, ongoing
*This is not intended to imply that some of these control measures are not
considered reasonably available control technology (RACT). However, these
measures, though considered reasonable, generally require more time to
implement due to need to obtain enabling legislation by the States. RACT
are those control measures that are considered to be the best that can be
applied to a specific source taking into consideration all factors relevant
to the application of control measures to the specific source. The ultimate
determination of applicability is made by the Regional Administrator, with
general criteria as to technical feasibility and desirability determined
nationally.
**The assessment of the need for an SIP revision will have been triggered,
In general, by ambient air quality levels in excess of the NAAQS. Air
quality levels provide a guide as to the degree of adequacy of the SIP
Obviously the degree of compliance with the present SIP is an important
-------
11
compliance efforts could be inhibited. Further, frequent revisions,
particularly where they affect emission control requirements, are undesirable
in that they confront source owners with a, "moving target."
Another factor to be considered is that any plan revision submitted
by the State that changes some part of the SIP or which adds a new part could
result in a challenge, under Section 307, by the affected sources to the
changed or added part.* Such action may delay enforcement of the new
requirements. Since substantial delays in enforcement can result from
such challenges, this reason alone is good cause to minimize changes in
regulations in the plan until present requirements are fully implemented
and any revision is clearly necessary.
While the Act requires expeditious attainment of both primary and
secondary standards, priority attention should be addressed to attainment
of primary standards, i.e., SIP revisions should not be based solely on
the need to attain secondary NAAQS. However, it is recommended that when
plan revisions are prepared for attainment of primary standards that the
plan revision also be adequate to provide for the expeditious attainment
of secondary standards. However, the date for attainment of the secondary
NAAQS should not necessarily be the same as that for attainment of the
primary standard.
B. Monitoring
It is recognized that air quality, emissions, and compliance
information remain inadequate for many areas to make a precise determi-
*i>ection 307 provides for a process of judicial review of the Agency's
thereof1" approving or Promul9at™9 an implementation plan or revision
-------
12
nation of the degree to which the health related air quality standards
may be exceeded, or to Identify more than a category of regulations or
sources as the potential causes of poor air quality. Plans for SIP
revision must incorporate provisions for improving the requisite data
bases, i.e., the air quality and emissions information used to determine
requisite control strategies. In addition, continued efforts in quality
[assurance for all data should be emphasized. It is Agency policy to make
control decisions on the basis of adequate data bases. "*^
C. Air Pol 1ution Control Process Improvement
Improvements 1n the air pollution control procesS should also be
aimed at during FY 1977. The incorporation of procedures that will be
implemented in the future should facilitate maintenance of air quality
once attained and generally facilitate air pollution control. Among
procedural aspects of SIPs that can be incorporated into State and
regional programs are new source review procedures, public availability
of data, and continuous emission monitoring. Effective new source review
processes should be incorporated into all State air pollution control
programs. The development of systems for the review of new sources is
not a resource intensive activity. Implementation of reviews, however,
will have to be based on priorities associated with a specific air
pollutant's control requirements and priorities.
Working relationships among various agencies which have responsibili-
ties for some of the planning and control measures .involved in attainment/
I maintenance should continue to be encouraged. Interrelationships can be
fostered through the "3-c" planning process, HUD 701 planning, 208
-------
13
areavide waste treatment management, A-95 reviews, and coastal zone
management agencies. In particular, new and revised transportation strategies
for oxidant and carbon monoxide control should be developed by transportation
agencies, in coordination with air pollution control agencies, through the
normal urban transportation planning process.
D. Non-Criteria Pollutants Control
It should be noted that control requirements for non-criteria pollutants
will continue to be developed on both a national (e.g., vinyl chloride) and
regional basis. Regional Offices will have to dedicate resources to achieving
some degree of control over sources of these pollutants. Priorities for
control of these pollutants should also be determined on an individual area
basis, taking into account the nature and magnitude of the problem, i.e.,
toxic pollutant control deserves a higher priority than the control of non-
toxic non-criteria pollutants.
Some of the problems that will have to be addressed may not be covered by
regulations or provided a pollutant priority; nevertheless, Regions (as well
as HQ) have to dedicate resources to these problems (e.g., Tacoma smelter
in Region X). A high priority, at least for initial implementation of
control measures, will have to be given to vinyl chloride. Controls for
this pollutant will be implemented during FY 1977 under section 112 of the
Act. A limited number of plants will be affected by the control requirements,
but positive steps will have to be taken by ROs to see to it that emissions
are controlled.
-------
14
t. Federal Facilities
Federal facility point source compliance is Integral with the
objective for attainment and maintenance of NAAQS. Federal facility control
activities derive their priority from the overall environmental and area-
specific priorities. Commitments and reporting for source control should
include Federal facility sources, where appropriate. Separate commitment
and reporting for Federal facilities are not included.
Executive Order 11738 pertains to the potential loss of Federal
grants, loans or contracts by polluters. This can occur when the
potential recipient has violated air and/or water standards in the
manner described by the regulations implementing the E.G. 11738 Program.
EPA will proceed with certain listing procedures upon receiving notifi-
cation from a regional office.
-------
15
III. Environmental Priorities and Related Actions
AIR OBJECTIVE I: To attain and maintain NAAQS-related goals in
all AQCRs for total suspended particulates (TSP),
sulfur dioxide CS02), carbon monoxide (CO), oxidants
(Qj<), and nitrogen dioxide (N02).
The Agency's highest priority is this objective. Within this objective,
priorities must be set for specific actions as indicated by assessments
made by Regional Administrators. In general, it is expected that TSP and
S02 would have a higher priority than CO, Ox, and N02 given the status
of the SIPs and their implementation:
Particulates and Sulfur Dioxide
Enforcement efforts should continue to be focused on the attainment of
the primary NAAQS for particulate matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (S02) in
those areas where these standards are, or are expected to be, exceeded and
for which reasonable control measures can be implemented. Current estimates
show tl-*t substantially more than half of the air quality control regions
(AQCRs) in the country are now failing to meet either the primary particulate
standard, or the primary 502 standard, or both, with the problem mostly
related to particulates.
In working toward attainment, past effort concentrated on compliance
by some 20,000 point sources, which together contribute about 85% of air
pollutants from stationary sources. By the beginning of FY 1977, nearly
all of these point sources will either be in final compliance or on schedules
leading to compliance in the very near future. The next task in assuring
attainment of the primary standards is achieving compliance with emission
limitations by minor sources contributing to non-attainment problems.
Attention will, therefore, be centered on two groups of sources during
-------
16
FY 1977. The remaining hard-core of major violators and some of the
numerous minor sources that are judged by EPA and State and local
agencies to be causing non-attainment. In obtaining compliance by
the hard-core polluters, much effort will have to go Into negotiating
consentagreements In attempts to avoid lengthy litigation, Into
monitoring and enforcing increments of progress contained in compliance
schedules, and into preparing actions/cases against the most recalcitrant
of these sources, Much resistance is expected.
It is estimated that minor sources now total about 200,000 and that
about 130,000 of. these are located in non-attainment AQCRs. However,
neither local, State, or Federal inventories of such sources are complete
enough to precisely determine the numbers or types of these sources that
are contributing to non-attainment in each AQCR. During FY 1976, the
problems posed by minor emitters will have to be assessed and phased
action plans to abate emissions from key minor sources in non-attainment
areas will have to be formulated as part of the overall corrective action
plan fjr non-attainment AQCRs. Implementation of the corrective strategy
in FY 1977 will be required.
Many more problems are anticipated in obtaining compliance in minor
emitters than were encountered in obtaining compliance by major point
sources. Such sources are generally not multl-regional or national in
their scope of operation but are Integral parts of communities. It is
expected that difficult economic and employment issues will be encountered.
Increased guidance from the regional offices will be required to ensure
that State and local agencies properly prioritize enforcement tasks and
take action against minor sources. General criteria for dealing with
these types of problems will be provided by HQ as required.
-------
17
Oxidants, CO, and N02
Actions to attain these NAAQS are limited to the degree to which
reasonable control measures are Implementable. Highest priority for
control should be given to emission reductions from stationary sources
of HC through the application of RACT ajjd the implementation of State
Inspection/Maintenance Programs for thoserareas for which SIPs provide
for such measures. It is expected that air quality data will indicate
the need for SIP revisions for a relatively large number of areas.
Adoption of control measures for these areas should follow the guidelines
already issued as to reasonableness of control measures.
Futhermore, since a successful control strategy for oxidants
and carbon monoxide is highly dependent on the control of transportation
sources (i.e., motor vehicles), new and revised transportation strategies
should be developed by transportation agencies, in coordination with air
pollution control agencies, through the normal urban transportation planning
process. In the September 17, 1975, Federal Register DOT issued
regulations on the transportation planning process requiring Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPO's) to prepare (a) short-range (3-5 years)
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP's) and (b) plans for improved
Transportation System Management (TSM). Therefore, new and revised
•
transportation measures aimed at CO and HC emission reductions must
be included in the TIP and TSM plans that result from the annual urban
transportation planning process.
Specifically, five criteria must be met to insure that air quality
measures are implemented as part of the urban transportation planning
Process; 0) The metropolitan transportation planning organization should
-------
18
participate in the development or revision of transportation measures;
(2) all transportation measures (excluding source control measures,
i.e., I/M and retrofit) scheduled for implementation in the next 3 to
5 years should be included in the short-range TIP; (3) all measures
involving improved transportation system management Ce.g., bus priority
treatment, parking controls, traffic-free zones) should be included in
the TSM element of the metropolitan area's transportation plan, regardless
of when these measures are scheduled for implementation; (4) each trans-
portation measure must appear in the annual element of the TIP for the
year in which the transportation measure is scheduled for implementation;
and (5) the transportation plan should be consistent with the ambient air
quality standards, with consistency defined as in the joint EPA-FWHA
guidelines for implementing section 109(j) of Title 23.
Outputs for this objective follow:
!• OUTPUT TITLE: Recommendations for corrective action,
by AQCRs, for all primary NAAQS achievement and mainte-
nance and revised regulatory portions of SIPs to provide a
framework for attainment and maintenance all primary NAAQS.
A commitment is required, for those AQCRs for which action was not
completed during FY 1976, (1) to the determination of which AQCRs will
not meet primary NAAQS; (_2) to the performance of evaluations for those
AQCRs identified as non-attainment AQCRs; and C3) to the revision of
substantially inadequate Sips. The flexibility provided by the policy
on maintenance planning and extended timeframes for plan development/
submission should provide an acceptable process for development of plans
by States, which is to be encouraged. EPA promulgations of requisite
control measures, upon State failure to act, may have to be contemplated.
-------
. 19
Commitments for SIP adequacy assessments and calls for SIP revisions
are to be made in the format indicated by Appendix A (EPA Form 3720-2A,
revised). The Regional Administrator's decision on the development of
<
AQMA plans and their adoption/promulgation are also to be indicated on
the Form 3720-2A. This form is to be updated on a (quarterly basis. The
initial plans submission should reflect the status as of the time of
program plans preparation. There are no activity indicators for this
output.
-------
20
2. OUTPUT TITLE
OUTPUT UNITS
Ensure compliance with SIP emission limitations for
TSP, S02, HC, CO, and NOX in non-attainment AQCRs.*
G.
Number of identified major sources determined to be in compliance
with SIP emission standards or scheduled increments of progress
in all non-attainment AQCRs within the Region.
Number of identified major sources determined to be in violation
with SIP emission standards or scheduled increments of progress
in all non-attainment AQCRs within the Region.
Number of identified major sources of unknown compliance status
with SIP emission standards or scheduled increments of progress
in all non-attainment AQCRs within the Region.
«
Number of identified minor sources determined to be in compliance
with SIP emission standards or scheduled increments of progress
in all non- attainment AQCRs within the Region.
Number of identified minor sources determined to be in violation
with SIP emission standards or scheduled increments of progress
in all non-attainment AQCRs within the Region.
Number of identified mi nor. sources of unknown compliance status
with SIP emission standards or scheduled increments of progress
in all non-attainment AQCRs within the Region.
Number^ of major sources inspected fir non-attainment AQCRs by
1nSpeCti°ns must be uPdated
NEDS
1.
2.
EPA
All States in Region
Number of minor sources inspected
in non- attainment AQCRs by:
1. EPA
2. All States in Region
Number of enforcement actions taken by EPA to ensure compliance
in non-attainment AQCRs for:
1 . Minor sources
2. Major sources
ACTIVITY INDICATOR
1.
Number of formal inquiries sent to all sources in non-attainment
AQCRs by:
a. All States in Region
b. EPA
* Appendix B provides the definitions for the outputs and activity indicators for
outputs 2 through 6 under Objective I and for all outputs under Objective III.
-------
21
3. OUTPUT TITLE Ensure compliance by major sources with SIP emission limi-
tations for TSP, S02, HC, CO, and NC^ in all AQCRs.*
OUTPUT 'UNITS
A. Number of identified major sources determined to be in compliance
with SIP emission standards (by State).
B. Number of identified major sources of unknown1 compliance status
with respect to SIP emission standards (by State).
C. Number of identified major sources in violation of SIP emission
Standards (by State).
D. Number of identified major sources determined to be in compliance
with scheduled increments of progress (by State).
E. Number of identified major sources of unknown compliance status
with respect to scheduled increments of progress (by State).
F. Number of identified major sources in violation of scheduled
increments of progress (by State).
G. Anticipated number of major facilities inspected by:
1. EPA in each State
2. Each State
H. Anticipated number of enforcement actions taken by EPA (by State).
ACTIVITY INDICATORS:
1. Number of formal inquiries sent to all sources by:
a. EPA in each State
b. Each State
2. Number of field surveillance actions taken by:
a. EPA
b. Each State
3. Number of notices of violation issued by:
a. EPA
b. Each State
4. Number of abatement orders issued by:
a. FPA
b. each State
-------
5. Number of civil/criminal proceedings inititated by:
a. EPA
b. Each State
4. OUTPUT TITLE Ensure compliance with EPA requirements for those
combustion sources receiving prohibition orders from Ft
ACTIVITY INDICATOR:
1. Number of sources for which rulemaking and notification/certification
to FEA are complete.
5. OUTPUT TITLE Ensure full compliance with NSPS requirements in all
OUTPUT UNITS
A. Number of operating sources subject to NSPS determined to be in
compliance
B. Number of operating sources subject to NSPS of unknown compliance
status
C. Number of operating sources subject to NSPS in vlol.il inn.
D. Number of sources inspected by:
1. EPA
2. All States in Region
E. Number of States delegated enforcement of NSPS.
F. Number of enforcement actions taken by EPA.
ACTIVITY INDICATOR
1. Number of enforcement actions taken by all States in Region.
2. Number of NSPS sources for which construction has commenced.
6. OUTPUT TITLE Ensure that new sources are located and constructed in
each State in accordance with acceptable new source
review requirements.
OUTPUT UNITS
A. Number of State permits audited by EPA.
ACTIVITY INDICATORS:
1. Number of permits issued by all States in Region
2. Number of permits issued by EPA
-------
23
7. OUTPUT TITLE; Implementation of SIPs which provide for the
prevention of significant deterioration of air
quality.
OUTPUT UNITS: None
ACTIVITY INDICATORS: Number of source reviews to be carried
out by EPA.
With NSD regulations requiring source reviews to be carried
out for specific classes of sources, EPA ROs must (in the absence
of State action) assure that new sources proposed for construction
meet NSD criteria.
8. OUTPUT TITLE: Assure compliance with Fuel Additive Regulations
and Vapor Recovery Regulations*
OUTPUT UNIT: A. Conduct unleaded fuel inspections at
retail outlets.
B. Test unleaded gasoline samples by field
and/or laboratory method (only one test per station
may be counted toward the output commitment).
C. Conduct Stage I vapor recovery inspections
at retail outlets (EPA conducted inspection).
ACTIVITY INDICATORS: Reported quarterly.
a. Number of contaminations detected (fuels)
b. Number of administrative complaints issued
-------
24
ACTIVITY INDICATORS: Reported quarterly.
c. Number of notices of violation issued
d. Percentage of facilities which are in compliance with
promulgated and/or EPA approved state adopted Stage I
regulations.
e. Percentage of facilities which are in compliance with
promulgated and/or EPA approved state adopted Stage II
regulations.
f. Number of enforcement actions taken by states under
state adopted regulations.
g. Number of §113 notices of violations issued pursuant
to EPA promulgated regulations.
In FY 77, Regions should direct efforts toward assuring
compliance with Fuel Additive Regulations and Vapor Recovery
Regulations. Regions should conduct a total of 25,000 inspections
consisting of 20,000 unleaded gasoline inspections and 5,000 Stage
I vapor recovery inspections. During FY 77, vapor recovery inspection
activities will be integrated with fuel additive inspections.
Inspectors will continue to perform unleaded gasoline inspections
at the retail outlet level, and at certain retail outlets will
perform both vapor recovery and unleaded fuel inspections.
Due to a lack of specific resources, the output commitments to
conduct annual audits and spot checks of existing Inspection/
Maintenance programs and facilities, previously contained in the
-------
25
December 12, 1976, Draft Intermedia Regional Priorities, have been
deleted for FY 77. Nonetheless, we believe that Inspection/
Maintenance is the single most important component of an overall
mobile source emission control strategy, and Regions should take
every effort to work with States to assure that Inspection/
Maintenance programs are implemented as rapidly as possible.
Mobile Source Enforcement personnel will be obtaining emissions
data from ongoing Inspection/Maintenance programs for use in
other mobile source programs. In order to assure the quality of
this emission data, Headquarters staff will monitor the agreements
with states that are providing such data. Regions should
facilitate the monitoring of emission data agreements between
States and EPA.
-------
26
9. OUTPUT TITLE
Assure the compliance status of Federal facilities with SIP
requirements. Negotiate consent agreements with facilities not in
compliance.
Output Unit;
Number of on-site inspections of Federal facilities (100% of all
major sources,and 100% of all significant minor sources impacting air
quality in non-attainment ACQR's).
Activity Indicators:
Number of major sources -
a. in compliance with SIP emission standards or scheduled
increments of progress
b. in violation of SIP emission standards or scheduled
increments or progress
c. that are known to exist and are of unknown compliance
status
d. covered by current consent agreements
Notes:
A source is out of compliance if -
(1) It is in violation of the abatement schedule contained
in the consent agreement or other plan, or
(2) It fails to meet applicable emission limitations.
The definition of "major" source is contained in the "Guidelines
for Federal Agencies' Compliance With Stationary Source Air Pollution
Standards," issued May 6, 1975.
-------
27
"Consent Agreement" is an agreement setting forth abatement
actions and schedules negotiated by EPA with a Federal facility manager
and when mutually agreed to the State air pollution control agency.
Full implementation of the May 6 Guidelines will require
compliance status determination of minor sources as well as majors.
There are no separate activity indicators for review of minor Federal
sources; however, minor sources which are contributors to non^-attainment
in AQCR's are to be included in the appropriate air output.
The schedule against which you should commit resources is as
follows:
Compliance
JUtus
Determination
Advisory Letter
on Compliance
Status
Consent Agreement
or State-approved
Schedule
On-site Visit
Major Sources
5/30/76
N/A
6/30/76
Minors Minors
(Non-attainment (Attainment
AQCR) AQCR)
9/30/76
9/30/76
12/30/76
9/30/76
12/30/76
9/30/77
In accordance with the output unit
The goal of compliance determination is to reduce the number of
Federal facilities of unknown compliance status to zero.
-------
28
AIR OBJECTIVE II: To control emissions of non-criteria pollutants.
The second air objective 1s the Implementation of control measures
for non-criteria pollutants. Continued enforcement of standards under
Section 112 will be required; high priority should be given to the
implementation of vinyl chloride emission standards,
Although an increasing number of sources of other non-criteria
pollutants will be covered by NSPS under Section 111, the provisions
of Section lll(d) (requiring control of existing sources) will only be
triggered by a separate rule-making action (i.e., the issuance of
guidelines documents applicable to existing sources). The first
action, covering sulfuric acid mist from sulfuric acid plants, will be
promulgated by the end of the FY 1976. A guidelines document for
phosphate fertilizer plants (fluorides) will also be promulgated in
early FY 1977. Therefore, only minor regional and State activity is
expected during FY 1977 under lll(d) requirements.
By the end of FY 1975, all existing sources covered by the initial
promulgation of NESHAP were required to be in final compliance. An
additional 500 sources of mercury, asbestos, and vinal chloride will be
covered by NESHAP by 1977. EPA enforcement of NESHAP
provisions for the estimated 30,000 transitory operations of asbestos
spraying and building demolitions that occur each year, however, has never
been adequate due to resource restrictions and the nature of these regulations
-------
29
(being best enforced on a local level). Delegation of these portions
^ of NESHAP is, therefore, extremely important.
In addition, standards will be promulgated, under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, for the control of vinyl cHlbrTde ^wTsslum; i^r-jin runr--
ufacturing plants. During FY 1977, it is expected that Regional Offices
will have to take action to assure that the few sources covered by the
regulations achieve compliance expeditiously. Given the importance of
this issue, high priority attention should be given to VC control.
10• OUTPUT TITLE; Ensure compliance with NESHAP requirements.
OUTPUT UNITS; " - ••-
A. Number of sources subject to NESHAPS
B. Number of sources subject to NESHAPS determined
to be in compliance with standards or in compliance
with waiver of compliance.
C. Number of sources inspected:
1. by EPA
2. by all States in Region.
D. Number of enforcement actions taken against sources by EPA.
E. Number of States delegated NESHAPS enforcement
ACTIVITY INDICATORS
1. Number of enforcement actions taken by States in Region
-------
30
IV. Monitoring
The development of appropriate and valid data bases (i.e., air
quality source, and emissions) necessary to implementing control pro-
grams, assessment of progress in implementing controls, assessing the
need to changes control activities, and development of new control
strategies at the State and national level is an integral part of
environmental control programs. Monitoring (including quality assurance
activities) derives its priority from the activities it supports and
cannot be neglected or ignored. Detailed guidance for monitoring
programs is available from OAQPS and ORD guidelines documents.
Quality Assurance: It is the Agency's goal that quality assurance
II practices be adequate to produce consistent, accurate and interrelatable
[I monitoring data. To meet the requirements of an adequate quality
assurance program, the following actions should be initiated (or
continued) in FY-77:
_>> (1) Visit and Evaluate Major Laboratories in Each State
The capacity and competence of the State and regional agencies,
and their contractors, should be assessed, documented, and, where
necessary, improved to ensure that air monitoring data is of suffi-
cient quality to determine which AQCR's are expected to meet the primary
NAAQS. Source emission monitoring and source testing capabilities
should be evaluated in those States that have received delegation
of authority to enforce MSPS, NESHAPS, and as may be required for
SIP's. The ORD/EMSLRTP is initiating a program to evaluate the procedures
-------
currently in use by some Regional Offices for evaluating laboratories.
It is expected that consistent and standardized guidelines for State
laboratory evaluations, will be developed by FY 1977. Under the prospec-
tive guidelines, Regional Offices will be responsible for evaluating
the State laboratory, and States would be responsible for quality
assurance practices conducted in intrastate laboratories.
(2) Development of a Minimal Field and Laboratory Quality
Assurance Program in Each State
This program should be consistent with ORD/EMSL-RTP guidelines
to be issued spring 1976.
(3) Participation of Region, State, and Local Agency Laboratories
in EPA Conducted Quality Assurance Performance Surveys
These activities should be coordinated with ORD/EMSL-RTP.
(4) NASN and Fuel Regulations Activities
The NASN provides the only consistent source of non-criteria
pollutant air quality data used to establish trends and to develop
national policies regarding the control or regulation of these poll-
tants. NASN activity should continue and regions performing NASN
analysis for TSP, S02, and N02 should continue their internal audit
programs. The NASN TSP filters should be returned to ORD/EMSL-RTP
after TSP determination for detailed chemical analysis. Filters for
use in the NASN and routine SIP monitoring networks will be supplied
from EMSL-RTP in mid-calendar year 1976. In the event that any Region
finds it necessary to monitor noncriteria pollutants and to perform
analyses in their own, State or contract laboratories, these efforts
must be coordinated with EMSL-RTP to assure that proper methods and
-------
32
quality assurance practices are conducted and documented. In addition*
the Regional Offices should continue the lead and phosphorus in gasoline
quality assurance program.
Air Monitoring and Quality Control Objective: To provide data of docu-
mented quality to assess the progress made in achieving environmental
goals and the effectiveness of air pollution control actions.
11. OUTPUT TITLE: State/local/regional air pollution programs
that generate valid air pollutant data as docu-
mented by an FPA approved quality assurance
program.
OUTPUT UNIT: Number of State laboratories found to be
meeting minimal quality assurance criteria.
ACTIVITY INDICATORS:
a. Number of State laboratories visited to determine
if their quality assurance program meets minimal cri-
teria as specified in ORD guidelines.
b. Number of States having an active quality assurance
program capable of evaluating local laboratory Quality
assurance activities.
Regions will be asked to inform headquarters, at the end of each
fiscal year, the number of laboratories making air pollution measurements
within the region that do not participate in ORD/EMSL-RTP performance
surveys.
