CLEAN WATER ACT
FINAL FY'94 GUIDANCE
MARYLAND
EPA REGION m
APRIL 1993
-------
MARYLAND
I. GENERAL GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPING WORK PROGRAM PLANS AND
GRANT APPLICATIONS 1
A. Milestones for FY'94 Program Grants Actions ... l
B. National Guidance and Priorities 2
C. Regional Guidance and Priorities 4
D. Grant Work Program Content 5
E. Progress Reports and 7
II. GRANT SPECIFIC GUIDANCE 8
A. 106 Guidance 8
B. 604(b) Guidance 9
C. The Management Process for Section 319(h) Funds for
Nonpoint Sources 12
D. The Management Process for Section 117 Funds:
Chesapeake Bay Program 13
III. PROGRAM SPECIFIC GUIDANCE 14
A. Water Quality Assessment and Ambient Water
Monitoring Programs ..... . 14
B. Permits and Enforcement 22
C. Clean Lakes Program 26
D. Pollution Prevention 27
E. Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection
Programs 27
F. Wellhead Protection 29
G. Nonpoint Sources Management (NPS) Program .... 29
IV. FUNDING RESERVES AND TARGETS 33
V. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 35
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
-------
I. GENERAL GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPING WORK PROGRAM PLANS AND GRANT
APPLICATIONS
A. Milestones for FY'94 Program Grants Actions for Water
Quality Management and Planning (WQMP).
The following milestones for the Section 106 and 604(b) WQMP
grant awards process is to assure that all State and interstate
agency grants are awarded by September 30, or as soon as funds
are made available.
3/1 Region 3 will issue WQMP funding targets to State and
Interstate agencies based upon the President's budget
request by March 1, if possible.
4/1 Prior to April 1, Region will conduct senior level meetings
with States to discuss mutual priorities, long-term
objectives, and work program development.
4/1 By April 1 Region will issue final work program and funding
guidance to State and Interstate agencies for WQMP
reflective of prior Region/State senior level planning
discussions. If EPA Headquarters Agency Operating Guidance
is not final by April 1, Regions will use the Headquarters
draft guidance in preparing State guidance.
6/1 State and Interstate agencies will submit draft WQMP work
programs and grant applications to EPA by the first of June.
7/15 Regions will respond to draft work programs within 30-45
days of receipt. Regional Water Management Division staff
will conduct work program negotiations, but unresolved
issues will be elevated as they occur in the process to
allow for issue resolution in time to complete the grant
work program negotiation and be ready for funding by
September 30.
9/15 By September 15, the Regions will notify State and
Interstate agencies of the status of their WQMP grant
applications and work programs which will serve as the
official notification of the need to finalize the documents.
9/30 WQMP grant applications and work programs will be finalized
and forwarded to the Regional Grants Management Office by
September 30, pending award upon the availability of funds.
40 CFR 35.140 states that each applicant will submit an
application at least 60 days before the beginning of the new
budget period. However, the timetable described above was
jointly developed by EPA and State representatives to assure
timely grant awards.
1
-------
B. National Guidance and Priorities
1. The draft FY'94 EPA Office of Water Operating
Guidance - Office of Water is enclosed. This guidance package
lists the overall national water program priorities and
directions for carrying out programs mandated under Federal water
protection statutes including
• Clean Water Act (CWA)
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
• Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
• Ocean Dumping Ban Act
• Shore Protection Act
• Marine Plastics, Pollution, Research and Control Act
• Coastal Zone Management Act
• Great Lakes Critical Program Act.
If the final guidance is substantially different from the
draft, EPA will advise your agency as expeditiously as possible.
2. The Watershed Protection Approach
The fundamental philosophy and goal of the 1994
water quality program is a risk-targeted approach to pollution
prevention and control. A predominant EPA goal for FY'94 is to
integrate the Watershed Protection Approach into all water
programs.
The Watershed Protection Approach is built on three main
principles:
• The target watersheds should be those where pollution
poses the greatest risk to human health, ecological
resources, desirable uses of the water, or a
combination of these.
• All parties with a stake in the specific local
situation should participate in the analysis of
problems and the creation of solutions.
• The actions undertaken should draw on the full range of
methods and tools available, integrating them into a
coordinated, multi-organization attack on the problems.
Although State and Federal water protection programs have
been very successful in reversing or preventing degradation of
water quality throughout the country during the last 20 years,
many significant water quality challenges remain, however,
including difficult and controversial problems, such as pollutant
runoff into waterways or seepage into groundwater from nonpoint
sources and the destruction of wetlands and other vital habitats.
2
-------
Uniform Federal regulations of these problems would be
vastly expensive and would impinge on traditional State and local
prerogatives, such as land use and economic development.
Governments at all levels, therefore, are broadening their
outlook on water quality protection' seeking nonconventional,
cost-effective ways to address the remaining problems.