Optimal Collection and Use of Ambient and Source Data: A program should
be initiated to review ambient monitoring networks and take correc-
tive actions regarding the number, frequency of sampling, siting,
-------
33
and distribution of monitors. The major emphasis should be to minimize
the collection of routine monitoring data which does not provide informa-
tion needed for SIP evaluations and strategy development. Consideration
should be given to the increased use of short-term "special" monitoring
projects to identify and quantify problems, calibrate diffusion models,
and support enforcement programs.
Ambient Monitoring Networks; Emission reductions have significantly
reduced ambient levels of S02 and TSP. Regional Offices should review
S02 and TSP networks as many geographical areas appear to have more
than an adequate number of monitors to evaluate trends and ambient
conditions.
Actions should be taken to encourage reduction or relocation of
TSP and S0« instruments in areas where air quality levels are well
documented and significantly below the NAAQS. Trend stations as
-' 'stifled by Headquarters, after review by the Regional Offices and
States, should be retained for control strategy evaluation and estima-
tion of population exposure.
Similar actions should be taken with respect to N02 monitors as
only a small percentage of these exceeded national N02 NAAQS in 1974.
In those areas where the annual N02 standards are being exceeded, the
regions should ensure that adequate sized N02 networks with appropriate
instrumentation have been installed and in operation shortly after the
new N0« reference principal and calibration procedure has been promul-
gated.
The primary concern for CO is with the siting of monitoring instru-
ments because of the effects of sharp gradients in measured air quality
-------
34
occurring in the vicinity of heavy traffic sources. Regional emphasis
for FY-77 should be to review CO sites and to initiate corrective
siting actions as appropriate. From a national perspective (i.e.,
trend and general conditions), there is no need for additional fixed
station ambient CO monitoring at this time.
For oxidants, the major thrust by the Regional Offices should be
to review the general location of oxidant monitors around major urbanized
areas to ensure that at least one oxidant monitor is located in areas
downwind of principal urban areas. No overall increased number of
fixed station oxidant monitors appear needed at this time.
12. OUTPUT TITLE; Air quality data that is fully adequate for
assessing NMQS achievement.
OUTPUT UNIT: Number of pollutant monitors in designated
or suspected non-attainment areas meeting cri-
teria established in EPA Guidelines on siting,
quality assurance,and general policy out-
lines.
ACTIVITY INDICATOR: Number of monitors visited and evaluated
in designated or suspected non-attainment areas.
To meet the quantified commitment, Regional Offices should carry
out a program for correcting monitoring deficiencies, especially for
those monitoring sites which generate data used to make NAAQS attainment/non-
attainment decisions and to decide on the need for (and nature of)
SIP revisions. Regional Offices will be asked to update headquarters
-------
55
information on the size of their SIP monitoring networks.
Source/Emission Inventories; Where SIP modifications are necessary,
air quality and source/emission data must be concurrent and formated
in such a way that air quality/emission baseline relationships can
be established. In situations in which diffusion modeling will be
used to develop TSP and S0« plan revisions, data related to modeling
(e.g., stack parameters) will have a high priority.
For areas for which air quality maintenance plans appear likely
source/emission data will be needed for the review of new sources.
23 OUTPUT TITLE; Up-to-date and accurate emission inventories
in geographical areas of special concern.
OUTPUT UNIT; None. *
Source information (emissions, compliance status, source parameters)
is needed on the highest priority basis to develop and evaluate control
strategies for those areas where source compliance with SIP emission
regulations will be insufficient to attain NAAQS. The results of field
surveillance, inspection, and enforcement actions are to be used to
update (i.e., to add, delete, or change data) source inventories. The
requirement to perform such actions includes the coding of data on NEDS
forms and submittal for storage in accordance with OAQPS Guidelines.
(It is recognized that as a result of the inventory reviews to be
conducted during FY 1977, the inventory for some sources will be found
to be unchanged from that in earlier NEDS source inventories. In
such cases, updating of the NEDS inventory will consist of submitting
a change to the Year of Record for those sources.)
* The commitment to major source inspection in non-attainment AQCR's
explicitly includes updating NEDS for all inspected sources.
-------
36
It 1s required that Regional Offices and States update appropriate
data bases as new Information on sources 1s obtained pursuant to enforce-
ment actions, field surveillance, SIP reassessments or development, etc.
Data Flow and Reporting; Major emphasis in FY-77 should be to ensure
that ambient and source/emissions data collected by the State and local
agencies are submitted in accordance with reporting requirements. The
States and regions should review ambient data to screen out anomalous
values.
First effort should be given to the installation, operation, and
training associated with the Air Quality Data Handling System (AQDHS)
in areas where commitments have been made. It should be EPA's goal
for FY-77 to ensure that all States have satisfactory systems (manual
or automatic) for data processing, storage, and retrieval. Second, pro-
vide support and assistance to Emission Inventory Subsystem (EIS)
installations and associated training for States and local agencies.
Third, submit all source test results in accordance with guidelines for
inclusion in centralized data files for the improvement and development
of emission factors. These factors are vital in developing emission
data bases to support strategy analyses.
14. OUTPUT TITLE: Quarterly reports on ambient air quality data
and semi-annual reports on State progress.
OUTPUT UNIT; None.
ACTIVITY INDICATORS; None.
Significant levels of resources are expanded by States in gathering
air quality and emissions data; for these efforts to be meaningful (and
-------
37_.
comply with legislative intent), these data must be available for ana-
lytical purposes to RO's and EPA as well as the States. Compilation
of the data and submission to appropriate data banks is essential.
A commitment to the submission of the reports, as required by regu-
lations (Section 51.7), is required in the program plan narrative sub-
mitted by the Regional Administrator. Since performance is to be judged
on the basis of reports received at HQ as specified in regulations and
guidelines, there is no need for separate reporting.
-------
38
Air Regional Guidance Appendix A
Specific Instructions for Using
Form 3720-2A (Revised)
3. Date
4. AQCR Identifier
5. Pollutants
6. Attainment
(a) Status
(b) Analysis
Information to be Provided
Enter "Air"*
Enter the appropriate Regional Office
identifier*
Enter date form is prepared.
Enter the title and number of each
AQCR for the Region.*
Enter appropriate pollutants.*
The attainment status of each AQCR
for each pollutant should be Indicated
here ("yes" for attainment and "no"
for non-attainment). If the attain-
ment status is still unknown, the
column is to be left blank.
If Column 6 (a) has been left
blank, then this should be completed
with date by which the required
analysis will be completed. If an
additional analysis is contemplated in
the future even if attainment status
has been determined, such plans should
be indicated. (Note that this is the
analysis to determine if a NAAQS has
been attained. It is not the more
detailed analysis to determine if a
SIP revision is needed, which is
covered by 7(a).) After the analysis
is completed, the actual completion
date should be entered in parenthesis
when progress reports are submitted.
*Items marked by asterisks will have appropriate data entered on forms
to be supplied to regional offices. The forms used for FY 1976 mid-year
reporting may be used, i.e., FY 1977 commitments would be an updating
of the FY 1976 reporting data.
-------
39
7. Non-Attainment
(a) Analysis
(b) SIP Adequate?
(c) SIP Revision
(d) Work Schedule
The date by which the required
analysis to determine if a SIP
revision is needed should be noted
in this column. (The analysis is
required only in non-attainment AQCR).
This column 1s to be used to
indicate whether a SIP is sub-
stantially inadequate in a non-
attainment AQCR:
If detailed analysis show that the
SIP is substantially inadequate and
needs revision to attain NAAQS,
then "no" (indicating SIP inadequacy)
should be entered.
If the detailed analysis shows the
existing SIP is adequate and that
other actions (e.g., further enforce-
ment) are needed, then "yes" (indicating
SIP adequacy) should be entered.
"No" should also be entered for
those non-attainment AQCRs where
technology does not exist to allow
attainment (e.g., fugitive dust
areas) and revisions is not approp-
riate. . The cause for non-attain-
ment should be identified by approp-
riate footnotes.**
This column should be filled with
the date by which the Region has
notified or expects "to notify the
State that there is need for a SIP
revision.
This column is to be completed with
the date by which the Region expects
to have final agreement with the
State on the work schedule for the
SIP revision.
**The underlined material represents a change (from "Yes" to "No") from
the instructions included with the draft guidance and the draft revision
of Form 3720-2A circulated for comment.
-------
40
(e) SIP Revised TMs column 1s to be completed with
the date (s) the Regional Office
expects the SIP revisions for
attainment will be completed and
published 1n the Federal Register.
8. Maintenance
(a) AQMA Identifier If an AQMA fs located within the
AQCR, the name and number of the AQMA
should be entered here.*
(b) SIP Revision This column is to be filled with
the date by which the Regional
Office will request SIP revisions
for maintenance from the State.
(c) SIP Revised The date (s) the revisions for
maintenance are due should be
entered here.
-------
.41
APPENDIX B
DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS, OUTPUTS, AND ACTIVITY INDICATORS RELATING
TO STATIONARY SOURCE AIR ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS
To ensure continuity with the Regional Office and State programs
established in FY 1976, the basic terms and definitions used in the FY
1977 guidance are, with a few exceptions, unchanged from FY 1976. New
or modified terms used in the FY 1977 guidance are explained in this
Appendix. Definitions are listed by associated outputs and activity
indicators.
Air Objective 1, Output Title #2 - Ensure compliance with SIP emission
limitations for TSP, S02» HC. CO, and NOV in non-attainment AQCRs.
A. General - Outputs and Activity Indicators under this Output Title
•Tre associated with major and minor sources located in non-attainment
AQCRs. By the end of FY 1976, the regional offices will have completed
analyses for all non-attainment AQCRs; these analyses will provide
comprehensive assessments of the reasons for non-attainment and will
identify those individual sources or groups of sources that require
enforcement attention to ensure primary standards attainment. Action
against such sources will be planned in the enforcement action strategies
that are a part of these analyses. The major and minor sources identified
in these enforcement strategies are those that will be reported under
this output title. All major and minor sources identified as having
an impact on non-attainment in each AQCR are to be included under this
objective, both 1n the start level and the milestones.
-------
42
Under Air Outputs 2 and 3, the terms major and minor source are
used 1n this year's guidance. These terms are replacements for the
designations point and non-point source that were used in FY 1976,
but have the same basic meaning.
1. Major Source - means any facility capable of emitting more
than 100 tons per year of any single pollutant, assuming no pollution
control. A facility is counted as a single major source even if its
potential emissions for more than one pollutant exceed 100 tons per
year, or if more than one stack (or other point of emission in the
facility) can emit over 100 tons per year.
2. Minor Source - means any facility having an emission potential
of under 100 tons per year of any single pollutant. The lower limit
cut-off for these sources will vary from region to region depending
upon the nature of the air pollution problems present, but should not
be higher than 25 tons per year.
3. Determined to be (in, out, or of unknown compliance status) -
As in past years, reporting under the management by objectives system
for enforcement-related outputs is to be based upon firm, substantiated
information. Start levels of source compliance status and each sub-
sequent quarterly report should therefore address only identified
major and minor sources; that is, only those for which the region and
State have a name, address, and knowledge concerning the type of source
and general magnitude of emissions. All adequately Identified major
and minor sources should be reported as either in, out, or of unknown
compliance status. In projecting milestone and end commitments, however,
new sources or sources which have yet to be adequately identified should
result in a predicated increase In the total number of sources. The
-------
43
difference between the known start level and predicted higher milestone
and end levels is one index of how much surveillance work the regions
and States expect to accomplish during the year. The total number of
actually identified sources reported each quarter is an indication of
how close the regional office and State surveillance programs track
with the goals established at the beginning of the fiscal year.
Although a relatively small increase in major sources is to be expected,
a large increase in the number of minor sources may have to be pro-
jected if only a few out of the estimated total number of such target
sources have been identified when FY 1977 commitments are made.
Criteria for reporting source compliance status, detailed below,
are essentially the same as in past years. In general, these defini-
tions require:
• That the compliance status of both major and minor sources
be determined in accordance with Table 1.
• That major and minor source compliance status be verified
once each year. (The compliance status established in
the preceding 12 months should be used for start levels.)
• That on the order of 10% of the major and minor sources
for which the State has made compliance determinations
are verified by EPA. The percentage of sources investi-
gated by EPA in any single State will vary greatly in
accordance with the region's assessment of State enforce-
ment effectiveness. Regions must verify compliance
status of enough major and minor sources in every State,
however, to evaluate the accuracy of information reported
by States.
-------
TABLE 1
ACCEPTABILITY OF TECHNIQUES FOR VERIFYING COMPLIANCE STATUS
- EPA OR STATE ENFORCEMENT -
IfAl TntTV f\C
VALIDITY OF
TWHNTfHIES
ACCEPTABLE
Note: At least
one increment of
progress in every
schedule should
be verified by a
preferred
technique
'
NOT ACCEPTABLE
INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS IN SCHEDULES
Development of final
control plan
• Copy of p.lan
(preferred)
• Letter from
responsible
corporate officer
. certifying achieve-
'Vnent
Date of binding commitment
to purchase control eqc*.
• Copy of contract
(preferred )
• Letter from responsible
corporate officer
certifying achievement
Initiate on site
construction
• Inspection
(preferrred)
• Letter from
responsible cor-
porate officer
certifying
achievement
Complete on site
construction
• Inspection
(preferred)
• Letter from res-
ponsible cor-
porate officer
certifying
achievement
Telephone calls or other such unsubstantiated evidence
,
FINAL
COMPLIANCE
(in order of accuracy)
• Emission test conducted and
results evaluated by EPA
(or State)
• Emission test observed and
results evaluated by EPA
(or State).
• Opacity observation, where
applicable, by certified
observer.
• Inspection by qualified EPA
(or State) personnel to obtain
adequate operating data to
calculate compliance or compare
to operation during previous
emission test.
• Emission factors for SOg
emissions at fuel burning in-
stallations with no poll«!Son ^
controls (data submitted 4* *•
response to §114 or equivalent
State statute requirement)
• EPA (or State) contractors report
of inspection or emission test
when evaluated by EPA or State.
t Emission factors for S02 from
combustion sources with controls
and all other pollutants based
on data from 5114 letter
responses when calculated emissio
are much less (generally a factor
of ten) than allowed.
• Unobserved emission test report
submitted by source which is
evaluated and believed to be
accurate.
• Emission test not observed &
report unevaluated
• Opacity observations not sub-
stantiated by inspection of
plant operations
• Unevaluated contractor's report
• Unsubstantiated emission factor
analysis
• Emission inventory data
-------
45
4. Non-attainment AQCRs - means AQCRs that the region and State
have determined are exceeding the primary national ambient air quality
standards for any pollutant. The designation of non-attainment status
for an AQCR should be based on the regions' best available information.
If it is uncertain whether air quality levels are exceeding the primary
NAAQS, the bias should be toward non-attainment classification. The
attached guidance document provided by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards specifies what criteria will be used in deter-
mining attainment/non-attainment.
B. Output Units for Air Objective I, Output Title #2 (all Output
units and activity indicators are to be incorporated in State control
agency grants)
1. Units A and D - Number of identified major and minor sources
determined to be in compliance with SIP emission standards or with
Scheduled increments of progress - includes only those sources which
have been verified to be in final compliance with emission limitations
or verified to be no more than 90 days overdue in achieving all currently
due increments of progress.
Final compliance is to be verified by the State or EPA in accordance
with one of the following acceptable criteria. If one or more of the
emission points within a major or minor source is out of compliance,
the whole source is judged to be out of compliance. Table 1 indicates
the acceptable methods of EPA-determined compliance. Regions are to
ensure that the criteria used in State determinations are comparable.
As indicated above, EPA must evaluate State effectiveness by making an
independent check of the compliance status of selected major and minor
facilities for which the State has made compliance determinations.
-------
46
It is EPA's responsibility to provide the most accurate assessment of
compliance status possible. Therefore, the following guidance is
provided: If EPA's findings conflict with those made by the State for
more than 10% of the facilities investigated, the number of sources in
compliance reported by the State may be included in milestone reports
for this output commitment, and must be listed as having unknown compli-
ance status. When projecting the number of sources that are to be
inspected to determine compliance status, careful consideration should
be given to the techniques employed as related to resources. The most
accurate techniques for determining compliance status, stack tests
performed and evaluated by the Region, or detailed plant inspections,
generally require the most resources.
In determining compliance with schedules, sources with a number
of schedules or a number of increments occurring during the fiscal
year are counted only once. As in final compliance determinations,
the number of major and minor sources with schedules verified by the
State may not be included in this commitment if unresolved discrepancies
between State and EPA findings exist for more than 10% of the sources
EPA has checked.
2. Units B and E - Number of identified major and minor sources
determined to be in violation SIP emission standards or scheduled
increments of progress - These commitments include all major and minor
sources that contain any emission point in violation of an emission
standard and not on a compliance schedule and all sources that are more
than 90 days overdue in meeting any currently due increments of progress
in any compliance schedule. Sources will be determined to be in
-------
47
violation according to one of the acceptable criteria established in
output units A and D and Table 1. Until all violating emission points
come into final compliance or are complying with scheduled increments of
progress, a source may not be accounted for under any other output
commitment. Sources behind in meeting any currently due increment of
progress must be reported under this output unit, even though other
increments of progress are currently being met or compliance status
with respect to other increments is unknown. As indicated in Table 1,
acceptable criteria for determining compliance with an increment include:
i) copy of a control plan or contract for appropriate increments;
ii) inspection of the source to evaluate completion of construction;
"•111) information supplied pursuant to a section 114 inquiry or by other
regulatory means of certifying compliance. These commitments should
be as low as resources permit in order to approach 100% compliance.
3. Units C and E - Number of identified major and minor sources
of unknown compliance status with respect to SIP emission standards
or scheduled increments of progress - these commitments are composed of
major and minor sources adequately identified and located by the
regional office or State, and for which compliance status has not
been definitively ascertained for all points of emission by the
criteria established above. However, if one or more of the emission
points within a major or minor facility is known to be out of compliance,
the whole source is judged to be in noncompllance. Concomitantly,
these commitments are to include all major and minor sources on schedules
whose status regarding compliance with all currently due increments
of progress is unknown. Sources determined to be complying with some
-------
48
currently due Increments but of unknown status with respect to other
increments should be reported 1n this output. If, however, a source
is more than 90 days overdue for one or more increment of progress,
it is counted as being in violation even if the status with respect .
to other increments is unknown. It is important that a sufficient
compliance monitoring and field surveillance effort by both States
and Regions should be undertaken to reduce the number of sources
listed in this commitment. It is expected that the end level commitment
for this output would be close to zero for major sources.
4. Units G and H - Number of major and minor sources inspected
to determine compliance - these commitments are the total numbers of
sources which have been inspected. The method used to determine
compliance status can include process inspections, opacity observations,
and stack tests. In many instances, source compliance status can be
determined by EPA evaluation of responses to formal inquiries; I.e.,
section 114 letters. Each major and minor source can only be counted
once under these outputs, no matter how many times it has been inspected.
{Multiple inspections for major sources will be reflected in the activity
indicators under Output Title 3.) Progress under this output will be
reported in two units: one unit for all sources inspected by EPA, and
one unit to reflect the total number of sources inspected by all States
within the region.
-------
49
5. Unit 1 - Number of enforcement actions taken by
EPA to ensure compliance by ma.lor and minor sources -
this output commitment is the sum of all notices of
violation issued, enforcement orders issued, and
civil or criminal proceedings initiated by EPA in
the region. The projection of the number of these
outputs should be based upon prior EPA experience
as to the percent of sources which can be expected
to be out of compliance, and the resources committed
to enforcement proceedings should relate to the
surveillance and compliance monitoring program
planned by the region.
C. Activity Indicator Definition - Air Output Title #2
1. Activity Indicator 1 - Number of formal inquiries
sent to all sources - means the total number of
section 114 letters sent by EPA and the total num-
ber of comparable formal inquiries sent by all
states in the region to both major and minor
sources.
Air Objective I. Output Title #3 - Ensure compliance by major sources
with SIP emission limitations for TSP. SO?, HC, CO. and NOx in all
AQCRs
A. General - this output is essentially the same as Air
Objective 3 in FY 1976. This commitment encompasses
-------
50
activities to ensure Initial compliance and continued
compliance by major sources In both attainment and
non-attainment AQCRs in each state. The differences
between this output and the output for non-attainment
AQCRs reflect the added effort to ensure compliance
by major sources throughout the state. As in past years,
it is essential that the compliance status of all major
facilities (currently estimated at over 21,000
nationally) be verified in an acceptable manner by the
responsible state or local agency. It is also necessary
for EPA to verify the compliance status of a number of
selected major facilities as part of Its field
surveillance effort to provide a check on state enforce-
ment. A major facility will not be considered in
compliance unless a definitive determination has been
made by the state or EPA that the source is, in fact, 1n
compliance. To achieve and maintain major source
compliance, each facility should be inspected or
equivalently verified to be in compliance (see Table 1)
once per year by the state or EPA. The extent to which
the Federal and state programs can achieve this goal
will be reflected in output units A thru F.
Table 1 provides a summary of techniques considered
acceptable for verifying compliance by either the
-------
51
state or EPA. In addition to enforcing against
selected sources where states cannot or will not
enforce, regions should also verify the compliance status
of selected major sources for which the state has
made compliance status determinations in order to
assess the effectiveness of state enforcement. Ten
percent would seem to be a reasonable number of major
sources to establish effectiveness. However, it will
be necessary for each region to develop a strategy
for compliance monitoring. A balanced effort between
"paper surveillance" (Section 114 letters, etc.) and
field surveillance will be necessary. The sources
investigated in the field surveillance effort must
not be chosen at random but must be part of a
coordinated regional office enforcement strategy.
Frequently, the information needed to assess compliance
can be determined without resorting to a field investiga-
tion. Therefore, those sources for which a field
investigation will be conducted should be: 1) selected
as part of a well-conceived regional enforcement
strategy; 2) be of major import; and 3) be representa-
tive of various source categories in the state.
B. Output Unit Definitions for Air Objective I, Output
Title #3 (All output units and activity indicators
-------
52
are to be incorporated in state control agency grants)
Only major sources are reported in this output; i.e.,
those capable of emitting more than 100 tons per year
of any single pollutant assuming no pollution controls.
All major sources in all AQCRs in the region are to be
reported in this output without regard to the attain-
ment status of any AQCR. The major sources reported
in Air Output Title #2 are all those contributing to
non-attainment problems and together constitute a subset
of this output title. The criteria used to determine
adequacy of identification, status of compliance, num-
ber of sources inspected, and number of enforcement
actions taken are identical to those in Air Output
Title #2. Definitions to be used for these outputs
are also basically the same, but source compliance is
to be reported separately with respect to final com-
pliance and compliance with scheduled increments of
progress. In addition, all outputs and one activity
indicator in Air Output Title #3 are to be reported
by state rather than by region.
C. Activity Indicator Definitions for Air Output Title #3
1. Activity Indicator 1 - Number of formal inquiries
sent to all sources - means the total number of
section 114 letters sent by EPA in each state and
the total number of comparable formal inquiries
sent by each state.
-------
53
2. Activity Indicator 2 - Number of field
surveillance actions taken - is the sum of
process inspections, opacity observations,
and stack tests undertaken by the.region and
.. the number of such actions undertaken by
states. This indicator does not include
sending or evaluating responses to section
114 letters. The number of field surveillance
actions reported should be based on the following:
i.) number of opacity observations - the
number of opacity observations performed
in FY 1977 by qualified EPA (or state)
smoke readers to document compliance
status. If, for example, opacity
observations were made at four emission
points (e.g., smoke stacks) within a
single source, the number of EPA (or
state) field surveillance actions would
increase by four.
ii.) number of inspections - the total number
of inspections made by EPA (or state)
personnel or their contractors at sources
in FY 1977 to obtain information
necessary to determine compliance status.
If, for example, four stacks were sampled
-------
54
to determine compliance, the number of
field surveillance actions would increase
by four. A stack test normally includes
a plant inspection and where applicable,
opacity observations; if these other
activities were performed they may also
be counted under field surveillance
actions. (NOTE: A stack test may consist
of a number of "runs;" the number of runs
needed to make a determination of compliance
status is counted as one test.) This
indicator is to be reported separately for
EPA and each state.
3. Activity Indicators 3-5 - Number of notices of
violation and abatement orders issued and civil/
criminal proceedings initiated - these indicators
are to be reported for those actions taken by EPA
and for those actions taken by each state. It is
important that regional offices ensure that state
actions reported here correspond to EPA definitions,
especially for notices of violation, so that
meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the data.
-------
55
D. Activity Indicator Definition for Air Objective I, Output
Title #4 - Ensure compliance with EPA requirements for those
combustion sources receiving prohibition orders from FEA.
1. General - It 1s expected that Federal Energy Adminis-
tration's authority to Issue prohibition orders for burning
petroleum products will be extended and that more orders
will be Issued by FY 1977. If this occurs, substantial
resources will have to be applied to this program by regional
offices affected in granting compliance date extensions,
revising compliance schedules, and tracking compliance with
scheduled Increments. FEA is now considering orders for
some 50 power plants and about 1,000 other major fuel
burning installations. The single activity indicator called
for under this title 1s self-explanatory.
E. Output Unit Definitions for Air Objective I. Output Title #5 •
Err >r* full compliance with NSPS requirements in all AQCRs.
1. Units A-C - Number of operating sources subject to
NSPS_ determined to be 1n or out of compliance or of unknown
compliance status - compliance status of NSPS sources is to
be determined by a performance test as specified in the
applicable regulations.
2. Unit D - Number of sources inspected - defined under Air
Output Title #2, and reported for EPA and for all states 1n
the region.
-------
56
3. Unit E - Number of states delegated enforcement of NSPS -
means the cumulative number of states that have been
delegated at least the surveillance and legal proceedings
aspects of enforcement for a majority of affected facilities
under NSPS.
4. Unit F - Number of enforcement actions taken by EPA -
self-explanatory.
F. Activity Indicator Definitions for Air Output Title #5
1. Indicator 1 - Number of enforcement actions taken by
all states in region - self-explanatory. See definitions
of notices of violation, orders, etc. in Air Output 3,
Indicators 3-5.
2. Indicator 2 - Number of NSPS sources for which construction.
has commenced - Commenced is defined as specified in the
applicable regulations.
Air Objective I. Output Title #6 - Ensure that new sources are
located and constructed in each state in accordance with acceptable
new source review requirements
A- General - In FY 1977, regional offices should ensure that
states are implementing adequate enforcement programs for new source
review. EPA's role in this area should be to provide guidance to
states in enforcing new source review requirements, to audit permits
issued by States, and to conduct review of planned construction so
that new sources do not cause significant deterioration of air
quality. Enforcement actions undertaken by EPA should be selective and
designed to stimulate and guide state action rather than replace it on
a large scale.
-------
57
B. Output Unit Definitions for Air Output Title 6
1• Unit A - Number of state permits audited by EPA - EPA
should audit a sufficient number of permits issued by states
to adequately assess the quality of the new source review
enforcement program in each state and from those reviews
should provide guidance and other assistance to states in
better implementing new source review programs.
C. Activity Indicator Definitions for Air Output Title 6
1. Activity Indicator 1 - Number of permits issued by all
States in region - self explanatory
2. Activity Indicator 2 - Number of permits issued by EPA -
means all permits issued under non-significant deterioration
regulations and any permits issued under new source review
as EPA replacement enforcement (although the latter should
be kept to a minimum).
Air Objective n .. Output Title #10- Ensure compliance with NESHAPS
requirements
A. General - by FY 1977, about 550 additional sources of
asbestos, mercury, and vinyl chlorides will be covered by new NESHAPS
requirements, requiring development of inventories, registration of
new sources, processing of waivers, annual inspections of sources,
and enforcement actions as needed. The FY 1977 outputs therefore focus
on fixed (non-transitory) sources of hazardous pollutants. Some
-------
58
attention, however, must also be given to documenting violations
at transitory spraying and demolition operations. It is intended
that enforcement activity in this area decrease somewhat until favorable
court decisions for the demolition standard are obtained or until
the Clean Air Act is amended to specifically authorize imposition
of a work practice standard. The sources reported under this output
do not include transitory operations, but such sources may be included
under this output later in the fiscal year as EPA's authorities are
clarified. Output units for FY 1977 are basically the same as those
defined in the FY 1976 guidance. The number of states delegated
enforcement of NESHAPS, however, means the cumulative number of
states delegated a major portion of the asbestos, beryllium, and
mercury emission standards enforcement. This includes enforcement
of asbestos emission limits for spraying and demolition operations.
Units are self-explanatory.
-------
59
FY 77 MOBILE SOURCE ENFORCEMENT
REGIONAL GUIDANCE - DEFINITIONS
8> Assure Compliance with Fuel Additive Regulations and Vapor
Recovery Regulations.
OUTPUT B: Test unleaded gasoline samples by field and/or
laboratory method (only one test per station may be
counted toward the output commitment).
Similar to last year's guidance, Regions may count up
to 10% of their output commitment for inspections
leading to detection of availability violations.
Regions may also count "\% of their output commitment for
inspections of retail outlets not required to carry
unleaded gasoline but where inspections are conducted
to determine compliance with nozzle, labeling, and
sign provisions of regulations.
OUTPUT C: Conduct Stage I Vapor Recovery Inspections at
Retail Outlets.
Regions should count only inspections conducted at
retail outlets. All Stage I vapor recovery inspections
conducted at bulk terminals are not to be counted for
MSED inspections but toward DSSE's output commitment.
-------
60
WATER QUALITY
REGIONAL GUIDANCE
FY 1977
-------
61
FY 1977 WATER QUALITY REGIONAL GUIDANCE
Contents:
Introduction
^ Overview of Program
1.Municipal Construction
2.Water Quality Permits, Compliance and Enforcement
3.Water Quality Management Planning
4.Water Monitoring
5.Municipal Operations
6.011 and Hazardous Spills Control
7.Ocean Dumping
8.Dredged of Fill Materials Discharge Permits
3 Technical Studies and Support
10.SBA Loan Review
11. Additional Regional Guidance on State Programs
B. FY 1977 Water Quality Programs Priorities
£._ Water Quality Program Outputs and Activity
indicators"
D. Discussion and Definitions Pertaining to Water
quality Program Outputs and Activity Indicators
-------
62
FY 1977 Water Quality State and Regional Office Guidance
A. Overview of Program.
The national FY 1977 Water Quality Strategy Overview, with attendant
modules providing more detailed descriptions of particular program
strategies, describes the objectives and approaches which EPA will
employ 1n the management of its programs from October 1, 1976 through
September 30, 1977, and beyond. In the FY 1977 program planning process
the States and Regions will establish complementary, more specific,
strategies, priorities, and plans for FY 1977 tailored to their own areas
and institutions. This Water Quality Guidance highlights and prioritizes
the outputs and activities that the States and Regional Offices must
carry out to effectively implement in FY 1977 those parts of the national
Strategy necessitated by the goals and objectives of national legislation.
Shifting of program functions from EPA to State agencies has
been a priority Agency objective during the past two fiscal years.
During this period the emphasis has been on the delegation of dis-
crete functions or sub functions, primarily in the NPDES and municipal
facilities areas.
In FY1977 and subsequent years, the emphasis will shift away from
formal delegations to the development of a more comprehensive management
approach to achieve the most effective possible division of program
functions in the water pollution control program. Given considerable
duplication of effort which now exists between EPA and the States and
a relatively static level of State and Federal funding for program
operations, 1t is essential that this management approach succeed.
-------
63
This year's water quality guidance is divided into four sections.
Section A is an overview statement of the basic policy directions for
FY1977. Section B is a priority list of the various water quality
programs. Section C is a summary of all the water quality outputs
and activity indicators, and finally Section D is a list of defi-
nitions of terms used in the outputs section (Section C).
This section of the Guidance briefly discusses 10 functional program
areas into which are incorporated additional discussions of program op-
erations decentralization, water pollution abatement and control by
Federal Facilities, and preparation and review of Environmental Impact
Statements or Negative Declarations. The ten functional program areas
include:
1. Municipal Construction.
2. Water Quality Permits, Compliance Monitoring, and Enforcement.
3. Water Quality Management Planning.
4. Water Monitoring.
5. Municipal Operations.
6. CH"1 and Hazardous Spills Control.
7. Ocean Dumping.
8. Dredged or Fill Materials Discharge Permits.
9. Technical Studies and Support.
10. SBA Loan Review.
A final section contains additional State Programs Guidance.
This Agency - wide FY 1977 Regional Guidance package includes
the same guidance on construction grants that was included In the
December draft guidance. An amended guidance package for construc-
tion grants, responding to comments received on the 12/75 draft and
-------
64
other considerations was dispatched for further Regional review on
2/9/76. Final guidance on Municipal Construction Programs should be
issued by early March, 1976,
1. Municipal Construction (Draft)
Program Objectives.
The Construction Grants program is one major component of the
Federal Government commitment to clean up the Nation's waterways.
The $18 billion provided under P.L. 92-500 was intended to cover
75% of the necessary funding to achieve secondary treatment for
all publicly owned treatment works in the United States. The key
legislative deadlines under §3Q1 (b) (1) and (2) were set at
July 1, 1977 for the achievement of secondary treatment and July 1, 1983,
for the application of best practicable waste treatment technology for
publicly owned treatment works.
Since the enactment of P.L. 92-500 both the intended cost of
achieving the water quality standards ($18 billion) and the time-
frame in which it was required to be achieved (1977) have been more
realistically appraised. The 1974 Needs Survey (corrected for 1975
dollars) estimated the need for Categories I, II, and IVB (relating
to secondary treatment)* to be $60 billion and all needs to total
$444 billion. This increased estimate of need and the late release
of $9 billion of the existing $18 billion made the 1977 deadlines
increasingly unattainable.
The near and long-term strategy for the Construction Grants
program was developed within this framework. The primary goal of
the program and its general programmatic objectives (outlined below)
remain as before. The operational objectives however, emphasize
-------
65
the long term commitment and Increased funding necessary to realis-
tically achieve the legislative goals.
To June 30, 1975, $6.6 billion of the $18 billion currently
available had been obligated to assist 4,045 projects. The re-
maining $11.4 billion is planned to be fully obligated by the end
of FY 1977. In order for several of the Regions to achieve this
plan, a greatly accelerated obligation rate will have to be achieved.
The experience to date against the FY 1976 quota has been poor, in-
dicating that obligation rates will have to increase even further to
fully obligate the remaining funds. The current FY 1977 plan is to ob-
ligate the remaining funds. The current FY 1977 plan is to obligate
$7 billion, including $5 billion of current funds and $2 billion
additional authority not yet eancted.
The primary goal of Municipal Construction program is to achieve
i
the most cost-effective and timely abatement of municipality treated
wastewater pollution through the proper planning, design, and con-
struction of treatment works. Within this goal are four key programmatic
objectives which must be reflected in the FY 1977 State/Regional Office
work plans.
To manage the construction grants program in an efficient manner
and with sufficient State and Federal resources to ensure that the
effluent limitations and water quality standards established under the
Act are achieved at least cost and in the minimum possible time. A key
factor within this objective 1s to develop adequate planning to assure
that (a) projects are not being funded ahead of higher priority projects
for the sole reason of timeliness and (b) the projects being funded
-------
66
assure an adequate mix of Step 1, 2, and 3 ttS assure a continuous
smooth flowing program.
. To safeguard the integrity of the program by working closely
with the States and localities in deterring fraud and other Irre-
gularities in the awarding of grants and construction of the
facilities, and by detecting and penalizing such irregularities as
may occur.
. To preserve and protect the primary responsibilities and
rights of the States in the control of water pollution, partic-
ularly through decentralization of program operating responsibilities
and authorities to them to the full limits of their capabilities
and resources.
. To ensure that, through the proper managment of the
S environmental assessment process, in conjunction with State and
IS
local planning processes, the projects approved and constructed
are environmentally sound.
Additional Guidance on Preparation of EIS's andNegative Declaration!
on Viastewater Treatment PI ant Construction Grants '
EPA compliance with the requirements of NEPA, section 511 of
FWPCA, and the Agency's NEPA procedures require preparation of
either a final EIS or a Negative Declaration by the Region before
awarding each Step II grant, and each Step III grant for projects
which were not given a Step II grant.
-------
67
Based on State priority lists, Regional Offices should attempt
to make initial EIS/Negat1ve Declaration decisions before awarding
Step I grants 1n order to take maximum advantage of joint EIS/
environmental assessment procedures (e.g., piggybacking). These
procedures, discussed in separate program guidance memoranda provide
for comprehensive environmental analysis and can result in consid-
erable compression of the time between awarding Step I and II grants.
In any case, all Regions should encourage potential grant applicants
to start their portion of the environmental assessment process
as soon as possible, and to provide thorough assessments.
* Category I — Facilities which would provide a legally required level
of secondary treatment. For purposes of the Survey, secondary treat-
ment and best practicable wastewater treatment technology (BPWTT)
were considered synonymous.
Category II -- Treatment facilities that must achieve more stringent
then BPWTT levels of treatment.
Category IVB ~ Construction of collector sewer systems designed to
correct violations, and/or comply with Federal, State, or local
actions.
-------
68
2, Water Quality Permits, Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
As July 1, 1977 approaches the States and Regions must
change the emphasis of water enforcement activities from the
attainment of merely numerical outputs to assuring the achieve-
ment of Best Practicable Technology Currently Available
(BPTCA) and water quality requirements of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. (FWPCA). This will require a more
deliberate and coordinated approach to permit Issuance and
compliance/enforcement activities. Accordingly, the Regions
and States should evaluate their efforts and emphasize those
factors which most directly influence the achievement of this
goal.
For FY 1977 one of our most important goals is to promote
increasing State participation in the NPDES program. To further
this end the Regions should continue to make every attempt to
grant NPDES program approval to those States who are willing and
apable of taking on the program responsibilities. States that
have already received program approval should be given help in
developing their capbilities in a manner consistent with the
requirements of the FWPCA. States that have not received program
approval should be encouraged to participate with the Regions
in as many areas of the NPDES program as possible within the
boundaries of the Act.
-------
69
Our other major priority for FY 1977 is to assure the
completion of treatment facilities by major industrial
facilities to meet BPTCA and water quality requirements in
accordance with the requirements of the FWPCA. Included in
this priority is the resolution of all major adjudicatory
* hearing requests. Also an important concern is the issuance
of all major Industrial and municipal permits. Our fourth
major priority will be to assure the compliance of major
municipal facilities with permit conditions.
We are also concerned with the expedltlos implementation
of an Enforcement Management System which will Include quality
control procedures. Any reporting required by this system will
have to be approved In accordance with EPA reporting procedures.
Non-NPDES enforcement will continue at the same pace that 1t has
in the past.
Since we expect the majority industrial dischargers to
complete their construction schedules and have all necessary
/equipment operational by the end of FY 1977, more attention to
I the status of the attainment of effluent limits will be necessary.
Accordingly, inspections at these facilities will emphasize
sampling in the second half of FY 77 with reconnaissance Inspec-
tions emphasized in the first half. All inspections should
consider and evaluate permittees' sampling and analytical
techniques and procedures to insure their conformance with
accepted practices. All outstanding major discharger adjudica-
tory hearings should be resolved by the end of FY 1977 to assure
that all priority dischargers have an enforceable NPDES permit.
-------
70
As more and more facilities are inspected and permittees
proceed toward their final compliance deadlines we expect the
Regions and States to respond to violations quickly and appro-
priately. Formal enforcement mechanisms will primarily consist
of notices of violations to the States, administrative orders, and
S309 referrals to U.S. Attorneys or comparable State action. Specific
guidance from Headquarters will be completed in FY 1976 outlining
recommended procedures to be followed by the Regions when assuring
responsible State response to known violations. We have asked for
output commitments on formal enforcement actions again this year.
Please understand that these outputs are merely goals and in no way
should they be construed as a Headquarter's requirement for Regional
enforcement action should such action be inappropriate. However,
every effort must be made to respond to all violations expeditiously.
A significant indicator of the effectiveness of an organization's
managment system is the timeliness of response to surfaced violations.
Major municipal facilities must be placed on construction
schedules which are realistic and also are consistent with construction
grant funding schedules. Although, ideally, compliance monitoring
efforts should be the same for industrial as for municipal facilities,
the emphasis will remain on reconnaissance inspections for publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) until they approach completion of
construction. Sampling at municipal facilties should be limited to those
-------
71
POTWs with facilities in operation, although not necessarily
to those meeting final effluent limits. Enforcement activity
with regard to POTWs should emphasize strict compliance with
realistic permit construction schedules and with effluent
limitations.
Regarding permit issuance, we are primarily concerned with
the major reorientation of the municipal permit program so that
it can become a more effective driving force in support of the
Agency effort to grant funds for municipal sewage treatment
construction projects.
Major industrial permit reissuance and modification will also
receive high priority status during FY 1977, as will the special
handling of thermal variance requests wherein exemption claims
are allowed based on environmental impact studies in accordance
with section 316 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Admendments.
The list of major dischargersi must-be updated and provided to
HQ at the beginning of FY 77. This list identifies the dischargers
given high priority attention in permitting, compliance monitoring
and enforcement.
Also of importance for FY 1977, is the issuance of major
and energy-related new source permits, especially with regard to
coal and oil exploration, and uranium mining.
-------
72
Non-NPDES enforcement will continue to focus on oil spill
and spill prevention enforcement as well as on the enforcement
of the Ocean Dumping Act.
In addition to those priority activities, we will maintain
an overview of minor municipal and industrial permit compliance,
enforcing permit conditions when necessary within our resource
constraints. Also of lesser priority for FY 1977 will be the
issuance of minor permits.
Compliance Monitoring of the NPDES Permits Issued to Federal Facilities.
The Federal government (EPA) retains the responsibility for
all activities including compliance monitoring and compliance
related to the NPDES permits and the Federal facilities receiving
them, even in those States which have delegation of EPA's responsi-
bility for enforcement.
This objective provides for the compliance monitoring of NPDES
permits issued to Federal installations. Monitoring should be
accomplished through the review of self-monitoring reports, and by
selective on-site inspections.
It is important to periodically compare the NPDES permits issued
to Federal facilties and the current OMB listing of water pollution
control projects planned by Federal agencies. This comparison should
be performed in each Region at least two times during FY 1976 upon
the receipt of the current listing from OFA. Projects required by
facilities to meet final discharge requirements but not contained on
the current OMB listing should be reported to OFA.
-------
73
Preparation of EIS's and Negative Declarations on New Source
Discharge Permits (NPDED).
§511 of the FWPCA requires EPA to comply with NEPA when
8 402 permits are issued to new source dischargers. The permit
applicant is required to prepare and present an environmental
assessment with the permit application. The Regional Office reviews
each assessment and prepares either an EIS or a Negative Declaration
on each permit prior to issuing the permit. The bulk of the work
involved in preparing those EIS's will be performed by the applicants
and by consultants under contract to EPA.
Preparation of EIS's on Ocean Disposal Sites
The policy statement of the Administrator regarding the Marine
Sanctuaries Act requires that the NEPA process be applied to the
study and selection of ocean disposal sites. Draft and final EIS's
will be prepared for those sites which will be designated for
continuous dumping.
Violations of Water Regulations (Section 508 FQPCA) Under Provisions
of Executive Order 11738 Program.
Executive Order 11738 pertains to the potential loss of Federal
grants, loans or contracts by polluters. This can occur when the
potential recipient has violated air or water standards in the manner
described by the regulations implementing the E.O. 11738 Program.
OFA is charged with the responsibility to proceed with certain
listing procedures upon receiving notlfiaction from a Regional Office
-------
of: (1) facilities giving rise to State or local criminal convic-
tions as they occur; (2) facilities referred by Governors to EPA
for listing as they occur; (3) on a mandatory basis, facilities
which have given rise to a Federal criminal conviction; and
(4) recommendations from Regional Offices of candidate facilities to
be listed based on administrative or civil court adjudication of
non-compliance. The timing related to reporting this information
is critical in terms of OFA's engaging in a fair and proper listing
proceeding.
i
3. Water Quality Management Planning
Water quality management planning provides for a continuous
decision-making process for water quality management at the State
and local level. Institution building is the goal of this planning
effort—a result engendered by a planning effort that provides frame-
v. rk for coordinating various planning and regulatory functions.
In FY 1977, Phase II State and Areawide Planning will be underway
in all States under the revised regulations (40 C.F.R. Parts 130 and 13l)
and under • State continuing planning processes revised in FY 1976.
This revision of the continuing planning process described the
water quality decision-making process in the State, outlined the
water quality planning needed throughout the State, delineated
planning areas and agencies (including any additional designated
-------
areawide agency) for the necessary planning, and set forth a time-
table which ensures that the November 1978 deadlines for plan submission
will be met. The nature of Phase II planning will be more complex
than previous planning as point sources are brought under control
and attention is turned toward nonpoint sources and complex point
sources areas needing more stringent controls.
The major thrust of water quality management planning by State
and areawide planning agencies is the development of plans which
will meet the 1983 water quality goals3and which will be implemented.
The requirement for implementation of these plans will necessitate
creative approaches to solving the complex problems of Phase II within
existing institutional frameworks. In some cases, the necessary
controls will require new institutions, regulatory programs, or legis-
lative authority. Maximum flexibility for planning has been provided
in the revised regulations and use of this flexibility is encouraged
to produce implementable plans.
A limited number of initial areawide management plans are expected
to be completed in FY 1977. It is Important that effective communication
between State and areawide planning agencies be maintained to ensure
development of plans which are approvable by the State and which
satisfy the State's responsibilities for planning throughout the
State.
-------
76
Water Quality Standards
The objectives are to complete the second round of review and
revision of water quality standards; to modify and add criteria; to
upgrade use designations to meet 1983 water quality goals, where
attainable; and to establish a mechanism to implement the State
anti degradati on poli cy.
The mechanisms for revising water quality standards are to be
included in the State continuing planning process.
Water Monitoring
Introduction
During FY 1976, the EPA monitoring goals and objectives were
defined in a policy statement on environmental monitoring. According
to this statement, the primary responsibility for water monitoring
lies with State and local governments, and with pollutant dischargers.
In addition, EPA Regional Offices are responsible for providing
technical guidance and management for these monitoring activities, and
for conducting Regional field activities necessary to support certain
Regional and national priority programs.
This Regional and State monitoring guidance implements the monitor^
policy statement by providing substantive direction to the overview
and management functions of the Regional Offices. The Regional monitor^
program managers are responsiblJ for ensuring that State and local
planning,permitting, and enforcement agencies have monitoring programs
which are appropriate to the needs of their agencies and, further,
-------
77
are producing the valid data and data interpretations necessary
to support their planning, regulatory and grants management decisions.
Similarly, the Regional monitoring program manager 1s
responsible for the efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring
activities conducted by the Region to supplement State and local
monitoring programs, and to ensure that EPA's water data needs are met.
The Standing Committee on Water Monitoring consisting of
representatives of the Office of Water and Hazardous Materials,
the Office of Enforcement, the Office of Planning and Management,
the Office of Research and Development, Regional Surveillance and
. . gAnalysis Divisions and the Regional Water Divisions, will develop
4t*J*
'minimum ambient and effluent monitoring programs to provide
a framework for Regional, State and local, and national monitoring
operations and management. Regional and State monitoring programs will
be expected to conform to the national program with exceptions
made for unique local conditions and priorities.
Proper implementation of the national programs will require the
documentation of Regional, State, and local monitoring actlvites
for information and management purposes. The FY 1977 guidance
calls for a Regional monitoring strategy similar to the State strategy
already required. These are important to the management of our
scarce monitoring resources.
Program Guidance
Of particular importance are the internal quality assurance
programs within the the Regional monitoring programs and required
-------
78
commitment of Regional resources. Field and laboratory quality
assurance activities are not to be considered as separate, optional*
or overtarget Items. Participation in the quality assurance
program under Office of Research and Development (ORD) guidance
is mandatory. Every Region must have a documented quality
assurance program^ At the State level, an approved quality
assurance progra¥is considered to be an essential condition for
approving of the State water pollution control program grant.
State laboratories should continue to be evaluated according
to procedures developed in FY 1976. Where water supply labora-
tories are separate from water pollution control laboratories,
these laboratories should also be evaluated. Evaluation results
should be reported to the Regional Administrators, and serious
defidences should be corrected. The quality of the State and
Regional data is of utmost importance to the planning, compli-
ance and enforcement programs.
Approval of the State monitoring program takes on additional
Importance with the promulgation of Appendix A to the SI06 program
grant regulations. The Regions, therefore, should make every
effort to ensure that the monitoring portions of the State
programs are consistent with the regulations as Interpreted by
the Regional Administrator. Monitoring component priorities must
be consistent with overall water program priorities, and should
be described in the State monitoring strategy.
-------
79
In order to manage scarce Regional and State monitoring resources
more effectively, the Region should develop a Regional water monltorlnq
strategy and forward 1t to the Deputy Administrator. As a guide, 1t
1s anticipated that 80% of Regional monitoring resources should be spent
In support of national priorities, and the remaining 20% spent on
Regional priorities. The actual resource distribution should be de-
tailed in the Regional monitoring strategy.
The Regional water monitoring strategy should describe specific
monitoring outputs being produced to support national and Regional
priorities, and should also describe the rationales by which State and
Regional monitoring resources are being jointly distributed. The
Regional monitoring strategy should also highlight the internal Regional
field and laboratory quality assurance programs, and the reviews con-
ducted with the States, local agencies, and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permittees.
The Regions should work with the States to ensure that State
Water Quality Inventory (§305(b)) reports are submitted on time, and
that the reports are satisfactory in terms of form and content. These
reports will act, together with the National Water Quality Surveillance
System (NWQSS) analysis, to form the National Water Quality Inventory
Report to the Congress. The States, therefore, can make Congress
directly aware of these concerns. Since legislative redirection may
be based on the Section 305(b) reports as well as the NWOSS findings,
valid conclusions and recommendations are extremely Important.