The Watershed Protection Approach would require that State,
Federal, and local agencies refocus existing water pollution
control programs to operate in a more comprehensive and
coordinated manner. These concepts are not new and have been
applied to a limited extent in the past. There is, however, a
growing consensus that the pollution and habitat degradation
problems now facing society can best be solved by following a
basinwide approach that takes into account the dynamic
relationships that sustain natural resources and their beneficial
uses.
The Watershed Protection Approach is not a new centralized
government program that competes with or replaces existing
programs. It is a flexible framework for focusing and integrating
current efforts and for exploring innovative methods to achieve
maximum efficiency and effect. This framework is derived from the
experience gained over the last few years in many States and in
collaborative activities, such as the National Estuary Program
and the Clean Lakes Program. As experience grows and techniques
evolve, this holistic, locally tailored approach gradually will
become a routine process for protecting and restoring water
quality.
EPA Region III encourages States to begin to integrate water
quality management programs on a geographic basis, realized by
focusing comprehensive attention of all authorities, program
resources and technical resources on individual watersheds.
States which have already initiated such efforts will be
supported to their comprehensive approach to watershed-focused
program implementation. Specific proposals to implement the
watershed approach will be considered separately with each State;
Region III requests that States identify watershed approach
proposals, including recommendations for EPA actions that would
facilitate efforts in this regard.
3. Integrating Pollution Prevention into WQMP Grants
WQMP grant work programs in FY'94 should emphasize
a pollution prevention approach in conducting grant-assisted
activities as outlined in Deputy Administrator F. Henry
Habicht II's guidance memorandum of November 12, 1992
(Appendix A). The memorandum includes the Agency's definition of
pollution prevention. The guidance memorandum encourages and
supports state pollution prevention initiatives in grant-assisted
activities and promotes the pollution prevention ethic as a way
3
-------
of conducting environmental management responsibilities under
State grant programs. To the degree possible, grant-assisted
activities should be conducted according to the environmental
management hierarchy which places highest priority on source
reduction/pollution prevention, followed in order by recycling,
treatment, and disposal.
4. Endangered Species Act and National Historic
Preservation Act Issues
Section 106 grant applicants must currently
specify the following regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
16 U.S.C. Section 1531-1544, and the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. Section 470-1 to 470w-6:
[The applicant] [w]ill comply with environmental standards
which may be prescribed pursuant to...protection of
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act....
s
[The applicant] [w]ill assist the awarding agency in
assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act....
EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are engaged in ongoing
discussions regarding Section 106 grants and the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
program. Based on these discussions, supplemental guidance on
Section 106 grants and the ESA may be necessary at a future date.
In addition, the NHPA was recently amended. As with the ESA,
supplemental guidance on Section 106 grants and the NHPA may
become necessary.
C. Regional Guidance and Priorities
1. Specific State and Interstate Agency work program
guidance appears later in this document. Suggested components of
the FY'94 work program plans are included. EPA Region III staff
will contact State program managers to develop program priorities
and to negotiate work program plan output commitments.
a. Strategically Targeted Activities for Results
System (STARS)
(1) The work program plan must reflect all
pertinent STARS commitments, formerly the Strategic Planning and
Management System.
b. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
(1) In accordance with 40 CFR 31.45, the
grantee must continue to implement and adhere to its EPA-approved
4
-------
Quality Assurance (QA) Program Plan and annually update this
plan for those activities that involve environmental measurements
or data generation. Individual QA Project Plans will be
submitted to EPA for approval at least 30 days prior to
initiation of each field or laboratory activity. The recipient
must implement its EPA-approved project plans in performing
environmental monitoring activities.
c. Locational Accuracy Policy
(1) EPA has developed a policy which
establishes principles for collecting and documenting
latitude/longitude coordinates for facilities, sites and
monitoring and observation points regulated or tracked under the
environmental programs under the jurisdiction of EPA. During
FY'91 and FY'92, EPA Region III distributed copies of various
Regional and national guidance to State and Interstate Agencies.
It is EPA's goal to achieve a level of locational accuracy of 25
meters by January 1, 1995.
Each grant awarded for FY'94 which involves environmental
measurement will contain a grant condition which is identical to
the one used in FY'93:
"In accordance with EPA's Locational Data Policy, the
recipient agrees to ensure that latitude and longitude
coordinates (given in degrees, minutes, and seconds) are
provided for all EPA regulated facilities and sites for
which data are collected and are accurate within 500 meters
of true position (+/- 15 seconds). This includes activities
undertaken through contract, grant and interagency
agreement. The recipient further agrees to document, in
writing, that site location data were derived using U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles
or other scientifically approved methods, recorded in
accordance with Federal regulations and EPA requirements
referenced in Chapter 13, Locational Data, directive of May
17, 1990, of the EPA Information Resources Management Policy
Manual, copies of which will be provided by EPA. This
information should be available for inspection by EPA during
site visits."