The Regional Summary and Analysis of the State reports Is an
-------
+ ^~m ^ .'^ *O
*** /f 77-?* ^*<^tVu.
Important part of the summary and analysis required of the Administrator
under Section 305(b), P.L. 92-500. It 1s Important that the
Regional summary 1s concise and that 1t 1s submitted on time. The Ad-
ministrator's submission 1s mandated by Congress and a deadline is
assigned.
The Region should review and evaluate the monitoring activities
and, where applicable, the water quality modeling activities being con-
ducted by State and local (Section 208) planning agencies to develop
Phase II basin plans. Special emphasis should be placed on ensuring that
the management plans have a valid technical base. We must be sure
that our planning and regulatory programs are consistent with the
solutions required to solve the water quality problems existing within
each basin.
208 Agencies should not establish a general monitoring program,
unless a specific parameter or problem requires direct attention and
there43re selective monitoring. It 1s also Important to insure that
where a monitoring program 1s necessary Section 208 planning agencies
have these monitoring programs approved. An approved field monitoring
program 1s one which: (1) is sufficient to determine the nature and ex-
tent of water quality problems in the area, (2) provides a technical basis
for plan development, and (3) is sufficient for the reliable testing of
alternative abatement and control strategies.
It is recognized that joint ORD and Regional research and demon-
stration projects 1n the water monitoring area are a desirable way
to Increase the effectiveness of our research efforts while ensuring
that operational needs are met. The Regions may choose to work with ORD
-------
81
on certain ORD sponsored projects related to testing equipment and
field evaluation, on methods testing and sample preservation techniques,
and on validating or developing of mathematical models for water
quality predictions. Research, and research application must be a
cooperative effort if we are to achieve technical advances we need in water
monitoring. A description of Regional involvement in an ORD/Regional
research project should be included in the Regional water monitoring
strategy.
The ORD has the lead role in coordinating the monitoring of unre-
gulated pollutants. Unregulated pollutants are pollutants not yet in-
cluded 1n the section 307 toxics list, the drinking water standards,
or in the effluent guidelines. Since these pollutants generally require
more elaborate and expensive monitoring procedures and equipment, our
knowledge of their sources and ambient distribution is still inadequate.
,,'e will want to know a great deal more about these harmful substances
in the near future. In FY 1977, the Office of Toxic Substances and the
ORD should work with the Office of Water and Hazardous Materials to develop
an action plan for toxics and unregulated pollutants, and forward it to
the Regions for their review and comment. In this connection, the
Regions may choose to work with ORD on certain ORD-sponsored projects
in this area. This action plan will be appropriate to the capabilities
of the Regional laboratories, and will detail parameters and locations of
interest, including drinking water supply intakes.
-------
82
Monitoring for Hater Supply
The Intermedia nature of the water supply program requires that
It be coordinated with other programs such as our planning programs,
the Section 208 program, and the NPDES programs. Effective coordi-
nation between these efforts will reduce duplication and will Improve
communication between the various programs.
It 1s essential that the States assume primary enforcement re-
sponsibility as quickly as possible. Since the primary drinking
water standards will become effective 1n FY 1977, the EPA will have
to enforce the regulations 1n those States without primacy 1n order
to comply with the requirements of the Act.
Before a State can assume primacy under the Safe Drinking Water
Act, 1t must establish a program for certifying labs conducting
analysis of drinking water contaminants pursuant to the requirements
of State drinking Water Regulations. An interim program for approving
labs 1s acceptable until EPA establishes a National program for certi-
fication.
The Regions, 1n cooperation with the State, should also select
currently operating ambient monitoring stations which are located
near raw water supply intakes and tag them for possible Inclusion
Into a national water monitoring network. These stations should be
selected so that they serve as an effective link between the Section
208 and NPDES program and ambient water quality on the one hand and
finished drinking water quality and health effects on the other.
-------
83
A laboratory approval or certification program 1s essential for
the State to assume primacy. The principal State laboratory perform-
ing drinking water analysis must be approved even 1f 1t has previously
been evaluated and,approved as a wastewater laboratory. Laboratory
evaluation 1s not the same as laboratory certification. Acceptance
criteria for certification will be forthcoming.
5- "unidpal Operations
The goal of the National Municipal Operations Program (NMOP) 1r,
to improve and assure efficient and reliable performance of municipal
wastewater treatment facilities. To accomplish this goal, <\ c.ompro-
henslve national program carefully Interrelating Federal, Stnlo. nmt
local activities 1s regulred. Within this partnership the respective
roles are these:
. local ultimate responsibility for wastewater facility opera-
tions,
. State responsibility for primary regulatory authority and
assistance to municipalities, and
. Federal overview to assure achievement of statutory goals.
The NMOP, thereby, will encourage and support State/local action
on operating problems and will assure effective Federal action 1f
and when State and local authorities are unable to respond. In
most cases State/local self-sufficiency 1n municipal operations
should be achieved by FY 1982 but prior to that time State-by-State
evaluations of the need for continued direct Federal action will
be necessary. During FY 1976 EPA Headquarters, In dialogue with
Regions, States and localities, 1s undertaking guidance development
and other necessary actions to support closely defined Regional
-------
84
EPA and State program evaluation and Information gathering activities
during FY 1977. EPA Regions and States must also begin to document
and resolve operating problems at existing plants. This can be
achieved through a high level of technical assistance and O&M In-
spection activity 1n coordination with Regional/State NPDES permit
and enforcement strategies. It 1s critical, however, that assist-
ance activities and enforcement be closely planned and coordinated
from the outset 1n all cases to assure effective use of all means
for achieving effluent quality goals while at the same time avoid-
ing actions that could compromise future enforcement remedies.
During FY 1977 States and EPA Regions should emphasize the follow-
ing activities:
. To Identify and evaluate plants which can be brought Into
near compliance by operational Improvements.
. To evaluate and strengthen the statutory framework for
State/local municipal operations programs.
. To evaluate current municipal operations-related programs
and objectives against the expanded objectives of the
National Municipal Operations Program.
. To review and strengthen program planning and budgeting
procedures.
-------
85
. To Initiate a treatment facility personnel needs assess-
ment using methodology developed by EPA Headquarters during
FY 1976.
. To Implement a meaningful municipal operations Information
system similar to the EPA system or compatible with it.
uv
6. Oil and Hazardous Spills Control. - j
g^
Highest priority within this program 1s assigned to response
actions relating to major spills. Preventive efforts through the
preparation of plans receives a lesser priority. Oil spill pre-
vention plan Implementation compliance should be directed at major
dischargers and repeat violators (non-transporatlon related onshore
and offshore facilities).
The elimination of spills 1s the primary, long-term objective
of the EPA program; therefore, in addition to implementing the
EPA oil prevention program, cases Involving transportation-re-
lated facilities should be referred to the Coast Guard for appro-
priate preventive actions.
The Regions must continue their orograms to minimize the
Impact of soills and ensure that proper removal and disposal
methods are utilized. Increased emphasis should be placed on
hazardous substances spill response 1n first half of FY 1977.
(Assuming Implementing regulations under Section 311 are promul-
gated last quarter of FY 1976).
-------
86
After promulgation of the key hazardous substances regulation
the National Contingency Plan will require major revision. Fol-
lowing the publication of the revised National Plan, Sub-regional,
and/or State plans will need to be revised and updated. The new
plans should be completed by the end of FY 1977.
7. Ocean Dumping.
. Ocean Dumping Permits. An Increase 1n ocean dumping
permit applications may be anticipated in FY 1977 because
of the determination by the EPA General Counsel's office
that the depositing of drilling mud by off-shore oil
operations is within the purview of the Marine Protection
Act and permits will be required. Headquarters proposes
to Issue a general permit which will require implementation
by the Regions. Special guidance will be developed for
the Regions.
. Ocean Incineration. A slight Increase in permit applica-
tions may be expected in FY 1977. This could result in
increased baseline survey requirements if new "burn sites"
are to be designated. Additional monitoring requirements
will also be placed on EPA to determine any affects on the
air and marine environment resulting from this Incineration,
Both Regional and Headquarters support will be required
in these monitoring efforts.
-------
87
. International Ocean Pumping Convention. The International
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matters came Into force as a
treaty 1n August 1975. The Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 1s the enabling
domestic legislation for the Convention 1n the United
States and all permit activity will be developed by the
Regions and Headquarters at meetings convened during FY 77.
. Alternatives to Ocean Dumping. Considerable emphasis
will be placed on getting permittees to seek alterna-
tives to ocean dumping during FY 1977. This could
Impact the Regions and States 1n that additional efforts
will be required 1n monitoring and coordination.
8* Dredged or F111 Materials Discharge Permits.
Substantial Regional personnel will be.required 1n FY 1977 to
review permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material In the
waters of the United States. Regional personnel must be prepared
to assist the Corps of Engineers 1n the Implementation of the various
phases of the Section 404 program, to develop language 1n coordina-
tion with Corps of Engineers representatives suitable for the general
permitting activity, and to assist 1n the development of guidelines
for use 1n overvlewlng the designation of sites by the Corps pursuant
to Section 404(c) of the Act. Very close coordination and activity
reporting between Regional and Headquarters personnel Involved 1n
this program will be required to Insure sound, equitable and manage-
able program development.
-------
88
9. Technical Studies and Support.
The Marine Sanitation Device Standard has prompted Intense
Congressional and citizen Interest. It 1s expected that petitions
under Section 312(f)(3) and (4) of the Act will continue to be
received from the States. Regional representatives will become
Increasingly Involved 1n such petitions and 1n ascertaining the
reasonable availability of pumpout and treatment facilities for
all vessels for waters specified 1n such petitions. Close coor-
dination between the Regional and Headquarters personnel on each
petition on a case-by-case basis will be required for maximum
effectiveness.
Regional representatives will be required to offer technical
assistance to those Interested 1n developing aguaculture projects.
to review applications, and to approve appropriate aquaculture
projects. In addition, such projects so approved must be monitored
to Insure that the receiving environment 1s afforded appropriate
protection and that the aquaculture project 1s meeting the stipula-
tions of the approval pursuant to the Agency's regulations addressing
such activities.
10. SBA Loan Review
The objective of the Small Business Loan Program Is to perform
the necessary technical review either by the State or Federal govern-
ment, for all applications for loans from the Small Business Admini-
stration 1n an expeditious manner so as not to Impede discharger
compliance. These reviews must be completed within 45 days.
-------
89
By the beginning of FY 1977, several States should be carrying
out SBA loan reviews. Technical review 1s confined to a determination
of the necessity and adequacy of the proposed construction or modi-
fication, with SBA conducting the review of financial eligibility.
The likely number of applications that will be received nationwide
1s directly related to pretreatment requirements Imposed as well as
enforcement of the NPDES program. States with NPDES permit authority
should be encouraged to assume the responsibility for technical reviews
and should advise small business with need for loans that the loan
program 1s available.
ADDITIONAL REGIONAL GUIDANCE ON STATE PROGRAMS
Development of Joint State/Regional Work Planning Program.
The Initial submission of the State program 1s due to the Regions
on May 1. These will be used to formulate the Regional work plans
due to Headquarters May 21. To support this process, similar program
planning and reporting forms will be used by both the Regions and Statesk
Of course, the same basic guidance documents will be used by both.
Final program plans will be submitted to the Regions by September 1.
In order to properly Interface work plan development with Section
106 process, Regional Offices must be 1n a position to finalize out-
Put commitments with the States early. The Regional Offices should have
output numbers that are as accurate as possible by May 21. Under these
circumstances, development of the work plan can proceed with relative
confidence 1n State output commitments. Timely submission to Headquarters
-------
90
of joint Regional/State output commitments win result. The mid-year
evaluation, to be conducted during the month of April, should be an
early Indicator of what the State can realistically produce 1n the second
half of FY 1977 and Into FY 197ft, and should be used as a beginning
point for the FY 1978 negotiations.
The FY 1977 State program package will consist of:
1. Required grant administration documentation.
2. A State Strategy narrative, Including an approved or
proposed State monitoring program.
3. Construction grant priority list.
4. Outputs and Activity Indicators required by an EPA
Regional Administrator.
5. A State/Regional schedule of planned efforts to formally
define delegated responsibilities and other shared activities.
The last Item above will require an Identification of specific
program areas and a schedule whereby the Region and State will develop
formalized agreements on delegated and other shared program responsi-
bilities during FY 1977. These agreements should serve to define
the responsibilities and performance of each party 1n order to avoid
possible duplication of effort, gaps in performance and possible
misunderstanding among the parties as to their appropriate roles.
Additional guidance on the structure and content of these agreements
-------
91
will be Issued within 90 days. The schedule should be submitted as
a part of the final State program submission on September 1.
Public Participation
' EPA intends to evaluate 1n selected States public participation
In the preparation of FY 77 State programs, Including the identifi-
cation of any unnecessary expenditures which do not significantly
further effective public participation. Pending the outcome of the
evaluation, previous guidance (I.e., the FY 1976 Operating Guidance)
remains 1n effect. The essence of this guidance is the stress on
effective participation without any specification as to the form
which it must take.
State Program Funding.
It is expected that the final Section 106 regulations will be
published by the end of March 1976, eliminating the incentive concept
from this program. The following funding section has been prepared
accordingly.
FY 1977 funding for State orogram grants will continue to be
austere in relation to the Agency's objective of continuing to
shift authority and responsibility to the State agencies. Within
these resource constraints, three programs will receive priority
emphasis. First, activities in support of the construction grants
program should continue to increase. Compliance monitoring, en-
forcement, and reissuance and revision of NPDES permits will be
-------
92
the second emphasis area. The third priority program will be
statewide water quality management planning, which will be funded
through both the 106 and 208 mechanisms. It will be the responsi-
bility of the Regional Administrator to determine the proper mix of
funds to assure an adequate level of activity 1n this Important
program. Decentralization of priority program functions, with
particular stress on reduction of duplication of effort, should
be a major effort 1n the development of Regional work plans and
State programs.
The Regional Administrator has the authority to determine
the division of each State's allocation by program area based
on his judgement as to the most effective utilization of funds
1n that State. Regional Administrators, after consultation with
the State, may decide to Increase or reduce amounts for the
three areas of priority emphasis as appropriate in Individual
States. The State Program budget format (Attachment 1) is
designed to relate all resources directly to their program
uses.
Changes in 535.912 and 35.913 of the Title II regulations (Cali-
fornia fee) allow States which have the legislative authority to
charge municipalities a fee for State activities 1n the review
and approval of certain grant documents required 1n the construc-
tion grant program. Similarly, Section 208 planning and management
agencies may enter into a contract with their State agencies where-
by the Section 208 agency may pay the State a fee for State expenses
-------
93
incurred 1n coordination and liaison with the Section 208 agency.
Anticipated revenues from these sources should be noted 1n a foot-
note to the resources table 1n each State Program. Direct grants
to States for water quality management planning under Section 208
in column 2, "208 grant funds." (See Attachment 1).
MR 16505 (the "Cleveland-Wright" amendment) or 1t successor
represents a potential major source of funding for State Programs.
If and when this amendment 1s oassed, the funds to be derived will
be considered as part of the total funds available to the State
and will be Included in the funding sources allocated by the State
Program grant process. A footnote has been provided on the State
Program resources table, Attachment I* for recording any funds to
be derived.
Policy Regarding Interstate Agencies
The final Section 106 regulations, which are to be published
soon change the allocation ratios for Interstate agencies 1n such
a way that the dollar amount of their funding will remain constant*
regardless of increasing Congressional appropriations. Other
changes 1n EPA policy toward Interstate agencies are being consi-
dered as the result of a review which has been conducted. It is
anticipated that the conclusions of this review will be communicated
to the Regional Offices by early April.
-------
94
State Program Planning and Reporting Under FPRS.
Regions and States will summarize their plans 1n Identical
quantified commitments, milestones, and start levels on EPA form
3720-5 (Rev. 1-75), with Individual States using the reverse side
or an equivalent format as prescribed by an EPA Regional Admini-
strator. (An Initial submission by May 1, will satisfy Section
35.562(a) of the Regulations. A final submission 1s required
(Section 35.562(b)) by September 1, 1976.
Joint agreements between EPA Regions and States should be
reflected 1n all commitments Involving both EPA State efforts.
Only 1n cases of protracted disagreement between a Region and
a State will commitments be unilaterally established. Any uni-
lateral commitment will be Identified as such, and the circum-
stances requiring 1t will be explained 1n the Region's program
plan.
FPRS mid-year reports will be transmitted to EPA Headquart-
ers by the Regions. FPRS data and any additional reports from the
States required by Regional Administrators will be transmitted to
the Regions as prescribed by the Regional Administrator 1n order
to best serve the purposes of the joint on-s1te evaluation required
by the Section 106 regulations (Section 35.570(a)).
-------
95
The Regions should provide a copy of the Stiite program plan
submissions and the narrative reports on the mid-year evaluations
to the State Management Branch, Water Planning Division.
-------
ATTACHMENT
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
State Water Poll.utl.on Control Program Resources
1.
FY77 S106 GRANT
FUNDS
2.
208 GRANT
FUNDS
3.
NON-FEDERAL
STATE FUNDS
4.
TOTAL BUDGET
(Includes all
sources
of funding)
s;
MAN-YEA*
Municipal Facilities
Construction
Point Source Permits
Non-Point Source
Management
Activities
(Implementation)
Water Quality Manage-
ment Planning
(to Include water
quality standards)
Monitoring
(to Include ambient
and effluent monitoring]
Enforcement
(to Include compliance
assurance activities)
Training, Operational
( Maintenance
Public Participation
Administration
Other
Total
— —
— ••
^*
— •*
—*•
— ^
— -
I
Funds to be derived from charges for the processing of construction grants $
Funds to be dervled from retention of a X of the State's total Title II grants allocation %
Funds to be derived from charges for the overview of areawlde 208 water quality management plan
-------
97
B. FY 1977 Water Quality Program Priorities
The National FY 1977 Water Quality Strategy Overview, with
attendant modules providing more detailed description of the particular
programs, describes the national priorities by which EPA will be
guided in the management of both Its Headquarters and field programs
from October 1, 1976 through September 30, 1977, and beyond. The
States and Regions will establish more detailed priorities tailored
to their own areas in the development of their FY 1977 program plans.
This section of the FY 1977 Water Quality Programs guidance sets
the priorities that the States and Regional Offices must be guided
by to effectively implement the national strategy and priorities
during FY 1977.
As in the FY 1976 guidance, national water quality program
priorities for State and Regional Office programs have been grouped
into three broad categories. The order in which programs and
parts of programs are listed within each of the broad categories should
not be Interpreted as a precise rank ordering of more detailed priorities,
however.
Highest National Water Quality Program Priorities for State
and Regional Office Implementation are given to municipal construction
program management; Permits, Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
relating to major dischargers under NPDES; State and Regional Water
Quality Management Planning and Standards; and related aspects of
Water Monitoring.
-------
98
Second National Water Quality Program Priorities include Municipal
Operations; Oil and Hazardous Spills Response and Contingency planning
programs; non-NPDES water enforcement; Federal interagency coordination
in 5208; Ocean site EIS and Ocean Dumping Permits; Dredged or Fill
Materials Discharge Permits; SBA Loan Review; and related aspects of
water monitoring.
Third National Priorities are for minor discharger permits,
compliance Monitoring and enforcement; Oil and Hazardous Spill
Prevention and Control programs; certain Technical Studies and
Support programs which demand State and/or Regional participation;
the Clean Lakes Program; and advertisement of the SBA Loan programs.
These FY 1977 priorities together with overriding priorities of
of program operations decentralization to the States; Water monitoring;
plus Federal facilities complance and EIS, where applicable, are listed
in overtter detail below.
FY 77 National Water Quality Program Priorities
First Priority National Water Program Areas
NOTE: This Agency-wide FY 1977 Regional guidance package includes
the same guidance on construction grants that was included in the
December draft guidance. An amended guidance package for construction
grants, responding to comments received on the December 1975 draft
and other considerations was dispatched for further Regional review
on February 9, 1976. Final guidance on Municipal Construction Programs
will be issued by early March, 1976.
0 Municipal Facilities Program Management (DRAFT)
-- In fiscal year 1977 major emphasis in the construction
grants program should be placed on sound program management
to assure that high quality projects are awarded and completed
in the most timely manner possible. In meeting this priority
-------
99
objective the following activities should be undertaken.
. Project schedules should be developed 1n the State
project priority 11st. Schedules should be analyzed
for timeliness and reasonableness of award and completion
dates. One criterion for approval of priority lists
should be the timeliness of scheduling projects through
the three step process. Priority lists should Include
optimum mix of Step 1, 2, and 3 projects to assure a
continuous smooth flowing program.
. Following the approval of priority lists State and
Regional Offices should take an active role to assure
that project schedules are met. Maximum effort should
• be devoted to pre-applicatlon conferences and project
assistance. Direct contact should be maintained with
applicants to assure that grants are awarded and completed
on schedule. This 1s especially true for projects 1n
the early stages of development, I.e.. planning and design.
. Project schedules on State priority lists should be
udpated quarterly.
. Continued emphasis should be placed on expeditious processing
of grant applications after they are received in the State/
Regional Office.
. Projects should be closely monitored following the Step 3
award to assure that they are brought under construction
In a timely manner and brought to completion on schedule.
Our goal is to have all projects under constnuction within
six months of grant award.
. To assure maximum impact on water quality and the achievement
of obligation quotas, primary emphasis should be directed to
scheduling and managing larger projects.
. Where appropriate, enforcement of municipal permit compliance
schedules should be undertaken to hold projects to schedule.
. Cost effectiveness goals should continue to be emphasized
through pre-application conferences and detailed review
of facilities plans and plans and specifications.
-------
100
. Environmental Integrity should be assured by continuing
to emphasize the quality of environmental assessments and
the preparation of environmental Impact statements where
needed.
— A second major objective will be to expand the level of dele-
gation and other forms of decentralization of the program to the
States to the greatest extent feasible. In addition to the dele-
gation of plans and specifications and O&M Manuals, opportunities
for delegation of inspections, bid reviews, change order review,
facility plan review, etc. should also be explored.
-- Other priorities of the construction grants program in FY 1977 are
as follows:
. Regional personnel should be available to the States to
them in developing their priority lists—especially for those
States which have had serious problems applying EPA criteria
(outlined in PG SM-4) to the lists.
. Regional Offices should move toward increased interim con-
struction inspections and audits. The interagency agreement
with the Corps and GSA should be utilized to reduce the need
to use EPA personnel resources for this purpose.
o Permits. Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement ( Federal facilities carry
the same priority as other facilities of the same type).
-- EPA Program Priorities.
. Increasing State participation 1n the NPDES program
. Development and implementation of streamlined management
systems.
— National Priorities. (NOTE: Percentages indicate the relative
ratio of resources to be expended on the National Priorities.
The Program Priorities are implicit in the National Priorities
and their execution 1s an integral part of the National Priority
efforts.)
-------
101
. Assure completion of facilities by major Industrial
dischargers to meet BPT and WQS. (20ft)
. Resolve all outstanding adjudicatory hearing requests
by major dischargers. (15%)
. Issue, reissue, or modify major municipal and non-
municipal permits (30%)
. Assure compliance of major municipal permits with
construction schedules (10%)
. Insure compliance by major municipal and industrial
facilities with effluent conditions (20%)
o Water Quality Management Planning
— Ensure development of State and areawide water quality management
plans, consistent with the State/EPA agreement on timing and level
of detail and 1n time to meet the November 1, 1978 deadline for
submission of initial plans.
— Ensure that all State and areawide planning focuses on the most
critical problems that can be resolved by the planning and manage-
ment process, and encourage production of early planning outputs
including Water Quality Standards reviews, to improve dialogue
within planning areas and to provide input to other program elements.
— Assure effective EPA internal review and processing of completed
Areawide plans,
— Increase emphasis on developing decision-making frameworks for
control of nonpolnt as well as point sources in the context of
existing institutions.
— Continue emphasis of maintaining an active State management role
in State and areawide water quality managment plan development.
— Ensure that within each State and areawide water quality management
planning agency adequate business management and other fiscal manage-
ment procedures are followed.
-- Program monitoring and analysis at the EPA Headquarters, EPA Regional
and State levels will be undertaken to insure that potential needs
for program assistance are identified early and acted on in a timely
fashion.
— Intermedia coordination within EPA will be pursued to bring consideration
of total residuals management into the 208 planning process.
-------
102
Throughout all monitoring priorities during FY 1977, consideration
should be given, where applicable, to monitoring raw drinking water
quality as well as general ambient water quality, Monitoring activities
earned out in support of other programs (e.g.: enforcement, planning,
EIS prt *
-------
103
o Oil and Hazardous Spills
— Response capabilities and contingency planning.
o Permits, Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement* (Federal Facilities carry
the same priority as other facilities of the same type).
-- Achieve a high degree of compliance with non-NPDES water enforcement
requirements (2%)
*See note in First Priority section regarding percentages and program priorities
o Preparation of ocean site EIS's.
o Water Quality Management Planning
-- Coordination between EPA and affected Federal agencies holding
lands within 208 areas will be strengthened to insure plan
implementation process from the Federal as well as the local
and State level.
o Ocean Dumping
—Review of applications and issuance of ocean dumping permits,
including permits for emergency situations and discharges of
drilling mud from offshore oil operations.
o Ps. for Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material
— Issuance of general permits
— Review of individual permits and Corps of Engineers projects.
0 SBA Loan Review
— Meeting obligatory 45 day limit on preparation of reviews
THIRD PRIORITY NATIONAL WATER PROGRAM AREAS
o Permits. Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement.* (Federal Facilities carry
the same priority as other facilities of the same type).
— Assure compliance of minor Industrial or municipal dischargers with
permit conditions.
— Issue, reissue, or modify minor Industrial or municipal permits.
-------
104
o Oil tuid Hazardous Spill Prevention and Control
o Tech*';, a 'tidies and Support (Coastal Zone Management, Marine Sanitation
Devices, ef'~ ';,
o Clean L. - JN -ogram
0 SBA Loar, Uoview
— Advising dischargers of the availability of SBA loans.
-------
105
C. WATER QUALITY PROGRAM OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITY INDICATORS
The following is the list of outputs and activity indicators (A/I)
requiring conrnitments and/or reporting through the Formal Planning and
Reporting System (FPRS) during FY 1977. The list indicates for each output
and A/I the reporting unit (Region or State), the milestone and/or reportinq
frequency, and whether a FY 1977 start level is required.
Abbreviations used to indicate the unit and frequency are:
Reporting Units Frequency
Regional Total - T* Q - quarterly
State-by-State - ByS SA- semi-annually
A - annually
* See specialized definitions of symbols used in 3.,
"Enforcement and Compliance *^itoring" list.
1. MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION (DRAFT)
This Agency-wide FY 1977 Regional Guidance package includes the same
guidance on construction grants that was included in the December draft
guidance. An amended guidance package for construction grants, responding
to Garments received on the 12/75 draft and other considerations was dis-
patched for further Regional review on 2/9/76. Final guidance on f!unicipal
Construction Programs will be issued by early March, 1976.
Outputs Units Freq. Start Level?
A. No. of new Step 1 Awards ByS Q No
3. No. of new Step 2 Awards ByS Q ITo
C. No. of new Step 3 Awards ByS Q Mb
D. Total of Estirated Obligations
(FY Fund Authority) ByS Q No
E. No. of Step 1 projects completed ByS Q No
F. No. of Step 2 projects completed ByS 0. No
G. No. of Step 3 projects completed ByS Q No
Activity Indicators
1. Total PL 92-500 Project Outlays T Q Ifo
(Projected)
-------
2. r.t 'iS PERMITS
•'Xitpats
A.-.'j.i'o. of permits issued or
reissuoi (includes new sources)
E. No. c:: major municipal
permits modified.
Units Freq. Start level
Non-Municipal Municipal
Manor Minor Manor Minor
ByS ByS ByS ByS Q
ByS
Activity Indicators
l.,2. No, f disci-/aigtrs iden-
tified that must have a permit
3.,4 No. of permits issued
and in effect.
5. No. of major, non-municipal
permits modified.
6. No. of major, non-municipal
permits for which modification is
requested.
7. No. of. major non-municipal
permits for which modification is
denied.
ByS
ByS
ByS
ByS
ByS
SA
SA
SA
SA
Yes
Yes
No
-------
107
3. COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Outputs
COMPLIANCE
A . -D . Reconnaissance inspections
E ^ _H f Sarrpling inspections
I. , H. Permittees in conpliance with
final effluent limitations
K . , L . Permittees in compliance with
construction schedules
Permittees in conpliance with
permit conditions
Units
Non-Municipal Municipal
(Major) (Major)
EfST
E+ST
E+ST
E+ST
Q
Q
Q
T(funded Q
or fundable)
T(non-
fundable)
Q
Start Level?
NO
NO
No
No
No
ADJUDICATOR? HEARINGS
Unresolved requests
E(municipal and
non-municipal)
Q
Yes
ENFORCEMENT
O., P. Notices of violations
Q. ,R. Administrative Orders
S. ,T."5°9 Referrals
By AS
E
E
By AS
E
E
Q
Q
Q
NO
No
No
ACTIVITY INDICATORS
COMPLIANCE riONITORING
1 . -4 .Permittees in violation with
final effluent limits
5. -8 .Permittees in violation with
construction schedules
g .-iQPermittees in violation
with permit conditions
E+ST
E+ST
E+ST
Q
E+ST (funded Q
or fundable)
E+ST (non- Q
fundable)
No
No
-------
108
Outputs
Units
Non-Municipal Municipal
(Major) (Major)
1! ,,12 NPDES violations referred
by State
KEY:
By S
By S
E = EPA
ST = States Total
T = Total for Region Including State Lead Activity
By AS = Approved States
Q
No
4. CONSTRUCTION GRANT EIS's
No. of final EIS's filed with
CEQ for Municipal Construction Grants
5. NEW SCXMJE EIS's
Outputs
None
Activity Indicators
1. Number of new source applications
received
2. Nunber of final EIS's filed with CEQ
for new source NPDES permits
3. Number of new source permits denied
because of adverse environmental
effects
4. Number of negative declarations on
new source NPDES permits
Units
Freq.
Q
SA
SA
SA
SA
Start Level?
No
No
No
No
-------
FACILITIES (WATER) 109
Units Freq. Start Level?
• Annual on-site inspections of major
and minor sources either
reconnaissance of sampling.
(Goal: 100% of those facilities out
of compliance and 75% of those
rnajor facilities suspected of
'being out of compliance.) T SA Yes
Indicators
Number of known major Federal
sources subject to NPDES,
including non-filers. T SA Yes
Number of major sources out
of compliance. T SA Yes
Number of ma J or sources ^n
compliance. T SA Yes
Total number of major permits issued T SA Yes
Total number of minor permits issued T SA Yes
7> WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
S
A
No. of State and areawide planning
agencies with all relevant interim
outputs completed. T SA Yes
5. «
No. of States in which the water
Duality standards review and revision
process required by section 303(e)
has been completed by the State and
any revisions have been approved by EPA. T Q Yes
C.
No. of State and areawide planning areas
"that have selected Best Management
Practices for appropriate key outputs
Of the plan (SUSPENDED UNTIL FURTHER
NOTICE.) T SA Yes
No. of areawide plans which
have been submitted to the State for
Pre-adoption review. T SA Yes
i
No. of Phase I (Basin) plans adopted by
the State and approved by EPA. T SA Yes
-------
110
- ' catorfl
Units Freg. Start Tcvel?
No. of State and areawide
planning areas for which
regulatory programs for one
or more key outputs of the plan
have been adopted by the State. T SA Yes
No. of State and areavn.de planning
areas which have been identified one
or more of the management agencies
to implement key outputs of the plan
and have secured management agency
acceptance for responsibility for
implementing these key outputs. T SA Yes
8. WATER MONITORING
Outputs
A. No. of State Laboratories evaluated. T SA Yes
B. No. of NW3SS stations with current
(within 3 months) data stored by
T Q Yes
Activity indicators
1. No. of State Quality
assurance approved. T SA Yes
2. No. of State ftonitoring
Strategies approved. T SA Yes
3. No. of data transfer and
STOKET funding agreements approved. T SA Yes
9. MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS
Outputs
A. No. of municipal O&M
inspections (EPA and State) T Q No
-------
10. OIL AND HAZARDOUS
111
SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Outputs
A. Number of SPOC plan cotpliance/
implementation inspections.
(During FY 76 only the oil
prevention program has been
fully operational).
Activity Indicators
1. Number of cases* referred to
Coast Guard for prevention
action (transportation-related
facilities)
2. Number of cases referred to EPA for
violation of EPA prevention
regulations. (Non-transportation-
related facilities).
3. Number of spills requiring
removal action by EPA.
4. Number of spill removal actions
monitored by EPA.
5. Number of field inspections as
a result of SPCC Plan Amendment
Inspections.
Units
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
Start Level?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
^Relating to either oil or hazardous substances
11. OCEAN DUMPING
Outputs
None
Activity Indicators
1. NO. of dunp site permit
applications received and
reviewed.
2. No. of dump site permits
issued.
3. No. of enforcement actions
resulting from Coast Guard
Notices.
T
SA
SA
SA
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
112
}>. DISCUSSION AND DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO WATER QUALITY PROGRAM
OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITY INDICATORS
1. MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION (DRAFT)
This Agency-wide FY 1977 Regional Guidance package Includes the
same guidance on construction grants that was Included In the December
draft guidance. An amended guidance package for construction grants,
responding to comments received on the 12/75 draft and other
considerations was dispatched for further Regional review on 2/9/76.
Final guidance on Municipal Construction programs will be issued by
early March, 1976.
Outputs A. -D Projecting and monitoring of new award data
provides a means of measuring progress in moving projects into the
planning, design, and construction stages with the objective of
bringing projects on line as expeditiously as possible. This
information can also be used (1) to measure relative progress in
achieving goals across States or Regions, (2) to assess future funding
needs on the mix of projects and (3) to determine Regional or State
resource needs (i.e. as a workload indicator.) Projections will be
based on an analysis of individual project schedules in approved
priority lists.
Output D • Projecting and monitoring obligations is essential (1)
to assure a smooth flowing, well managed, and cost effective program
in each State and (2) to provide a basis for overall Agency obligation
and outlay estimates to OMB and Congress. In addition to point (1)
above, State level detail is necessary to provide early warning of
possible problems in obligating funds prior to the expiration of
legislat' Jt reallotment dates.
Outputs E.-G. Projecting and monitoring completion data provides
a means of measuring progress in bringing projects through the
planning, design, and construction stages and to completion as
expeditiously as possible. The Agency performance on project
completions has not received enough management attention in the past.
As the number of active grants continues to Increase, the post-grant
activity will increasingly receive higher priority in the management
of the program. The data for projections is provided through analysis
of the age of existing projects against the expected standard time for
completion of each step for each State.
Activity Indicator: i. Projection required to manage overall
outlay restriction under"contract authority legislation. Also gives a
second indication (along with completion data) on progress in post-
grant activity.
-------
113
?. NPDES PERMITS
All rjutputs and A/I' s. Major Dischargers are large Identified
dischargers plus any other dischargers that have a high potential for
violation of water quality standards or are required to Install
substantial pollution abatement equipment. In addition, for municipal
dischargers, it includes but is not limited to, all facilities which
have received, or will receive, during FY 77» a construction grant (a
funded or fundable project, p. ,j>3-)iand which are larger than 250,000 GPD.
Major Permits are permits issued to major dischargers.
Outputs A.-P.. A permit is reissued only if it has expired or been
revoked.
A/I's 1.-4. The number of permits issued and in effect is the
total number of permits that have been issued and are wholly or
partially in effect.
A/I l.,2 An identified discharger Is any known discharger that is
required to have an NPDES permit. A discharger need not have applied
for a permit to be included. Not all applicants are necessarily
identified dischargers. Some applicants may be found not to need a
permit; and when this is determined, such applicants should not be
included as identified dischargers.
3. COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Outputs A. -M. The term "compliance monitoring" is a generic term
meant to cover "all activities taken to ascertain a discharger's
compliance status. This includes, but is not limited to compliance
inspections and NPDES related sampling Inspections, reconnaissance
Inspections, O&M Inspections; as well as compliance review; the review
of discharge monitoring reports and compliance schedule reports.
"Compliance monitoring" may also include aerial monitoring and special
site visits for other non-NPDES enforcement purposes but compliance
monitoring resources have not been provided to support these efforts.
Outputs A • -H. A visit to a facility for compliance inspection is
to be counted in only one of the categories listed. Thus, a single
visit cannot be counted as an O&M as well as a sampling and/or
reconnaissance Inspection. It must be one or the other. (See Output
9.a.)
Outputs A >-D.
Reconnaissance Inspections include brief visits to a permittee
made for one or more of the following purposes:
1. Observe status of construction required by permit;
2. Quickly assess the adequacy of the permittee's self-
monitoring program.
-------
114
3. Check records; and
4. Express concern that permit requirements be met.
Outputs E.-H. Sampling Inspections include inspections where a
representative sample Is taken and analyzed in the laboratory. They
usually would have the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the
permittee's discharge monitoring reports. It may also serve, where
appropriate, to gather detailed information on effluent quality for
preparation of a legal case against the permittee.
A "representative sample" is a sample taken during the course of
an operating day weighted as appropriate for variation in flow and
strength to be representative of the effluent discharged during that
period and is compatible with the type of sample required by the
permittee.
A grab sample can be taken to satisfy this definition instead of
composite samples only in those instances where the nature of the
manufacturing process and wastewater treatment facility together
produce a stable effluent.
It is expected that there would be a very low number of grab
samples taken within a given reporting period. Furthermore, it is
expected that every major permittee meeting final effluent limitations
be visited at least once a year. Remaining major permittees which are
not scheduled to meet final effluent limits should be visited on a
priority basis, with first priority going to those permittees with
Interim final effluent limitations.
Outputs I.. fJ. The Regions are responsible for obtaining State
commitment^ to these activities and for ensuring that these
commitments are fulfilled. Therefore, one number will be reported by
each region for each of the above four outputs, which Includes
Regional as well as State activity. However, we expect the Regions to
keep the separate state commitments and reports on file. By PY 1977
PCS will have the capacity to accept this information.
Outputs I • - J • Permittees shall be counted in compliance with effluent
limitations when all of the following are true:
1. All compliance schedule reports required by the permit during
the quarter are submitted on time.
2. The reports are completed satisfactorily.
3. The reports Indicate that the compliance schedule is being
met.
l|. No information exists from other sources such as field
inspections that the compliance schedule is not being met..
Outputs K'~ty* Funded or_ Fundable Projects refers to POWT's where
a Step 1, 2 and/or 3 construction grant project directed toward
achieving the necessary effluent requirements is currently funded or
-------
115
occupies a position on a priority list such that it can be reasonably
expected that Federal funding will be available in Fiscal Year 1977,
from current authorizations.
Output N. To be included in the output for unresolved
adjudicatory hearing requests are those requests which, 6 months after
receipt, have not been (1) withdrawn, (2) resolved by stipulation
which is signed by all parties and approved by Headquarters, or (3)
resolved by initial decision of the Regional Administrator.
A/I 1.-4See Outputs e.-h. and i.-J., above.
A/I l.-lOWe have separated the state total from EPA-lead
activity for these A/I. Do not double count. Where the State takes
the lead action, the-State reports; Where EPA takes the lead action,
EPA reports. See also Outputs A. -M , above.
A/I 5 .-8 . See Outputs K. L , above
A/I 5-10 See Outputs k.-m., above
General definition; The Enforcement Management System (See p. • A8)
will provide Improved guidance and assistance to the Regions and the
States, and more effective management of the national compliance and
enforcement program. Our emphases are on establishing essential and
consistent procedural and substantive policies on self-monitoring and
reporting, on compliance tracking, on enforcement response, and on
data management.
**. CONSTRUCTION GRANT EIS'S
The Agency's objective is to provide thorough environmental review
of all municipal construction grant projects for which a Step 1 grant
has been awarded and for all projects for which Step 2 or Step 3 grant
applications have been received without prior Step 1 grants, with
appropriate steps taken to ensure funding environmentally sound, cost-
effective projects.
Output A. The FY 1977 output is one measure of Regional Office
NEPA compliance in the municipal construction program. This measure
along with the number of negative declarations issued (to be obtained
from the GIGS system) represents the bulk of the required work in NEPA
compliance in the program.
The number of "final EIS's filed" is an output unit rather than an
activity indicator because the Regional Offices must plan and commit
themselves to EIS's early in the fiscal year if the contract mechanism
and piggyback approach are to be used effectively.
5. NEW SOURCE EIS's
-------
The Agency!r objective Is to provide "thorough environmental assessment
of all new source discharge permits (NFDKTO issued by EPA, OFA nan
agreed with the regional offices that an output commitment would In-
inappropriate until we have more experience in estimating future new
source permit applications.
A/I 2. This activity Indicator provides one reliable indicator of
regional performance in the area of EIS preparation for new sources,
although it does not provide a complete indication of the overall ETS
preparation activity.
A/I 3. The second activity indicator provides a measure of the
extent to which adverse impacts are being prevented by the program.
A/I 4. This activity indicator provides a running tally of
regional performance in performing environmental reviews of
applications for new source NPDES permits.
6. FEDERAL FACILITIES (WATER)
The Agency's objectives are to assure the compliance status of FEDERAL
FACILITIES WITH NPDES requirements, and to issue, or reissue, NPDES
permits to Federal facilities as required.
Output A. A source is out of compliance if -
1. It repeatedly falls to meet NPDES reporting requirements despite
efforts (e.g. letters of advice) to obtain complete, accurate, and
timely reports, or
2. Reports indicate that the permit schedule on applicable
effluent lir.iitations are not being met, or
3. Information from field Inspections and other sources
demonstrate that self-monitoring reports are inaccurate
A/I 1. / 2 . These VIfs should include non-filers. A "source" may
include more than one discharge point.
VI's ,1,3/4 . Activity Indicators (a)-(b4c)=the number of major
sources of unknown compliance status.
A/I1s 3,4 See Output a., above.
7. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Outputs A. -E. These outputs reflect the significant milestones
necessary to establish management objectives for the products of the
water quality management plans. As such, they provide the major
activity accomplishments which are necessary to assure that the 208
program provides strong water quality decisions at the conclusion of
the planning process while establishing a process for environmental
-------
117
decJfdon-making for conn 1 deration of future water quality concern!!
throughout the nation.
Output A. Interim outputs are those outputs called for In Program
Guidance Memorandum AM-2.
Output B. Footnotes are to be used to list states which have
"completed" their reviews and revisions. Only States fully expected
to be, or actually "completed" prior to FY 77 are to be reported and
listed in start levels.
Only States actually "completed" in the first half of FY 77 need
to be listed in the 3/31/77 report. However, any States erroneously
listed as "completed" prior to FY 77 are to be identified, and also
counted as completed in the reporting period during which they achieve
actual "completed" status. Other States actually "completed" during
the 2nd half of FY 77 are to be listed in the 9/30/77 report.
A/I's 1^/2. The Activity Indicators which track the development
of regulatory programs will provide information beginning in FY 77 and
in the latter stages of Phase II on institutional activities which are
difficult to quantify in other terms. These Indicators should reveal
program progress as activities more from the planning to the
Implementation phase. Key outputs are those outputs identified by the
planning agency In the Project Control Plan or the State-EPA Agreement
as the priority outputs, or primary focus, of the planning process.
NOTE: Under the provisions of the Deputy Administrator memorandum of
October 3, 1975 > the Headquarters Water Planning Division will be
operating an informal system for collection of management Information.
This will include semi-annual trips by Headquarters personnel to each
region for the purpose of comparing each planning agency's progress
against their Project Control Plans. The Water Planning Division
intends to expand this informal management system to cover State as
well as areawide planning.
8. WATER MONITORING
Output A• Evaluation of State laboratories is a condition for
approving a State's water monitoring program.
State laboratory evaluations to be counted here should follow the
general laboratory evaluation procedures used by the Regions, personal
inspection using standard sample or reference sample checks.
Output B- This output is a continuation of the existing program
and serves as the core form which will grow an expanded network incor-
porating those State stations conforming to NWQSS criteria and
approved by the Region.
A/I*s 1»~3« Approval of the State water monitoring program is a
condition for approving a State's water pollution control program
-------
118
grant under section 106 of Public Law 92-500 under the monitoring
regulations of Appendix A to the grant regulations now in effect.
Approved State quality assurance programs, State monitoring strategies
and data transfer, and STORET data systems funding agreements are
basic contingencies for the approval of State water monitoring
programs.
A/I !• Approval of a State quality assurance program means that
the Region is satisfied that the field and laboratory procedures being
used by the State are adequate for the Intended use of the data, and
that the Region is not hesitant to use the State's data as if it were
its own. Quality assurance guidance is based on the document
entitled: "Minimal Requirements for a Water Quality Assurance
Program."
A/I 2» Approval of a State monitoring stragegy means that the
Region knows, and is satisfied with the rationale and levels of effort
assigned to the individual components of the State monitoring program.
A/I 3. Approval of data transfer and STORET funding agreements
means that the Region knows what data are being transferred into the
STORET data system, and that the stations being entered are properly
identified and located. For States not currently using the STORET
system, approval of the data transfer agreement means that those data
being collected by the State and that are of use and interest to the
EPA are available in an agreed-on form.
9. MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS
Output A. This output directly Impacts municipal treatment
facility performance and reliability in support of both National
Municipal Operations Program and NPDES objectives. During FY 1977 the
primary emphasis of these activities will be upon identifying and
helping to resolve operating problems of existing municipal treatment
plants which are in actual or Imminent violation of their permits but
could be brought into or near compliance with improved operations and
maintenance. Such activities must be closely planned and coordinated
with enforcement to assure the most effective approach to achieving
permit conditions without compromising subsequent enforcement action.
O&M inspections should be conducted by States and/or Regions at all
major facilities ("expanded list") and at 5% to 1035 of the minor
facilities. Joint compliance monitoring and O&M inspections are
encouraged wherever possible to extend available resources; also to
identify permit violations related to operating problems amenable to
correction through enforcement actions voluntary compliance by the
permittee and his consultants, or technical assistance as Justified on
a case-by-case basis.
An O&M Inspection is any facility Inspection conducted by State and/
or EPA Regional personnel which results In a fully completed EPA-Form
-------
119
7500-5. (An O&M inspection is not the same as a reconnaissance
visit.)
10. OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES SPIIL PREVENTION AND CONWI,
A/I 1. Effectiveness depends upon the overall development of the
hazardous materials aspects of the program during FY 76 and PY 77.
VI 2.-5. The reporting mechanism has proved to be, and will
continue to be an effective mechanism for the future support of the
oil prevention, control and enforcement programs.
11. OCEAN DUMPING
A/I 1. y2.. Revised regulations and criteria will be effective in
FY 1977 including a new section on dump sites management.
-------
120
WATER SUPPLY
REGIONAL GUIDANCE
FY 1977
^tS^r
X)^
as**
***
Xt-
-------
121
Water Supply Program
Overview Statement
The implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act is one of
the Agency's highest priorities. The National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations that were promulgated on December 24,
1975, will become effective June 24, 1977. FY 77 will be a critical
period for the Agency and the States. State assumption of primary
enforcement responsibility for public water systems is a primary
objective of the Agency. The Agency will be required to assume
primacy in those States that have not assumed the responsibility
by June 24, 1977. Therefore it is important that the States succeed
in developing and structuring programs that meet the requirements
for primary enforcement responsibility during FY 77. The limita-
tions of time, funds, and manpower require the establishment of
Federal/State priorities in implementing the Safe Drinking Water
Act. The National Safe Drinking Water Strategy, One Step At A
Time, issued May 1975, commits the Agency to a flexible and phased
approach in implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act. This
approach is embodied in the implementation and grant regulations
that were promulgated January 20, 1976, as well as in the interim
primary drinking water regulations.
-------
122
The water supply guidance establishes priorities to be used by
the States and Regions in developing and implementing their plans
for FY 77. Within the framework of the national program guidance
and the draft strategy document, the Regions and States are expected
to establish more specific plans and priorities tailored to their own
areas and needs.
Public Water System Supervision
The first priority requires that the States acquire the necessary
statutory or regulatory authority and establish program activities
that will enable them to qualify for primary enforcement respon-
sibility. Due to a four-month delay in meeting the statutory deadline
for promulgating the implementation and grant regulations, an April 1,
1976, deadline was established for FY 76 State program grant applica-
tions . Within one year from the date of the first grant award, the
States must assume primary enforcement responsibility (primacy)
for the public water systems supervision programs. Thus, for the
first three quarters of FY 77 the Regional/State efforts will be
directed toward State assumption of primary enforcement respon-
sibility.
The second level priorities will concern the structure of an
organization and the development of a plan that will enable the
States and EPA (in those States without primacy) to implement
the program. State/Regional efforts will focus on implementation
activities during the latter part of FY 77. Although State assumption
-------
123
of primary enforcement responsibility is the first order of priority
in FY 77 it is also expected that Regional and State efforts will be
directed at developing plans and strategies for implementation.
A preliminary determination of water supply problem areas and
identification of those systems that will be in non-compliance
should put the States in a position to develop realistic implementa-
tion plans with available resources.
Underground Injection Control
The first priority requires that the States acquire the necessary
statutory or regulatory authority which will enable them to qualify
for primary enforcement responsibility. The Regions are to initiate
an assessment of existing statutory authorities, and of existing State
resources and coordinate a State inventory of underground injection
facilities. As soon as the underground injection control and grant
regulations are published, program guidance relating to the issuance
of program grants, technical assistance to the States in developing
State program submissions, and in the evaluation of program applica-
tions and in the issuance of underground injection control rule procedures
will be issued.