In order to assist grantees in determining latitude and
longitude, EPA obtained copies of a USGS map-reading device
called an interpolation grid for use in reading location from
JSGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles. These devices were
provided to grantees by the EPA Grant Project Officer, as will
the appropriate policy documents, during FY'93.
5
-------
D. Grant Work Program Content
1. Section 106 Background Information
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
authorizes assistance to States and interstate agencies to
administer programs for the prevention, reduction, and
elimination of water pollution including programs for the
development and implementation of ground water protection
strategies. The CWA in Section 106(d) requires States and
interstate agencies to sustain a maintenance of effort (MOE), to
expend annually for recurrent 106 program expenditures an amount
of non-Federal funds which are at least equal to expenditures
during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. Since 1978 they
have been required by regulation to maintain at least FY'77
levels in order to receive funds for construction grants
management under Section 205(g). (See 40 CFR 35.305 Maintenance
of Effort.)1
Section 106(e) of the CWA requires States to establish and
maintain adequate monitoring programs as prerequisites for
Section 106 grant awards and to maintain provisions for updating
the Section 305(b) report. (See 40 CFR 35.260 Limitations).
2. State and Local Assistance Regulations at 40 CFR
35.130 specify the structure of the WQMP work program as does the
Water Quality Management Regulations at 40 CFR 130.11 (a) through
(e). The work program is part of the grant application and
serves as the basis for the management and evaluation of
performance under the grant. The grantee must provide in the
work program:
• the work years
• amount, and source of funding estimated to be needed for
each program element
• outputs committed to under each program element
• schedule for accomplishment
• identification of the agency responsible for each of the
elements and outputs.
For consolidated grant applications see the regulation
requirements at 40 CFR 35.145. The terms work program, program
element, and outputs are defined under 40 CFR 35.105.
Regions have the flexibility to negotiate specific program
elements for use in developing WQMP application program element
1 Until Section 205(g) funds obligated to a State by EPA in all
fiscal years, including fiscal years after 1990 have been spent by
the State or returned to EPA, the State is required to maintain at
least its FY'77 water pollution control program spending level.
6
-------
budgets and work programs with States. However, the Regions must
assure that all grantees comply with current statutory and EPA
regulatory requirements by providing in their WQMP grant
applications a program element budget and a work program which
supports it. A recommended list of program elements for use in
developing WQMP grant work programs and program element budgets
is provided in Appendix B.
£. Progress Reports and Management Oversight
In accordance with 40 CFR 35.150, Regions will oversee
performance under WQMP assistance agreements. Grantees are
responsible for performing activities and completing outputs
outlined in the negotiated grant work program within the
specified timelines. The Regional project officer will
(1) evaluate each recipient's performance and progress toward
completing the outputs in the approved work program according to
the schedule, (2) provide the findings of the evaluation to each
recipient, and (3) will include the findings in the grant file.
If the evaluation reveals deficiencies in a work program, the
Region will in coordination with the Regional Grants Management
Office, develop an action plan as needed for addressing
performance problems. The Regional Administrator will impose
sanctions only when corrective actions have failed to solve
significant performance deficiencies.
1. Each grant award will contain a grant condition
requiring quarterly progress reports such as the following:
"A status report shall be submitted each quarter to the EPA
Project Officer. This report will contain a progress
summary, justification for any outputs not completed in
accordance with the agreed upon schedules and a discussion
of anticipated program problems in the upcoming quarter. The
first status report should contain a listing of each
milestone (output) with scheduled completion dates."
SPECIAL NOTE: Under Part III: PROGRAM-SPECIFIC GUIDANCE, each
activity paragraph, is coded to indicate whether activity is New
(N), Changed (C), or On-going (0).
7
-------
II. GRANT SPECIFIC GUIDANCE
A. 106 Guidance
1. Separate Section 106 Awards for Ground Water
a. Since 1985, funds have been made available
for ground water work under Section 106—EPA has generally
awarded one program grant to the States which includes both the
base and the ground water program. Program complexity increased
in FY'90 as the ground water set-asides also included funds for
wellhead protection and pesticides/ground water. In order to
better service and manage the individual program components, EPA
will negotiate with States to determine whether there are to be
separate grants for the surface water and the ground water
programs or whether they are funded by one grant. Recipients of
separate ground water grants are encouraged to provide the status
of projected unexpended funds with the grant application and
again with the fourth quarter report in view of the critical
implications of the carry-over policy (explained below).