The second level priorities relate to reviewing Federal financial
assistance projects proposed within sole program source aquifer
areas, coordinating of the UIC permit program with the NPDES
program and 208 plans and preparing technical evaluations of sole
source aquifer petitions.
-------
124
In developing Regional/State plans and strategies for FY 77,
other sections of the regional operating guidance should be con-
sulted. Implementation of program plans will require coordina-
tion with other EPA program areas such as grants administration,
regional counsel, enforcement, 208 planning andNPDES programs.
-------
125
FY 77 WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM PRIORITIES
This section of the FY 77 Water Supply Program guidance sets
forth FY 77 National priorities that will provide the basis for
development of Regional and State plans for the Fiscal Year. The
priorities are grouped into two broad categories.
First Order Priorities
1. Primary enforcement responsibility
The FY 76 Regional efforts were directed toward assisting
the States in meeting the requirements for primary enforcement
responsibility for the public water systems supervision program.
State assumption of primacy should remain the top priority item
in the States and Regional Offices in FY 77.
Review State legislation to determine needed modifications
and ensure the adoption of necessary statutory or regulatory
authority.
- , Establish activities and other program elements
required for primacy.
- States will develop material, required by 40 CFR
142.11, for submission to EPA for a determina-
tion of primary enforcement responsibility. Regional
offices will review State submissions and provide oppor-
tunity for and conduct necessary hearings on each deter-
mination.
-------
126
2. State Program plans/grant application
Consistent with the national drinking water strategy, the
Regional Office should provide assistance to the States
in developing a phased multi-year program plan and budget
for implementing and enforcing the State's primary drinking
water regulations including an evaluation of staffing and
facility requirements. The State plans should be submitted
pursuant to Part IV of the State program grant appli-
cation. The State plans should provide the basis for
determining State capabilities and future resource needs
as well as providing EPA with valuable data and information
in developing the final National drinking water strategy.
3. State Implementation
State efforts should be directed toward developing plans and
strategies for implementation in FY 77. An assessment
of water supply problems and program capabilities should
assist the States to prepare for implementation. The
Regions should provide advice and technical assistance
to the States.
- Identify water supply problem areas in the States.
-------
127
- Determine the public water systems that will be
unable to comply with a requirement(s) of the State
primary drinking water regulations. Emphasis
should be placed on community water systems. As
resources permit, sanitary surveys of these systems
should be conducted to identify the nature and extent
of problems.
- Develop compliance strategies and public notification
procedures.
- Estimate the number of systems that will require
variances or exemptions, Sanitary surveys and existing
State records will provide a good basis for these estimates.
Focus on problem areas such as fluorides, radium, etc.
- Develop criteria and procedures for variances and
exemptions.
- Evaluate the availability and capability of commercial,
institutional and governmental laboratories in the States.
4. Laboratory Certification
In order to meet one of the requirements for primary en-
forcement responsibility, a State must establish and maintain
programs for certifying laboratories conducting analysis for
drinking water contaminants pursuant to the requirements of
-------
128
the State drinking water regulations. Until such time that EPA
establishes a National quality assurance program for labora-
tory certification, a State will be permitted to maintain an
interim program for the purpose of approving those labora-
tories from which the required analytical measurements will
be acceptable. The National quality assurance program is
included as a high level priority item in the "water quality"
section of the regional guidance.
5. Inventory
The States should up-date the inventory of community water
systems and initiate an inventory of non-community systems.
Although the national inventory of non-community systems will
not ue complete enough to factor this group into the allocation
of FY 77 State program grants, this group of systems will be
covered by the State's primary drinking water regulations.
The initiation of an inventory of these systems is essential to
the development of the States implementation plans. The Regions
are to provide annually a report to Headquarters on the number
of community and non-community systems inventoried.
6. Underground Injection Control Program
The Regional Offices should continue to provide technical assis-
tance to the States in evaluating existing State statutory authorities,
-------
129
in assessing State resources, in developing State plans, etc. to
meet the primacy requirements for underground Injection control
programs. In addition, priority should be given to:
- Coordination of State inventory of underground injection
facilities.
- Technical assistance to States in the evaluation of program
applications and issuance of underground injection control
rule procedures.
7. EPA Implementation Plans
The Agency will be required to assume primacy for public water
system supervision in those States that have not assumed the
responsibility by June 24, 1977. The Agency cannot realistically
expect to assume a State's role in implementing the Safe Drinking
Water Act. It is expected that the Regional Offices will develop a
contingency plan based on available resources and capabilities.
The Regional office should also develop'an alternate plan with
estimated resources needed for a minimum level of effort that
will be required to implement the program and satisfy the require-
ments of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The plan should indicate
the level of supplemental budget that will be required. Regional
plans should be developed within the framework of a National
-------
130
plan that will be issued by the Headquarters Office. In formulating
contingency plans, the Regional Office water supply program
should investigate a number of areas.
- The type of working agreements that can be arranged
with the States to split the implementation and en-
forcement responsibilities.
- The capability and resources available in other Regional
program areas such as enforcement, general counsel.
Second Order Priorities
Federal and State resources available for establishing and im-
plementing the Safe Drinking Water Act during FY 77 requires
that first priority be given to those activities listed in the preceding
section. As pointed out in the overview statement however, it
is expected that the Regional Offices and States will use the
guidance to develop program plans tailored to their own needs and
particular circumstances. For this reason the Regions and States
may deem it necessary to consider some of the following activities
as higher priority items.
1. Management Information System
The Headquarters Office is currently developing a National
system tailored to meet State-Federal needs. Until the
-------
131
system is available for Regional implementation, the Regional
Offices should develop a plan for collecting and managing data
submitted by the States during FY 77.
2. Underground Injection Control Programs
- Review Federal financial assistance projects proposed
within designated sole source aquifer areas.
- Coordinate UIC permit program with NPDES permit
program and 208 plans.
- Prepare technical evaluations of areas for which a
petition for sole source designation has been received.
3. Interstate Carriers
Continue the operation of the ICWS program in each State until
the State achieves primacy. This should be followed by
monitoring for an appropriate period prior the relinquishment
of the responsibility to the States.
4. Organics Monitoring Survey
40 CFR 141.40 provides for a special monitoring survey for
organic chemicals in drinking water. The survey will include
112 public water systems. The Regional Offices will be re-
sponsible for coordinating the collection of samples and, as
-------
132
resources permit, visits to each sampling site. The
Regional Offices should coordinate the collection of required
records and background information on each system with the
respective States.
5. Technical Assistance
Provide technical assistance to the States on water supply
problems and activities, with priority given to emergencies
and public health hazards.
- Emergency response to disasters and civil disruption.
- Provide technical assistance in water treatment and
delivery on a non-emergency basis.
- Receive requests for lexicological opinions from
States and coordinate responses from ORD.
6. 208 Planning
The 208 program will be responsible for ensuring that the
protection of water supply sources is reflected in the 208
plans.
- Any initial or revised work plans submitted by 208
agencies should be reviewed to insure that an
appropriate level of concern for the protection of
drinking water sources is incorporated in the
planning process.
-------
133
For all 208 agencies indicating that drinking water is
a problem area, State and local agencies in charge of
drinking water supplies should be consulted during the
development of the 208 plan. Special attention should be
given to include the Regional and State water supply per-
sonnel in the review process.
If the 208 designated area is dependent on an underground
source of drinking water, the 208 plan should locate and
design waste disposal facilities so as to prevent the con-
tamination of such aquifer through its recharge zone.
-------
134
Water Supply Program Outputs
Abbreviations used to indicate the units and frequency are:
Reporting Units Frequency
Regional Total - T Q = quarterly
A = annually
Program Outputs Units
4* Number of Public Water T
System program
grants awarded
B.
Number of State Public
Water System Primacy
determinations made
Freq.
A
Q
Start Level?
Yes
Yes
(Outputs CandD suspended until further notice)
Number of Underground
Injection Control Grants
awarded
Number of Underground
Injection Control primacy
determinations made
Q
Yes
Yes
-------
135
PESTICIDES
REGIONAL GUIDANCE
FY 1977
Aft"*"*
-------
136
Pesticides Regional Operational Guidance
FY 1977
CONTENTS
A. Scope of Operations
1. General Objectives
2. General Operations
3. Operating Objectives and Priorities
for FY'77
B. Discussion of Regional Outputs and Related
Activities
Output Title 1- State Certification Programs
Output Title 2- Federal-State Cooperative
Enforcement Programs
Output Title 3- State Registration under
Sec. 24(c)
Output Title 4- Industry Compliance with
Registration
Output Title 5- Compliance with Label
Direction
Output Title 6- Integrated Pest Management
Output Title 7- Accident Control Programs
APPENDIX A. - Activity Indicators
APPENDIX B. - Definitions and Enforcement Activity
-------
137
FY 1977
SCOPE OF REGIONAL OPERATIONS, OBJECTIVE AND OUTPUTS
A. Scope of Operations
1. General Objectives
The basic goals for Regional operations in FY'77 are:
• to have the cooperative Federal-State programs in opera-
tion with mutually acceptable commitments to carry out
mandated and delegated responsibilities under FIFRA,
as amended.
• to have reached self-sufficiency in State certification
programs in FY'77 so they can operate without Federal
funding support in FY'78.
2. General Operations
Although the recent Congressional extension of the 1972
FIFRA gives us twelve additional operating months of catch-up
time in FY'77, Federal and State cooperative efforts to develop
sound operational bases for the necessary key programs during
FY'76 will have considerable impact on and determine the levels
and effectiveness of FY 1977 performance. All States are expected
I to have pesticides legislation by FY'77 reflecting new responsi-
bilities and expanded programs not previously required. Notwith-
standing the significant start already made on the implementation
of FIFRA in the areas of applicator certification and training,
as well as cooperative Federal-State enforcement and other new
programs, the further development and expansion of these efforts
-------
138
through FY 1977 will be key factors in achieving major objectives
under the Act.
Achievement of assigned objectives, including essential
supporting activities will be the prime focus of Regional as
well as Headquarter's FY'77 operations. Prior to the delays
concerning Sec. (3)(c)(l)(D), the bulk of reregistrations
(Federal and State) were expected to be completed in FY'76.
Maximum reregistration efforts will still be made to achieve
optimal output by the original October 1976 target date. This
is,particularly critical because of the fact that some States
have October 21, 1976, written into their State law as the
effective date for pesticide applicators to be certified. This will
still prevail (unless amended by the State) irrespective of the
recent FIFRA extension by Congress. However, it can be assumed
that there will still be a considerable reregistration workload in
FY'77 as well as handling some of the feedback of long-range
data referrals on temporary non-renewable reregistrations and
some rebuttable presumption applications, in addition to the
normal base input of new registration applications and amendments.
Present estimates are that in the course of batch reviews for
reregistration, an estimated 35 percent or more of the product
base will be affected by gaps in essential support data. OPM has
directed that Regions be directly involved in the development
of Section 3 Guidelines and Appendix. The Region V Pesticides
Branch Chief has been designated as Regional Coordinator in this
-------
139
area. We estimated five or six packages for coordinated regional
review in FY'77.
Emphasis in the enforcement area will be to develop and
implement additional Federal-State cooperative agreements
supported with grants-in-aid. These agreements will involve State
participation in cooperative enforcement programs, primarily in
the areas of market and use surveillance and sharing of evidence.
Since States are knowledgeable about local pesticides production,
marketing and use, their cooperative efforts can significantly
enhance the national enforcement program. The industry compliance
program will concentrate on ensuring that registration and classi-
fication requirements are satisfied.
Concerning Applicator Certification and Training, as we
approach FY'77, indications are that States will not generally
slow down present FY'76 momentum because of the one year
extension and will continue to cooperate fully in the implementation
of these programs. It is expected that about 20 percent of the
estimated 2.0 million total states' needs for certified applicators
will be achieved in FY'76 leaving 80 percent to be certified by
the FY'77 growing season. Obviously what is considerated
n adequate number to meet a State's needs is at the discretion of
the State. In this respect, agency policy needs to be flexible
enough to accommodate some States on timing and acceptable
-------
140
standards for applicators. Recent Congressional actions on the
extension of FIFRA authorization to April 1977 and approval
of the funding levels in the FY'76 Pesticides Budget, including
the proposals for certification and training are expected to
favorably influence State attitudes on cooperation, commitments
and accomplishments as we move toward FY'77. Hopefully this FY'76
funding support will offset negative reactions which we may get from
some States on the one year FIFRA extension. FY'76 EPA funds
to support State Cooperative Extension Service training of private
and commercial applicators should be sufficient to extend State training
programs through FY'77 to meet certification needs. The FY'77
Budget does not continue funding support of USDA/ES applicator
training but does provide continuation of certification program funding
at the FY'76 level to continue development of their programs. Federal
funding support for certification after FY'77 is not planned and State
programs should aim to be self-sufficient by FY'78.
Some of the problems previously associated with commonly used
pesticides are expected to be reduced by improved labeling and
packaging and by precautions followed by applicators as a result of
certification and training. Human illness as well as work loss from
pesticide intoxication can be reduced through this general improved
knowledge and training. Damage to crops, wildlife and farm animals,
as well as the quantities of food and feed that previously have been
destroyed because of illegal residues resulting from failure to follow
directions for use, can all be vastly reduced. Furthermore, problems
resulting from home use of pesticides are expected to decline, because
-------
141
of the availability for home use of comparatively innocuous but effective
general use pesticides. OPP will work closely with Regions to
define and quantitate the problem of pesticide intoxication associated
with occupation and home/garden usage.
OPP intends to have a comprehensive integrated Hazard Eval-
uation System in operation in FY'77. The HES core-group which
was assembled in March 1975, has taken a three phased approach
to the problem: conceptualization, design and implementation. This
group is now finalizing the conceptual phase. \_l Because we have
already established conditional hazard evaluation procedures during
the registration process, HES will focus primarily on post-registration
associated with pesticide use and misuse except as it relates to data
during experimental use permit situations. During FY'77 Regions
will be expected to take an active role on the implementation of the
hazard evaluation system. Data from monitoring ambient pesticide
residues in humans and soils, estuaries, surface waters, ocean
fish, and air and from accident reporting, product sample analyses
and special surveys will provide important inputs into the system.
^, ^»yi Ifr **.*»« 7
/
!_/ 1) Identification and description of exogenous hazard evaluation
systems; 2) description of the existing hazard evaluation process in OPP;
3) development of framework for evaluating HES alternatives.
-------
142
These data will be assembled to provide a more comprehensive and
integrated method of assessing environmental and human health
hazards. It will also contribute to decision making during the
reregistration, rebuttable presumption, cancellation and suspension
processes, in addition to contributing more effective public
education and public relations programs. Pesticides Branch
Chiefs from Regions V and IX are included in
the HES core group and each has the responsibility for coordinating
the activities of four other regions (Region V Branch Chief covers
for I, II, III and IV; Region IX Branch Chief covers for VI, VII,
VIII and X). During the design phase the core group will clarify
the direction and scope of the Agency approach, including Regional
activities and responsibilities.
The National Monitoring Plan for Pesticides required under the
new Act encourages the Regions and, through them, their component
States to participate in the National Pesticide Monitoring Program.
Participation may be through the conduct of future ambient monitoring
in such a way that data can be coordinated and integrated with that
from national monitoring networks. The Plan also encourages Regional/
State liaison with EPA Headquarters in indicating needs for special
monitoring projects or recommending modifications in ongoing operations,
and in the review and update of the Plan itself. Regions will be
advised by the Technical Services Division/OPP on working with
States to achieve monitoring programs compatible with national
programs and data compatible with the Hazard Evaluation System.
-------
14-3-
On the question of regionalization of registration activities
there has been a lot of talk on Regions handling "me too" registrations.
However, the expected regulations under Sec. 3(c)(l)(D) and 3(c)(2)
of the Act not only preclude the possibility of "me too" registrations
in that every application will require its own or referenced supporting
data but will require a careful check by experienced reviewers
on the basis for this data. We do however see Regions serving
I as useful contact points for interpreting and servicing smaller
firms in their areas of registration and reregistration procedures.
Because of the general interest in this area of regionalization,
OPP had intended to run a pilot program in a selected Region in FY'77
to assess the cost-effectiveness of decentralizing certain registration
functions. However, because of the proposed 32 position cut in the
OPP FY'77 headquarter's ceiling, this project will be dropped.
An important and necessary part of Regional preparation of
FY'77 Program Plans is a status review and reassessment of FY'76
output commitments to determine a valid starting base of operations
for FY 1977. This review should be based on actual achievements
for the first half of FY'76 operations, and.expected capabilities
and performance for the second half of the year assuming publication
of remaining key regulations, allocation of remaining FY'76 certi-
fication and training funds at the planned levels and certification of
about twenty percent of private and commercial applications by
the start of the 1976 growing season.
-------
144
Concerning Section 24(c) interim certification approval, the OPP
IlQ's Review Panel will continue to review and clear submissions
for approval until final regulations are published as presently estimated
about July 1976. Meanwhile OPP expects a final decision soon from
the Administrator on the delegation of authority for final approval
of State Plans under Sections 24(c) and 5(f).
Available Regional manpower to accomplish pesticide program
commitments in FY'77 as well as unscheduled activities and needs
will be as tight as FY'76. Recognizing that no two Regions are
alike in demands placed on available manpower and that individual
regional operational needs must be met, Headquarters suggests that
as a general guide, from an overall national program viewpoint,
the assignment of resources to Technical Assistance Output Titles 1,
3, and 6/7 should be about a 50-20-10 percent ratio leaving 20
percent fo.r unscheduled needs. Assignment of regional effort to
Enforcement Output Titles 2, 4, and 5 should be on a 30-30-30
percent ratio leaving 10 percent for unscheduled needs. This
should not be interpreted as unscheduled needs having lowest priority.
Resource constraints demand competitive assessments of needs and an
unforeseen contingency may well have highest priority at that time.
3. Operating Objectives and Priorities for FY 1977
Congressional authorization for appropriations to EPA for the
administration of FIFRA has been extended to April 1, 1977. When
EPA appears before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
at the spring Budget Hearings in 1976 and 1977, it will be expected
to present current assessments of accomplishments against
-------
145
objectives under FIFRA. The review will also include a disc-uHHion
of operating problems and issues, as well as an objective appraisal
of the job yet to be done. Timely State and Regional feedback on these
items is an obvious prerequisite to a factual presentation of status
and needs before the Committees and to the Agency being successfully
persuasive on FY'77 needs. It is important therefore that Regions
and States carefully assess the following priorities in terms of what
can and cannot realistically be achieved in FY'77 and what are
the critical problems and issues to be brought to the attention of
the Agency and Congress.
PRIORITY 1
• Ensure Acceptable Operation of State Applicator Certification
Programs
This needs to be retained as a first priority by regions. The
Agency is on record with OMB and the Congress to ensure completion
of all necessary applicator certification by the 1977 growing season,
hence the need to continue maximum State momentum (where
necessary) through March - October 1977 to complete any needed
catch-up. Also on the basis of Congressional interest concerning
this program during the FIFRA reauthorization hearings, as well as
the favorable State support for applicator certification, anything less
than top-priority Agency cooperation until the objective is achieved
would result in severe criticism from Congress and the States.
Although FIFRA does not require training of applicators, nor do
EPA Standards for Applicators require States to provide training,
it is the principal assurance that certification will be truly effective.
-------
146
Furthermore, most applicators will need some training in order to
meet State certification requirements. Recent Senate - House
Conference Committee action to amend FIFRA included that
States will have an option whether or not to require the taking or
passing of an examination, or both. The Congressional Committees
have put the Agency on notice that they will be assessing its per-
formance in this area at the FY'77 Budget and 1977 Reauthorization
Hearings.
\
• Strengthen Federal-State Cooperation in the Enforcement of FIFRA,
as Amended
Pesticide Enforcement places the highest priority on the parti-
cipation of States in cooperative enforcement programs. State
Agencies can uniquely complement the Agency's pesticide enforce-
ment program and such cooperation is highly desirable so as to
eliminate duplication of effort now existing between Federal and State
programs. However, many States, because of budgetary constraints,
will require Federal funding assistance in order to participate in
cooperative programs. The proposed FY'77 budget provides some
I grants-in-aid funds to 25 States.
• Ensure Acceptable Operating State Registration and Experimental
Use Permit Programs for Special Local Use
A number of States have already received or are in the process
of receiving interim certification approval under Section 24(c).
Final regulations are expected to be published March or April 1976.
Many States have already assigned high priority to Section 24(c)
operations by their actions requesting interim certification. The
Agency continues this same top priority into FY'77 for the process-
ing of Section 24{c) and 5(f) plans. At this year's Congressional
-------
147
Reauthorization Hearings on FIFRA, considerable interest was
voiced on the importance of State registrations helping States in
resolving the minor use pesticides problems. The Agency has an
obligation to be ready to provide prompt assistance in getting the
registration and experimental use permit programs moving for
special local needs and ensure the acceptability of State registra-
tions and experimental use permit issuances. Agency performance
in this area will certainly be under scrutiny by Congressional
Committees in the Spring of 1976 and 1977.
PRIORITY 2
• Ensure Industry Compliance with Registration Requirements
The need for continued surveillance of industry compliance
with formulation and labeling requirements is dictated by the
potential impact on the environment and health resulting from
violations. The importance of inspection of producer establish-
ments because of the need to discover harmful products before
they enter market-place channels cannot be overstated. Top
priority for inspection and sampling will be placed on intrastate
and restricted use products.
• Ensure Compliance with Label Directions for Use
A major thrust of pesticides enforcement in FY'77 will be to
ensure proper use, including the application, storage and disposal
of pesticide products. Regions should ensure proper coordination
and consistency between enforcement and use surveillance as a
non-enforcement voluntary compliance approach. Past experience
-------
148
has shown that poor use practices result in local environmental
and health problems, which under the new Act are unlawful. The
Agency recognizes the need to develop more extensive knowledge
on use practices and hazards, hence the high priority now given
the implementation of a comprehensive hazard evaluation system
by the OPP, in its headquarter's FY'77 operations. Impact from
increased experimental pesticide usage which increased in FY'76,
imposes an additional obligation on EPA to improve its knowledge
of results of such usage which can be most unpredictable. Regions
in cooperation with States are responsible for follow-up actions
where misuse is suspected as having occurred.
PRIORITY 3
• Explore needs for and Availability of Training Techniques
Information on Integrated Pest Management
An amendment to FIFRA resulting from the Reauthorization
Hearings requires EPA to make instructional materials on integrated
pest management techniques and information available to farmers
and others at no cost to them. EPA is expected by Congress to
work closely with USDA on this. The amendment does not affect
he certification process; it only adds to the need for better EPA
promotion of this program.
• Ensure Acceptable Operating Accident Reporting and Investigation
Programs
The development of effective and comprehensive accident reporting
in cooperation with State agencies involved in the use and effects of
will greatly enhance the Agency's ability to identify and correct label
deficiencies, use patterns and packaging problems. The data will
-------
149
also provide an important input to the hazard evaluation system.
Technical assistance to States concerning proper disposal methods for
empty containers and unused pesticides would help avoid environmentally
damaging incidents and potential violations.
B. Discussion of Regional Outputs and Related Activities
Output Title '1 Ensure Acceptable Operation of State Certification
Programs
Output Unit A Number of States with Operational Applicator
Certification Programs (Quarterly)
Regardless of the recent extension of the effective date of
FIFRA, it is generally assumed that all the States and Territories
will have approved certification and training plans well before the
end of FY'76 and programs already in operation at varying levels
of implementation by the start of FY'77. Operational guidance has
just been sent to the Regions on "self-certification" and also the
Agency interpretation of what is "adequate information and affirma-
tions to carry out the intent of the Act. " The amendment gives States
the option of whether or not to require the taking and the passing
of an examination, or both. It should also be noted that the-amend-
ment states "the Administrator may require any pesticide dealer
participating in a certification program to be licensed under an
approved State licensing program." The 1977 growing season is
the critical point in time when applicator certification needs must
be met. This leaves the period between March and October 1977 for
any necessary catch-up certification before the extended effective
date of October 21, 1977.
-------
150
Concerning the Agency funding assistance for FY'76, allocations
have been and are being made to Regions and to the USDA-ES
according to previous planning commitments. Over one million
applicator training manuals have also been distributed. The EPA
FY'77 Budget now with Congress does not continue the $5. 0 million
funding of the USDA-ES applicator training program because FY'76
funding is considered adequate to sustain State programs into the
1977 growing season. The $5.2 million for EPA allocation to States
in FY'77 for certification and training is included in the FY'77 Budget
and will be continued as needed through Regions to States. Regions
should work closely with States to ensure their plans provide
for the utilization of other non-EPA funds such as with the Federal/
State Vocational Agriculture Education System or other such resources
that will augment present training capabilities. Such non-EPA funded
education and training programs should be encouraged to accommodate
the inclusion of applicator training.
It is particularly important in the development of individual
Regional plans for FY'77, that the OPP is adequately informed
at the time of Regional submission, of States' intentions, parti-
cularly if there are any significant stipulations concerning Federal
financial assistance and other conditions. It is equally important
for OPP to be kept fully informed on the status and performance
of State programs, as well as changing conditions, so that the Agency
can give Congress a knowledgeable status report and prognosis at
the 1976 spring budget hearings.
-------
151
Section 4 Regulations stress the need for maintenance of State
Plans and require the submission of annual and other reports by
States on the implementation and maintenance of State Plans.
Particular attention needs to be given to the adequacy and accept-
ability of optimal approaches being used by States on certification
and training, as well as, performance levels of certification and
training and the degree of commonality of effort between States.
This will probably require a substantial surveillance program starting
in some Regions in FY'77 and continued into successive years but
probably on a less substantial level.
Output Title 2 •.Strenggien Federal-State Certification in the Enforcement
ot the FIFRA, as amended*
Output Unit A .. Number of States involved in Cooperative
Programs (Semi-Annual)
Section 23(a) (1) of FIFRA authorizes EPA "to enter into cooperative
agreements with States to delegate to any State the authority to
cooperate in the enforcement of the Act through the use of its personnel
or facilities, to train personnel of the State to cooperate in the enforce-
ment of the Act, and to assist States in implementing cooperative
enforcement programs through grants-in-aid. "
Congress clearly intended that the States should play a vital role
in implementing enforcement of the new Act. State agencies can
uniquely complement the Federal pesticide enforcement program.
Particularly in the areas of market and use surveillance and sharing
evidence for enforcement actions, Federal activities must be supple-
mented by State programs if there is to be a credible public effort
to protect human health and the environment from the hazards
associated with pesticide production and application.
-------
152
All fifty States have some type of pesticide control program,
although a number of States funding constraints severly limit their
enforcement program. EPA can benefit greatly from the resources
and expertise provided by States. State officials are more closely
associated with pesticide producers and the pesticide uses than are
EPA Headquarters or Regional Offices. They are, therefore, more
aware of local pesticide trade customs, pest problems, and use
patterns. Specifically, State personnel are best equipped to
supplement EPA's surveillance activities in the following areas;
• Use of restricted use pesticides by certified applicators.
• Use of registered pesticides in confermance with label
or labeling.
• Collection and analysis of use dilution samples.
• Review of product labels and labeling for unregistered or
misbranded products.
EPA has awarded pesticide enforcement grants-in-aid to Hawaii,
Washington, Maine, North Carolina, California and Puerto Rico,
primarily to study the feasibility of such a grants program. PED
has drafted a general Federal-State Cooperative Enforcement r
Agreement, with various sub-parts such as producer establishment
inspections,use investigations, recalls, sharing of evidence in
enforcement actions. States will be encouraged to enter into coopera-
tive agreements, either totally cooperative in all aspects or at least
partially cooperative in certain areas, such as recalls. Guidance
will be provided by PED in the selection of States for participation
in these programs and on the allocation of funds. Emphasis will be
placed on developing a cooperative climate whereby the Federal
Government manages overall national policy within which States
can operate based on local need.
-------
153
Regional Offices should plan on entering into cooperative
\r enforcement agreements with at least one State in the Region. A
model Federal-State Cooperative Enforcement Program based on
the pilot grants and information gained from the State capability
reports has been developed by HQ. This model program outlines
areas of responsibility for EPA and the States and encourages States
to cooperate in a' joint enforcement program. Regions should attempt
to set certain objectives with the States in terms of numbers of pro-
ducer establishments inspections, number of of samples, etc.
Development and implementation of Federal-State cooperative
enforcement programs has high priority in FY'77 and Regions should
commit approximately 30 percent of their pesticide enforcement
resources to this effort.
Activities which States will be performing for EPA, such as
collecting samples or inspecting producer establishments in
connection with the pilot grant program, should be noted separately
from those which will involve Federal Resources alone. In other
words if Region I has an agreement with the State of Maine, through
a grant-in-aid or otherwise, that State .will collect a certain
number of samples, do a certain number of use investigations, etc.;
those numbers that Maine has agreed to should be clearly distinguish-
able from those numbers that the Region is committing to do.
-------
-154
Output Title 3 Ensure Acceptable Operating State Registration and
Experimental Use Permit Programs for Special
Local Needs
Output Unit A Number of States Operating Special Local
Use Registration Programs (Quarterly)
Output Unit B . Number of States Operating Special Local Use
Experimental Permit Programs (Quarterly)
As previously stated, final regulations on Sections 24(c) and 5(f)
;
are scheduled for publication about July 1976. It is expected that
most States intending to operate a program under Section 24(c) will
have received an interim certification approval by April 1976. The
subsequent review/approval process on State certification following
publication of the final regulations is therefore expected to take
considerably less time for those States already having interim certi-
fication. Although Headquarters has final responsibility for approval
of submissions for interim certification, Regions may be delegated
responsibility for subsequent approval on certifications under
Section 24(c)after publication of these regulations. A decision by
the Administrator on this is expected soon and Headquarters will
continue these functions pending this decision.
Since Section 24(c) provides for withdrawal of EPA certifica-
tion in the event of a State's consistent failure or refusal to carry
out the requirements of the Act, it will be important for Regions
being prepared to:
• work closely with States during the interim period and to
assess their capabilities and needs, especially those
States which may have problems on meeting the the regulations
• hold special meetings whenever needed with States and
jointly with an OPP Registration Division representative
-------
155
• encourage States in training and upgrading their technical
capabilities (scientific review, laboratory analysis and, etc.)
and get Headquarter's assistance on this as needed
• ensure coordination between enforcement and technical
assistance activities on surveillance of State performance
Regions have a key role in working with States to develop and
implement these programs, for monitoring State performance on
registration of pesticides under Section 24(c) and to insure prompt
notification to Headquarters of any operational problems or violations
requiring action.
A few States are expected to want to issue Sec. 5(f) experimental
use permits particuarly to support special local needs for registra-
tion under Section 24(c). It should be noted that Sec. 5(f) plans to
be submitted by States must comply with all the provisions of Section 4
relating to State plans. Authority for final approval of Section 5(f)
State plans will be decided at the same time as for 24(c). However,
Section 24(c) approval may be obtained n a contingency basis without
requesting similar approval for Section 5(f). Since requirements
for State plans under Section 4 provide for corrective actions in
the event the Agency determines the State is not administering
the permit program in accordance with the approved plan, it will
be important for Regions being prepared to:
• work closely with States to assess their needs and capabilities
to operate an acceptable program
• encourage States in training and upgrading their technical
capabilities
• ensure coordination between enforcement and technical
assistance activities on surveillance of State performance
(See objective 3b)
-------
156
Regional surveillance of State performance under Section 5(f)
is not for the purpose of monitoring of studies to galJhor scientific
data. The purpose is to prevent violations of experimental use
wherever possible and to prosecute violators.
Output Title 4 Ensure Industry Compliance with Registration
Requirements
Output Unit A Number of Producer Establishments Inspected
(Quarterly)
Output Unit B . Number of Import Investigations (Semi-annual)
Output Unit C Number of Marketplace Investigations (Semi-annual)
The Agency has developed much more sophisticated data regarding
pesticide formulation and distribution through its computer systems,
notably the Pesticide Analysis and Retrieval Control System (PARCS),
the Pesticides Enforcement Management System (PEMS) and the
Establishment Registration Support System (ERSS). In addition, the
Agency conducted a random sampling survey of pesticide producers
during FY 74 and has inspected approximately 70 percent of these
pesticide producers. The results of this survey will enable the Agency
to focus its inspection and sampling efforts on those areas found to
have high rates of violation. The FY'77 pesticide sampling program
will have, in addition to the overall direction provided by the results
of the previous random sampling, data from three other sources
factored in. These sources are:
a) Production data required by Section 7
b) Products whose efficacy is suspect
c) Restricted use pesticides
-------
157
The use of production information required by Section 7 of
FIFRA will allow the Agency to direct sdme of its sampling effort
to products which are produced in large amounts and thus have
potential environmental impact. The Establishment Registration
Support System (ERSS) will supply this data. The Product Surveillance
List (formerly the Suspect Use List) will identify pesticides and
devices that require further scrutiny. This list is the outcome
of a joint effort by OPP divisions and PED. The Technical Services
Division (OPP) will provide resources necessary for biological
examinations of such products. Results of these examinations will
be forwarded to the Regions and the Registration Division for
appropriate action.
With the new registration of intrastate products and the classi-
fication of all pesticides, it is imperative that high priority continues
to be assigned to this objective. Regions will select those producer
establishments that they wish to inspect within the following guidelines:
1) unknowns (particularly newly registered intrastate establishments);
2) known violators including reinspection of those firms with recently
completed litigation; 3) firms with no violations or only very minor
warnings. PED will provide guidance on the sampling mix. In addition
to determining product compliance during the course of producer
establishment inspections. Regions should also determine whether
the firm is complying with Section 7, Registration of Establishment
and Section 8, Books and Records. Guidance on decisions may be
found in the Inspector's Manual.
-------
158
EPA has awarded pesticide enforcement grants-in-aid to Hawaii,
Washington, Maine, North Carolina, California and Puerto Rico,
primarily to study the feasibility of such a grants program. The
Agency proposal to expand this program in FY'76 with cooperative
enforcement agreements in ten States at approximately $250, 000
each was disallowed by OMB in its FY'76 Budget review. However,
despite the unavailability of additional FY'76 funds with which to
enter into such cooperative enforcement agreements, EPA pursued
non-funded agreements with States. For FY'77 the Agency requested
$1.9 million for the program to be used to ensure State commit-
ment and to enable States to participate in the program to an extent
not possible without monetary assistance. There is uncertainty at
present whether all or only part of the grants proposal will be included
in the President's Budget now being prepared by OMB. FED has
drafted a general Federal-State Cooperative Enforcement Agreement,
with various sub-parts such as producer establishment inspections,
use investigations, recalls, sharing of evidence in enforcement
V,
actions. States will be encouraged to enter into cooperative agree-
ments, either totally cooperative in all aspects or at least partially
cooperative in certain areas, such as recalls. Emphasis will be
placed on developing a cooperative climate whereby the Federal
government manages overall national policy within which States can
operate based on local need.
-------
159
The National Field Investigation Center (NFIC), Denver. Colorado,
has been converted to a multi-media laboratory. This laboratory
has committed approximately 14 man years toward assisting the
pesticide enforcement program. The areas of assistance will likely
be 1) laboratory analysis and perhaps field investigatory assistance
to support misuse cases; 2) training for EPA personnel on conduct
during adjudicatory proceedings; 3) analysis of pesticides for anti-
microbial action to support case proceedings. This will be developed
in cooperation with the Technical Services Division, OPP which has
the lead responsibility. This support will be confirmatory in nature;
4) cooperative research with OPP to develop methods for pesticide
products. This will complement the on-going TSD/OPP program
which has been in operation for many years. Regions should
be aware of this additional support to the program, details of which
will follow. —
Output Title 5 Ensure Compliance with Label Directions for Use
Output Unit A . Number of Experimental Use Observations
(Quarterly)
Output Unit B Number of Use and Re-entry Observations
Conducted (Quarterly)
Pesticides Enforcement Division (PED) and the Office of Pesticides
Programs have complementary programs which: 1) inform EPA of
instances of pesticides misuse; 2) provide for a case-by-case review
of certain instances so that a consistent national policy regarding
pesticide misuse can be developed. It is the intent of training, educa-
tion, and public cooperation to reinforce the Agency's enforcement
program and encourage compliance with label directions for use.
-------
160
Because of the difficulties inherent in monitoring such a wide-spread
activity as pesticide use, FED has initiated a pesticide use enforcement
program which has four aspects: (1) follow-up on reports of misuse,
including reports involving possible violations of reentry standards;
(2) audit of professional pesticide users such as structural and agri-
cultural pest control operators; (3) development of procedures to
promote the free flow of complaints relating to misuse and violations
of reentry standards; and (4) cooperation with States, other Federal
Agencies, the use industry, and user organizations to encourage
compliance with FIFRA and with reentry standards.
PED is currently implementing a program to receive information
regarding incidents of misuse by enlisting the cooperation of other
Federal and State agencies which share an interest in the area of
pesticide use, as well as of user organizations, public interest
groups, and the public at large. Toward this end, during FY'76 EPA
will have entered into cooperative agreements for the exchange of
enforcement information with the following agencies or groups:
a) Food and Drug Administration, DHEW
b) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI
c) Federal Aviation Administration, DOT
d) Occupational Safety and Health Administration, DOL
e) Consumer Product Safety Commission
f) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA
g) State Pesticide Regulatory Agencies
Instructions and guidelines implementing each Memorandum of
Agreement will be issued by each Agency and exchanged by each
Agency. These will identify interagency contracts and liaison
representatives and set forth pertinent operating procedures to be
-------
161
followed. In the case of the Agencies listed under a) through f)
above, Regional Offices will be expected to develop local working
procedures based upon the national agreements. Considerations
must be given to the need for interagency training sessions in order
that: 1) reasonable accurate decisions can be made by extra-EPA
personnel as to the existence of FIFRA violations; 2) EPA inspection
personnel can recognize violations of other statutes which EPA will
assist in the enforcement of, under the terms of the Memorandum
of Agreement; and 3) enforcement/inspection information forms
are currently prepared and routinely exchanged.
Regions will also be receiving information concerning pesticide
episodes from the Pesticide Episode Reporting System (PERS).
Some of these episodes may be the result of users not following
directions on the pesticide's label. Regions are expected to investi-
gate all instances of alleged pesticide misuse.
EPA published final regulations on Section 5(d) Experimental Use
Permits, on April 30, 1975. It is possible that the number of
Experimental Use Permits may increase because of the new
restrictions on the type of experimental testing that can be performed
without an experimental use permit. In addition, Federal and State
personnel who conduct research in the field of pesticides are no
longer exempt from the requirements of obtaining an experimental
use permit. In monitoring experimental use, Regions should follow
the "Procedural Guidelines for the Administration and Supervision
of Experimental Use Permits" issued March 8, 1974, by the Office
of Pesticide Programs. Basically, these state that Regions are
-------
162
responsible for all Experimental Use Permits issued to producers
within their Region. Inter-regional cooperation is necessary to
the extent that experimental pesticides rnay be used uxcluHivoly
or extensively outside of the Region where the permittee is located.
The Region where the permittee is located is responsible for obtain-
ing and disseminating to other Regions the names of participants
and cooperators in experimental use permit programs. Regions
where experimental use is being conducted are responsible for
contacting participants and for monitoring such experimental use.
Though all experimental use permits should be monitored to some
extent, attention should be given according to the suggested list of
priorities contained in the March 8th memorandum. Regions should
note a new provision in the Experimental Permit regulations that
deal with importation of technical material. Technical materials
may be imported without registration (but not without adequate labeling)
in sufficient quantities to formulate a pesticide for which an Experimental
Use Permit has been requested. In cases where the permittee has
stated that such importation will occur, Regions should devote special
attention to this imported material.
Regional Offices are expected to devote approximately thirty
percent of their pesticide enforcement resources toward ensuring
compliance with all use requirements, including experimental use,
other applications, storage, disposal and re-entry.
Output Title 6 Explore Needs for and Availability of Training
Techniques Information on Integrated Pest Management
A quantitative output commitment is not feasible under this
objective, however Regions should attempt to determine as soon as
-------
163
possible from constituent States, the IPM techniques on which
information is needed, in what form and volume and when.
Because integrated pest management techniques provide alterna-
tives to using only chemicals for pest management, it has not been
given proper consideration by the general agricultural community
including Federal, State and private sectors. I. P.M. is beneficial
in a manner similar to many sound farm management practices
presently in wide use. Insofar as manpower and other priority commit-
ments will allow, Regions should work closely with States, and in
coordination with USDA on determining needs for information on
special non-chemical techniques for controlling pests and insects
and ensuring adequate information is made available through the
applicator training programs.
Some information is available in EPA on the types
of on-going and projected pest-management programs in States,
Regions can provide a needed focal point for feedback from States
on needs for information on IPM techniques, and also provide a major
distribution point for the Agency to States on information concerning
non-chemical pest management techniques. Some of the program
techniques being used in States at the present time include:
• Scouting or Pest Population Monitoring Programs
• Cultural Treatment Programs
• Trap Crop Programs, or Programs on Breeding
Resistant Crops
• Chemo-Sterilant Programs or Autocidal Programs
However, whereas there are many channels of information and
assistance available to farmers and other pesticide users on chemical
pest control agents, they have no way of knowing at present what
-------
164
are the alternative non-chemical techniques. It was because of this
situation that the PL 94-140 amendment to Section 4 now provides
for EPA making instruction materials concerning integrated pest
management techniques available to individuals at their request. It
is not intended however, that applicator training plans require any
individual receive instruction or to be shown competent in respect
to the use of such techniques. Headquarters will be working jointly
with Regions and with the USDA on the development of instructional
materials and will be making them available as soon as possible
through State applicator state training and certification channels.
Regions should ensure that States notify interested individuals of
the availability of instructional materials.
Output Title 7 Ensure Acceptable Operation Accident Reporting
and Invesitgalion Programs
Output Unit "A Number of States Operating Accident
Control Program (Annual)
For various reasons, the PERS has not provided the type of
substantive input which had been planned. In terms of comparative
priorities, the Regional-State program cannot be given a higher
priority than it has. However, current and valid data from
accidents and incidents involving the use, storage and transporta-
tion of pesticides are still considered a vital input to the hazard
evaluation system and also to the reregistration process. Effective
l/| accident reporting can greatly enhance the Agency's ability to identify
and correct label deficiences and contribute to the development of
of useful public education and upgrading applicator training.
-------
165
States which currently report accidents through PERS should
continue to do so particularly those States having PERS contracts.
It has been obvious that some States could not implement worthwhile
reporting without seriously diluting efforts to get certification
and training programs implemented. In weighing relative priorities,
this is understandable and acceptable. However, applicator partici-
pation in accident reporting should be encouraged since they should
have both the technical qualifications and the direct use and/or
observation experience needed to provide reliable reports of accidents,
-------
166
APPENDIX A
ACTIVITY INDICATORS
Output Title 1 Ensure Acceptable Operation of State Certification
Programs
1 Number of Pesticide Applicators Certified
Private/Commercial (by State)
2 Number of Pesticide Applicators Trained
Private/Commercial (by State)
Annual
Annual
Output Title 2 Strengthen Federal-State Cooperation in
the Enforcement of the FIFRA as Amended
1 Number of producer establishments inspected by State
2 Number of samples collected at establishments by State
3 Number of marketplace samples collected by State
4 Number of foreign import products sampled
5 Number of use, re-entry, and/or experimental use
incidents investigated
Output Title 4 Ensure Industry Compliance with Registration
Requirements
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
1 Number of product labels reviewed at establishments Quarterly
2 Number of producer establishment samples collected Quarterly
3 Number of section 9(c) warnings resulting from Quarterly
establishment inspection activities
4 Number of civil complaints resulting from Quarterly
establishment inspection activities
-------
167
5 Number of import entries reviewed
6 Number of foreign import samples collected
7 Number of import detentions
8 Number of marketplace samples collected
9 Number of section 9(c) warnings resulting from
marketplace activities
10 Number of civil complaints resulting from
marketplace activities
11 Number of criminal prosecutions resulting from
all product/producer violations
12 Number of stop sale, use or removal orders
resulting from all product/producer violations
13 Number of recalls initiated
14 Number of samples forwarded for chemical
analysis
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annaul
Quarterly
Output Title 5 Ensure Compliance with Label Directors for
Use
1 Number of experimental use permits monitored
2 Number of section 9(c) use warnings issued
3 Number of section 14(a)(2) warnings issued
4 Number of civil complaints resulting from
use activities
5 Number of cases referred to U.S. attorney
on criminal prosecutions resulting from use
activities
6 Number of stop sale, use, or removal orders
and seizures resulting from use activities
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
-------
168
DEFINITIONS
PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY INDICATORS
Output Title 2 - Federal-State Cooperation
ACTIVITY INDICATORS: State activities are to be reported
separate from regional activities; furthermore, each State
must have its own individual report; the activity indicators
listed will not apply to each cooperative State agreement —
each State should report only on those activity indicators
contained in its cooperative agreement
2/3. & 4 (SAMPLES COLLECTED): report official samples only
'~T (USE, RE-ENTRY, AND EXPERIMENTAL USE OBSERVATIONS):
report all routine observations made (an observation is a visit
made to a field to determine if label directions for mixing, apply-
ing, etc., are adhered to, to a dealer to determine if the terms of
an experimental permit are adhered to, to an institution to
determine if a pest control operator is applying a pesticide under
proper conditions, etc.)
Output Title 4 - INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE
OUTPUT (Import Investigations): commit to visits to be made for
examination and/or sampling of a product in import status even though
the visit may not be to a port
2, 6, & 8i(SAMPLES COLLECTED): report official samples only
"37"~47"~77F, 10, Ii; 12, 13, & 14 (ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS): report
all enforcement actions taken against product/producer violations;
report separately by type of action and source (establishment or
marketplace); include actions taken as a result of violations discovered
by cooperative State efforts
5 (IMPORT ENTRIES REVIEWED): note that the Notice of Arrival
(EPA Form 3540-1) now comes directly from the importer instead
of from Customs
14 SAMPLES FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS): include samples obtained from
establishment, marketplace and ports
Output Title'"5", USE COMPLIANCE
OUTPUT (PERMITS MONITORED): commit to the total number of permits
to be monitored regardless of the number of actual observations made to
monitor one permit
-------
169
3, 4, 5, & 6 ( ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS): report all enforcement
actions taken against use, re-entry, and experimental use violations;
reort separately for each type of action; include actions taken as a
result of violations discovered by cooperative State efforts.
-------
'.170
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
REGIONAL GUIDANCE
FY 1977
-------
171
FY 77 REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE
I. Program Goals
EPA 1s engaged 1n developing and Implementing an environmentally
sound national solid waste management program whose goals are: (1)
to assure that acceptable and safe methods of managing solid waste
are utilized, and (2) to conserve material and energy resources through the
recovery and reduction of solid waste.
An Integral element of a viable national solid waste management
program 1s strong and effective State programs. The Agency's Solid
Waste Management Strategy envisions that the primary role of State
government, In solid waste management, 1s the control of all land
disposal sites where any type of waste 1s disposed. Ancillary to
disposal site control are programs to properly manage hazardous
wastes throughout their life cycle. The third State program priority
1s the effort to bring about Increased resource recovery and to
Initiate waste reduction programs.
The major outputs of last year were State solid waste management
strategies. This year, the EPA activities will assist States 1n
completing those strategies and developing programs to Implement those
strategies that have been adopted.
The Agency's waste-to-energy technical assistance program attempts
to accelerate the recovery of energy from solid waste generated in
major cities of the United States. This will be accomplished by initially
providing assistance to States and cities that are judged to have a
high implementation potential.
-------
172
Executive Order 11752 and Section 211 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended, make EPA's guidelines for solid waste management
obligatory standards for Federal Executive Agencies. Only the land
disposal guidelines will be implemented in FY 77. EPA's goal in the
guidelines implementation effort is to foster compliance through
monitoring Federal Agency compliance efforts, and providing guidance
and technical assistance to Federal Agencies in implementation.
II. Regional Role
A. Introduction
The principal Regional Office role in implementing the Agency's
Solid Waste Management Strategy is assistance in development of State
programs. Headquarters will support the Regional Offices by providing
policy guidance and providing specialized technical, scientific and
economic tools in the form of information and direct assistance.
Technical assistance efforts of the Regional Office should take
advantage of available tools such as the Solid Waste Information
Retrieval System, Injury Reporting System, Collection Management
Information System, Waste Resources Allocation Program, and
Technical Information Services. Specialized technical assistance
services will continue to be provided from headquarters, at the
request of the Regional Offices. However, as a general rule the
Regional Offices are responsible for the delivery of technical
assistance.
-------
173
B. Development of State Programs
Objective: To develop State programs capable of implementing State
control over all land disposal sites where any type of
waste, except radioactive, is disposed of; initiating
hazardous waste control programs; stimulating the recovery
of energy and material resources from solid waste; reducing
solid waste generation; and utilizing land use planning
procedures in the siting of solid waste management facili-
ties.
To ensure that this objective is met, the Regional Offices should first
update the analysis (initiated in FY 76) of each State solid waste management
program.
The analysis of each State program should include, but not be limited
to a discussion of the States':
(1) Disposal Site Control
Land disposal control legislation, regulations, permit and/or
license procedures, monitoring, surveillance and enforcement of acti-
vities, detailed inventory of land disposal sites, technical assistance
capability and efforts to minimize ground and surface water pollution
from mismanaged sites. State comprehensive land use planning procedures
and controls that may be applicable to solid waste management facility
siting and Section 208, PL92-500 planning activities that may impact on
solid waste management should be considered.
(2) Hazardous Waste Control
Hazardous waste management data base development, problem defini-
tion, legislation, regulations, surveillance, enforcement and technical
-------
174
assistance.
(3) Resource Conservation Activities
Resource recovery and waste reduction legislation, regulation,
financial assistance, market studies, regional studies, Institutional
studies, and technical assistance. Evidence of local government com-
mitment to resource recovery and waste reduction should also be Included
in this analysis.
(4) Resources
State commitment to solid waste management as Indicated by
resource, organization structure, assistance from other State agencies,
and State action to assure that qualified manpower is available at the
State and local level to achieve effective and efficient Implementation of
the State's solid waste management strategies.
C. Waste to Energy Program
Objective; To increase the amount of energy recovered from solid
waste.
This will be accomplished by focusing headquarters level technical and
finaancial assistance on States and cities that are judged to have high im-
plementation potential. The target cities, which will be determined by Head-
quarters, in conjunction with each Regional Office and the States, will provide
the basis for Regional Office and State Agency participation in this objective.
It is expected that six to nine locations will receive this technical assistance
annually.
The Headquarters role will be to provide Information and guidance on
selecting a technology, marketing products, procuring a system, financing a
project, selecting and instructing consultants, preparing requests for
-------
175
proposals, evaluating proposals, negotiating contracts, and on similar
topics. This effort will Include assistance In public education campaigns,
Including briefings to city councils, etc.
D. Source Separation
During FY 77, a source separation prototype wlll-be Implemented,
under OSWMP guidance, 1n the major Federal office building In each Region
to demonstrate the Implementation of the Source Separation Guidelines.
Each Regional Office should provide technical assistance to the Regional
Office of GSA to establish such a prototype source separation program, as
agreed upon between each Regional Office and Headquarters.
E. Guidelines Compliance
Objective; To foster Executive Agency compliance with Federal solid
waste management guidelines (Section 209, Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended), in accoradance with applicable
Federal legislation, Executive Orders, and other regulations,
The activities associate with this first year of the agency's program
for ensuring the Implementation of the Land Disposal Guidelines by Executive
agencies will be determining the compliance status of surveyed land disposal
sites by reviewing all sruvey data provided by OSWMP*. There will be some
sites for which compliance status cannot be 'determined from the survey data.
As a minimum, these sites should receive a notice and request for further
information. Site visits should be made, as resources permit, to the Indeter-
minate sites.
* OSWMP plans a survey of selected Executive agencies during late
FY 76. The data obtained form this effort will be transmitted to
the Regional offices.
-------
176
Each site determined to be in non-compliance should be contacted by
letter listing the areas of violation, and requesting that the Agency advise
the Regional office of Its plans to achieve compliance. Sites in compliance
should also be Informed of EPA's determination.
Although these are the only activities which need to be reported on
in the annual report for FY 77, the Regions are urged to begin negotiating
compliance plans and schedules with Priority I** sites as outlined in the
EPA document entitled, "Solid Waste Management Guidelines Compliance Program,
Part I, Land Disposal Guidelines."***
** Sites having violations of one or more of the following required provisions:
air quality, water quality, or cover.
*** The Office of Air and Waste Management and Office of Federal Activities
will issue this document by the end of February 1976.
-------
177
III. State Activities
A. Federal Funding
Funding support is an important tool to motivate States to implement
their role as defined in the Solid Waste Management Strategy. Funds allocated
to the Regional Offices for State support should be utilized to foster de-
velopment of State solid waste management programs, along the lines of the
suggested grant outputs (summarized in order of priority 1n Part III.B. of
the guidance) and application of appropriate resources.
In determining with the States their grant outputs commitments, the
Regional Offices should assess each State's current solid waste management
manpower and training problems which could significantly impact their program
in FY 77. To help correct some of these problems the States should uitlize
Federal block grant manpower and education programs, such as the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act, the Vocational Education Act, and the Emergency
Unemployment Assistance Act, as sources of funding for the training and em-
ployment of technical and subprofessional personnel in both State and local
solid waste management programs.
B. FY 1977 Suggested Grant Outputs*
(1) Disposal Site Control
Development of State programs for control of all land disposal
sites where any type of waste (except radioactive) is disposed of,
* The Regional Offices assessment of State Progress in achieving their
FY 1977 outputs will be one of the factors utilized to allocate funds
for States FY 78 programs. (Funds to be allocated from the Agency's
FY 77 appropriations). The funds for the FY 1977 grant program are to be
allocated from EPA's FY 1976 appropriation.
-------
178
including assessment of current land disposal practices, evaluation
of permit and compliance systems, assessment of State's hydrogeologic
suitability for land disposal and determining the feasiblity of esta-
blishing substate and interstate solid waste management regions.
-------
179
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
REGIONAL OBJECTIVES AND OUTPUTS
FY 1977
Objective I
To develop State solid waste management programs capable of
Implementing their role as defined 1n the Solid Waste Management Strategy.
!• OUTPUT TITLE: Assessment of State progress 1n establishing
programs to control land disposal sites, to manage hazardous
wastes and to stimulate resource recovery.
OUTPUT UNIT: Number of States assessed.
An annual report of this assessment by State should be submitted to
Headquarters by the end of FY 77.
Objective II
To foster Executive Agency compliance with Federal solid waste manage-
ment guidelines (Section 209, Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended), in
accordance with applicable Federal legislation, Executive Orders, and other
regulations.
2. OUTPUT TITLE: Determine Federal agency compliance with land dis-
posal guidelines.
OUTPUT UNITS: None.
An annual report on the status of Federal agency compliance with
the Land Disposal Guidelines should be submitted to Headquarters by the
end of FY 77.
-------
180
RADIATION REGIONAL GUIDANCE
FY 1977
-------
181
RADIATION REGIONAL GUIDANCE
A. Overview of Program
The overall goal of the Environmental Protection Agency in the
radiation area is to protect public health and the environment by
assuring that no avoidable risks occur to individuals, the population
at large, or the environment due to radiation exposure without the
existence of sufficient offsetting benefits, and within this framework,
to minimize risk in a cost-effective manner. Pursuant to the
authorities granted to EPA, efforts toward achieving this goal are
directed to (1) nuclear energy applications, (2) naturally-occuring
radioactivity, (3) healing arts and industrial applications of
radiation, and (4) non-ionizing radiation.
Functionally, the Radiation Program consists of three elements:
(1) environmental quality information must be acquired and analyzed so
that the current status of the environment can be determined, (2)
technologies using radiation must be assessed to determine if they do
or may adversely impact on human health and the environment and if it
is feasible to reduce this impact, and (3) specific standards and
controls are established based on the information and analyses obtained
through the first two elements. Thus, the Radiation Program is oriented
toward environmental quality assessment, technology assessment, and
criteria and standards.
The Radiation Program Strategy supports a strong, centralized head-
quarters capability for the management of standards setting, review of
-------
182
non-conventional EIS's, technology assessment, and environmental
monitoring programs. Reg1onal1zat1on of conventional nuclear power
plant EIS reviews, whtch was Initiated In FY 76 and should be fully
operational 1n FY 77, provides a means for the Regional Offices to be
Involved on a frequent basis with national programs that have an
environmental impact at the State and local levels. Technical and
program consultation and assistance to States is important in working
toward the goal of greater State self-sufficiency in the environmental
radiation protection area. This is particularly true 1n developing
State capability to assure responsibilities in implementing the provisions
on the Safe Drinking Water Act. Regional Offices must coordinate with
the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Radiation Program prior
to taking any official action on any radiation issue which does or could
involve the regulatory responsibilities of another Federal agency or
their relationships with State and local agencies.
Other activities 1n FY 77 will include assisting States in the
development and testing of radiological emergency reponse plans,
primarily through Regional Steering Committees and the Federal Cadre
operation; performing environmental reviews of radiological aspects of
selected Federal activities and participation in EPA inspection pursuant
to E.O. 11752; activities related to implementation of EPA radiation
standards and guidance, such as generally applicable environmental
standards for the uranium fuel cycle and Federal Radiation Guidance in
the healing arts use of radiation and in occupational exposures to
radiation; and supporting the Regional NPDES program for those activities
-------
183
involving radioactivity. (The Colorado court decision requiring EPA to
issue permits for radioactivity discharges from licensed nuclear
facilities is currently awaiting decision by the U.S. Suprement Court.)
Finally, Region-specific radiation programs will be developed
through consultation between Headquarters and each Regional Office.
These programs should be direct toward radiation problems unique to a
Region and, although of some interest to ORP, may not necessarily be
considered a part of or impact on the national Radiation Program.
B. Regional Radiation Program Priorities
The following are Regional Radiation Program activities listed in
order of priority as viewed from the standpoint of support to the National
Radiation Program:
1. Conduct the technical review and review management of conventional
nuclear power plant EIS's (or other assigned technical reviews.)
2. Implement the radiological portion of the EPA Drinking Water
Standards in support of the Water Supply Program. Assist States
1n development of their capability to assume reponsibility for
implementing the Drinking Water Standards.
3. Perform environmental reviews of radiological aspects of selected
Federal activities pursuant to E.O. 11752.
4. State and Other Technical Assistance:
a. Provide technical and program consultation and assistance
to States where required.
b. Repond to public and Congressional inquiries.
c. Stimulate productive functioning of Regional Training
Committees to meet State training needs.
-------
184
d. Facilitate and coordinate ORP activities with States.
e. Participate 1n EIS reviews of non-conventional nuclear
activities, to extent delegated and/or capable.
5. Obtain, compile, and report technical information on selected
nuclear and radiation facilitate, including facilities with potential
for naturally-occurring radioactivity problems.
6. Assist States in the development, testing, evaluation, modifica-
tion, and maintenance of State radiological emergency response plans,
and, as warranted, promote the development of interstate, intraregional,
and interregional emergency response coordination. Such assistance
to States will be primarily through Regional participation on the
Regional Steering Committees and in the Federal Cadre operation.
Particular emphasis should be placed on working with States to assure
integration of EPA Protective Action Guidance into the State plans.
In addition, the Regional Office should provide Regional Radiological
emergency response coordination should such an emergency occur within
the Region.
7. Activities related to implementation of future EPA radiation
standards and guidance, such as generally applicable environmental
standards for the uranium fuel cycle and Federal Radiation Guidance
in the healing arts use of radiation and in occupational exposures
to radiation.
8. Along with these functions, other projects will be developed
cooperatively between Headquarters and the Region which relate to
current and specific radiation problems within the Region.
-------
185
The high priority output for radiation 1s:
OUTPUT TITLE: Reviews of radiation aspects of EIS for conventional
nuclear facilities.
OUTPUT UNIT; Number of technical radiation EIS reviews completed
for conventional nuclear facilities.
ACTIVITY INDICATORS; None.
A commitment to the review of radiation aspects of EIS for
nuclear facilities 1s required. For commitment and reporting purposes,
the draft and final EIS for a facility are to be counted as separate
review actions.
-------
186
NOISE REGIONAL GUIDANCE
FY 1977
^L^*-^
-------
187
FY-77 REGIONAL NOISE GUIDANCE
GENERAL PROGRAM GOALS
As specified in the FY-76 regional noise guidance, urban and residential
environmental noise levels are exceeding the levels identified by EPA to
protect the public health and welfare.* To achieve reduction in the size
of the population impacted by these levels, the Environmental Protection Agency
has identified goals whose attainment 1s partially dependent on State
and local action.
EPA goals are:
1. Reduce, by 1992, urban noise levels above 70 Leq(24) so that less
than one million of the estimated 13 million persons residing in such areas
remain exposed to such high community levels.
2. Reduce urban noise levels above 55 Ldn so that, by 1992, less than 40
million of the estimated 100 million persons presently residing in such areas
remain exposed.
GENERAL STRATEGY
These goals can be partially achieved by Federal action through regulations
which assure the utilization of presently available technology or that anticipated
from on-going studies to quiet future models of products Identified as major
sources of noise. Simllarily, such technology can be applied to certain
equipment already 1n use by Interstate truck and rail carriers. The complete
attainment of these goals 1s dependent on State and local regulatory
and enforcement actions which complement Federal Regulatory Activity by
controlling 1n-use problems from such products.
*Refer to EPA Document, "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite
to Protect Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety" - March 1974-
for recommended noise levels.
-------
138
The scope of Regional activity will become broader, beginning in FY77,
as more Federal new product regulations are promulgated, some become effective,
and State and local noise programs become more numerous and complex. Since
there will be no increase in Regional noise program personnel, in FY1977,
it is recommended that the emphasis of Regional noise programs be shifted.
Rather than directing extensive Regional effort to developing and attacking
a new set of target states and communities for development of legislation
and ordinances, Regional efforts should primarily be directed toward
^ completing and refining the actions on targets designated in FY1976.
Existing State and local noise control programs should be assisted, where
needed, to develop more vigorous, competent, and comprehensive programs.
The objective of these efforts is to stress the development of programs
which, by their example, will encourage the development of additional
state and local programs. The combination of these examples, and various
"models" and guidelines developed by ONAC, may reduce the amount of
direct assistance required of the Regional Noise Programs in the future
in our effort to increase the population covered by adequate noise control
programs. We will endeavor to work in depth in a few cases where we have
the best chance of success, and avoid the risk of spreading the available
I resources so thin that their effectiveness is reduced.
Efforts will also be made, beginning in FY77, to collect and interpret
national baseline data on noise levels and attitudes toward noise. The objective
of the effort is to make possible the future Identification of trends, progress
in attaining the goals, and quantification of the results of Federal, State
and local regulations on the attainment of the goals.
-------
189
SIGNIFICANT EVENTS INFLUENCING FY 1977 REGIONAL PROGRAMS
1. Enforcement of interstate motor carrier regulations. This
regulation became effective October 15, 1975. While DOT has the major
enforcement responsibility, regional offices will continue to be expected
to provide information on the regulations and to assist those States and cities
requesting aid with adoption and enforcement of complementary regulations
allowed by the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972.
2. Final EPA regulations for interstate rail carriers and new portable
air compressors are expected to be promulgated in the second quarter of FY 1976.
Final regulations for medium and heavy-duty trucks are expected to be promulgated
in the third quarter of FY 1976. These regulations will not become effective
until a year or more after promulgation. DOT is responsible for enforcing
the interstate rail carrier regulation. The initial enforcement phases of
the air compressor regulation will involve a headquarters program with the
manufacturers. While the regions will not be concerned directly with enforcement
of these regulations in FY 1977, they will be called upon to provide information
to the public, other affected parties, and State and local agencies interested
in adopting compatible in-use laws or regulations.
3. Regulations will be promulgated, late in FY 1977, on products. Identified
as major sources of noise in the second identification list, although the
regulations will not become effective until a future fiscal year. These
products are buses; motorcycles; truck mounted refrigeration units and solid
waste compactors; and loaders and dozers. These actions will require public
-------
190
information activities and efforts to encourage adoption of compatible
local regulation.
4. The model community noise control ordinance was published in
the second quarter of FY 1976. The community noise ordinance workbook and the
first part of the noise measurement manual for ordinance enforcement are
expected in the third quarter of FY 1976. The model building code will be
published in FY 1977. These documents will enable the regions to continue
their technical assistance efforts to States and cities in the development and
implementation of noise control programs without substantially increasing the
workload of Regional noise personnel.
5. A new survey of non-occupational State and local noise control
programs will be undertaken in the fourth quarter of FY 1976. The results
will help prioritize technical assistance projections for State and local
governments.
FY 1977 PLAN WITH REGIONAL ROLES
In FY 1977, noise program resources will be one permanent noise
person-year of effort per Region, plus sufficient funding to support
at least one additional temporary person-year of effort. In addition,
technical assistance available to each Region (Level of Effort Contract
maintained by ONAC) will provide the equivalent of 1/2 year of support.
By FY 1977, all Regions will have adequate noise measuring equipment and
a mobile van to conduct surveys ranging from simple exercises to
sophisticated monitoring. Technical "tools", other than the Model
-------
191
Ordinance and Workbook;, available to the Regions will Include:
•guidelines for assistance to State and locals
•noise measurement protocol
•guidelines to conduct noise assessments of airports, highways,
and stationary sources
•Federal facility noise assessment manual
•briefing packages for promulgated noise regulations
•various Information material for public information and
education purposes
•guidelines for developing training programs for noise
survey technicians.
In addition to work required under the objectives which follow, the
Regions will continue to provide noise reviews of EISs on a regular basis
(Regions average 10-15 per month); technical assistance to Regional Federal
Facilities activities including the review of noise reports submitted by
other Federal agencies as part of the E.O. 11752 requirements; and public
information on noise, including the status of EPA regulations. Recognition
of this "housekeeping" workload will be made in the negotiation of
additional commitments.
Regions are expected to assess and provide assistance to other
Federal agencies' noise programs, as they are implemented at the Regional
level. However, this effort should be held to a minimum in FY 1977, in
view of other tasks. Where pertinent information on the application
of other Federal agencies noise-related policies, practices, and regulations
comes to the attention of the Regional offices, it should be provided
to ONAC to assist in EPA coordination of all Federal noise programs.
-------
192
REGIONAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Objective I. To Increase the population served by adequate State and local
noise control programs.
Discussion. Ensure that existing State and local noise programs are
complementary to and compatible with the Federal program; assist in consolidating
the legal base and completing technical skills available to such agencies.
While it is recognized that a wide variety of base workloads exists
among the ten Regional noise programs, the Regions are expected to utlilize
their remianing resources, technical tools, and special reports to ensure
that existing State and local noise programs are fully developed. It is
intended that these programs, when complete, will be Models which will provide
stimulus and examples to encourage and aid in the adoption of similar programs
by other State and local governments. Emphasis should be placed on the
availability of adequate technical skills in these programs and on the
completion of appropriate legal authorities and supporting regulations for
such things as land use restrictions, licensing, permits, building codes,
etc., to affect noise reduction in selected locations or during sensitive
time periods. Similarly, the modification of existing legislation or
ordinances which incorporate compatible in-use regulations of products covered
by EPA regulations should be stressed. Lower priority should be given to
new assistance efforts to States or communities not yet having active
programs or an adequate base unless there is substantial
probability of sucess and such sucess will impact major problems or
populations.
-------
193
In view of this objective the one "output" assigned to the
Regional Noise programs for FY 77 will emphasize the continuing development
of noise control legislation at the State and local level. This output
will require that 'Action Plans' setting out Regional activities related to
the enactment of legislation by pre-selected State and local governments be
developed. These should be completed by the end of the first quarter of
FY 1977.
OUTPUT TITLE: Attain the enactment of legislation by pre-
selected State and local governments.
OUTPUT UNIT; Number of Action Plans for "Target" State and
local governments to be developed.
REPORTING FREQENCY:
OUTPUT UNIT: Annually - at the end of the first quarter FY 77
START LEVEL; Not required
The State and local governments for which action plans will be
developed will be selected 1n negotiation between the ONAC and the
Regional Office. These will include existing 'targets' requiring
continuing action as well as some new targets, where agreed to. In addition
to the information derived through the Formal. Planning and Reporting System
(FPRS) it is 'expected that the Regional noise program will provide ONAC with
continuing information on the number of State and local governments enacting
noise control legislation and an assessment, at the end of the fiscal year,
as to the Impact of actions taken under the "Action Plans".
-------
194
In addition, In carrying out work on Objective II, the Regional Office
should, where possible, carry out the projects in areas being given priority
attention under objective I, as a method of providing further information and
guidance to the highest priority State and local agencies.
Objective II. The development of a national baseline of environmental noise
levels and attitudes.
Discussion. The Regions will assist ONAC in the field testing of an
integrated noise assessment protocol during the early part of FY-77.
In addition to testing the adequacy of this methodology, collected
data will be useful in developing a national baseline to be used as
a comparison in assessing future trends and the effectiveness of existing
noise control regulations and programs.
Although there are no special data collection tasks which can
be identified in this guidance, Regions should be alert to the possibility
that ONAC will require assistance in collecting environmental data for the
better understanding of the noise contribution of specific products and in
describing noise profiles in and around selected land use areas (similar
to the FY 1975 survey of railroad operations and the FY 1976 construction-
site measurements). Where such special tasks are assigned, resources
to hire temporary assistance will be provided if necessary.
-------
195
OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
FY 1977 REGIONAL GUIDANCE
-------
196
OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
A. Major Program Priorities
1• Environmental Impact Statement/Negative Declaration Preparation
EPA's compliance with NEPA. as specified 1n Section 511 of FWPCA,
requires the preparation of EIS's and Negative Declarations on
wastewater treatment plant construction grants and on new source
discharge permits. The Administrator's policy statement regarding
I
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act requires that the
NEPA process be applied to the study and selection of ocean disposal
sites. Other EIS's are prepared by headquarters for certain regula-
tions developed by EPA, in accordance with the Administrator's policy
decision of May 7, 1974.
2. EIS Review
Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA reviews all draft
and final EIS's prepared by the other Federal agencies on major Federal
actions. Reviewing EIS's is one of the significant activities that
should be part of any prevention strategy. Continued emphasis is
placed on timely reviews, extensive pre^impact statement liaison and
post-statement followup, and coordination through the review process
of applicable EPA regulatory authorites. OFA urges the Regional
Administrators to consider establishing interdisciplinary EIS/309
Review staffs capable of handling all but the most technical issues
encountered during EIS review.
3. federal Facilities Compliance Assurance
The entire Federal Facilities Compliance Assurance Program
assumes full cooperation between EPA and other Federal agencies in
-------
I
197
facility reporting and compliance determination, Including timely
notification by EPA to other Federal agencies of their compliance
status. The "Guidelines for Federal Agencies' Compliance with
Stationary Sources A1r Pollution Standards," Issued by EPA on May 6P
1975, not only Imposed a substantial workload upon other Federal
Agencies, but clearly committed the Agency to the timely review and
determination of compliance of those facilities (Including minor
sources) for which a proper report 1s filed.
4. Environmental Education, Training, and Employment - Interagency
Planning and Coordination
EPA's role 1s primarily that of a coordinator, attempting to
encourage the establishment of formal agreements between State/local
education and training agencies and State/local pollution control
agencies. Such agreements would provide for the education, training,
and employment of qualified personnel to staff State control programs
as well as municipal and Industrial programs and facilities. Emphasis
will be placed on formal agreements Involving State Vocational Educa-
tional systems and State/local agencies funded by the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act (CETA).
5. Federal Agreements Program
This Program concerns the responsibilities assigned to the
Administrator of EPA (by § 306 of CAA, 5 508 of FWPCA, and Executive
Order 11738) to induce the operators of all facilities which are
the prospective recipients of Federal contracts, grants, and loans
to comply with applicable air and water pollution standards and
regulations. Operators convicted of violating such standards or
-------
198
regulations become ineligible to receive a Federal grant, loan or
contract for a stipulated time period. Efficient execution of the
program responsibilities requires that the Regional Offices notify
OFA in a timely manner of these convictions so that a fair and
proper Listing Procedure can take place.
B. Program Objectives, Outputs and Activity Indicators*
1. EIS Review
Objective:
Thorough review of other Federal agencies' proposed
actions impacting the environment.
Output Units:
A« Percent of draft EIS's reviewed for which there has
been pre-draft liaison between EPA and the agency (60%).
B, Percent of EIS's reviewed on time (100%).
Activity Indicator:
1. Number of draft EIS's reviewed.
2. Number of final EIS's reviewed on projects which had
been rated ER, EU, or 3 at the draft stage.
3. Number of draft EIS's rated ER, EU, or 3 that had
pre-final EIS consultation.
Reporting Frequency:
Semiannually.
Start Level:
No.
Notes:
EPA's policies and procedures governing the activities
covered by this objective and output are contained in the EPA
*Program objectives, outputs, and activity indicators for (1) Construction
Grants and New Source EIS Preparation, as well as Federal Facilities NPDES
are included in the Water Programs section and (2) Federal Facilities SIP
are included in the Air Programs section.
-------
199
Manual entitled "Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environ^
ment" (referred to as the "309 Review Manual"). "Pre^draft EIS
activities are delineated in Chapter 2, Paragraph 2 of the 309
Review Manual. Pre-final EIS consultation activities are
explained in Chapter 3. An important part of EIS review involves
meeting the deadlines established in the CEQ Guidelines of 45 days
for draft EIS's or 30 days for final EIS's (as modified by any 15
day time extensions granted by originating agencies), hence the
output unit b.
Because of the limited control EPA has in effecting environ-
mentally favorable changes in projects, the objectives have been
tailored to the retirements that EPA review each final EIS where
the draft EIS had been rated ER, EU, or 3 and that the Agency
maximize the number of pre-final EIS consultations for those
draft EIS's. Of course, the objective of such consultations con-
tinues to be the elimination of environmentally damaging aspects
of proposed Federal agency actions.
2. Manpower Development and Training
Objective:
Development of formal agreements with CETA and Vocational
Educational Agencies to subsidize and sponsor State and
local training programs for environmental personnel.
Output Units:
None.
Activity Indicator:
l- Ratio (times 100% to yield percent) of: all the State
environmental training needs (in number of trainees in key
occupations actually being funded under CETA and/or vocational
-------
200
education programs to the training needs in key occupations
that the State had planned or proposed to fund under CETA
and/or vocational education programs.
Reporting Frequency:
Semiannually.
Start Level:
None.
Notes:
Key environmental occupations limited to auto mechanic
inspection maintenance, wastewater treatment plant operations/
maintenance, pesticides application. This ratio may exceed
100% if CETA and/or vocational education programs are used to
fund more of the State needs than originally planned.
------- |