2. Grants Carry-over Policy for Section 106 Grants
a. National Policy
(1) There are special EPA procedures on the
use of unexpended 106 funds reported by recipients on their final
FSRs. EPA may exercise one of two options where a recipient
reports unexpended funds on a final FSR when the two-year
appropriation for those funds has not expired. They are:
(a) To carry over the funds to the
recipient's next budget period by a formal amendment of the
assistance agreement to either increase the Federal share or to
offset an amount previously awarded for that budget period; or
(b) To deobligate the unexpended funds
in which case the funds revert to EPA Headquarters, where they
may be recovered by the Region for use in other States, or they
may be retained at the national level.
b. Carry-over Practices for Section 106
(1) Any funds which remain unspent by
grantees after the end of the budget period are to be directed to
the highest environmental beneficial use. As a consequence, they
are not automatically returned to the current grantee. The
grantee must advise EPA as early as possible that there may be
unspent funds. If the grantee wishes to have unspent funds
reawarded in the next budget period (i.e. the budget period which
follows the one in which there are unspent funds), then that
8
-------
agency should provide the EPA project officer with documentation
at an appropriate level of detail.
c. The Risks Attendant with Unspent Funds
(1) If the two-year appropriation during
which the funds are available has expired, any unexpended funds
reported on an FSR by a recipient must be deobligated since they
will not be available for carry over to a subsequent budget
period. Those agencies with separate ground water grants may be
particularly vulnerable to this risk. Whereas the surface water
program is a mature program which has been Federally supported
since tne Clean Water Act of 1972, the ground water program has
experienced and may continue to experience start-up problems.
Where there are combined grants, the surface water program can
provide a buffer for the expenditure shortfalls under the ground
water component. It is likely that the 106 funds are being used
for the State continuing environmental program—activities which
carry on year after year. Secondly, the surface water program
activities are many times larger than the ground water component.
This generally means that older unspent ground water funds can be
used by the surface water program without difficulty—the surface
water program current year awards can be used to replace the
older ground water funds.
B. 604(b) Guidance
1. Continuation of FY'93 Initiatives
• Planning will continue in FY'94 toward integration
of the watershed approach into all water program
activities and to carrying out the intent of the
President's Economic Stimulus Program initiated in
FY'93. See Appendix D for additional detail.
2. Reserves Requirements for FY'94
• Section 604(b) of the Clean Water Act requires
that each State reserve one percent of Title VI
allotments or $100,000, whichever is greater, for water
quality management planning under 205(j) and 303(e) of
the Act.
• Pursuant to 205(j)(3), States must provide at
least 40 percent of their 205(j)(l) and 604(b) funds to
Regional Public Comprehensive Planning Agencies
(RPCPAs) and Interstate Organizations (IOa), unless the
Governor, in consultation with RPCPAs/IOs and with the
approval of the EPA Regional Administrator, determines
the provision of such an amount will not result in
significant participation by such organizations in
water quality management planning and will not
9
-------
significantly assist in development and implementation
of the water quality management plan.
• Only in such situations may State allocations to
RPCPAs/IOs be less than 40 percent of the State grant
amount. Although the statute directs States to pass
through 4 0 percent of the funds reserved and awarded in
a specific fiscal year, the intent of the statute will
be met if at least 40 percent of any given year's
reserves is passed through (even if awarded over two
fiscal years).
• In managing the process of selecting and funding
RPCPAs/IOs, States should clearly communicate their
water quality goals, program priorities and
expectations for RPCPA/IO participation in ongoing and
prospective projects. In the case of more localized
problems (e.g., in lakes and aquifers where RPCPAs/IOs
may be most familiar with the issues), States can
provide technical and other forms of assistance.
2. Developing Work Programs for 205(j)(2) Grants
a. States should jointly develop with RPCPAs/IOs
an annual work program for use of 205(j)(2) grants. Prior to
development of their water quality management work programs,
States should invite eligible organizations to submit
applications for the forthcoming fiscal year. Once States have
received and analyzed all RPCPA/IO funding projects, they should
select those RPCPA/IO activities to be included as part of their
work programs to be submitted to EPA.
When considering RPCPA/IO proposals for funding, States
should assess the capacity of each agency's current or proposed
water quality staff to manage the proposed work. Furthermore,
they should consider any previous water quality or environmental
experience, the potential of the proposed work to abate
significant water quality problems, the degree of proposed
coordination between ongoing or prospective State activities and
those proposed by the RPCPA/IO, and other relevant criteria.
In accordance with EPA's "Policy on Performance Based
Assistance," State, RPCPA and 10 work products should be
expressed in the work program as quantified outputs wherever
possible. The State work program should contain the evaluation
plan required by the same policy. Because the amount of funds
available for RPCPAs/IOs in a State may not be sufficient to
provide adequate funds to all applications, Regions and States
should assure that applicants which are selected receive enough
funding to undertake significant projects— generally such
funding should at a minimum be sufficient to pay the direct and
indirect costs of supporting one full time staff person.
10
-------
Work to be done by RPCPAs/IOs with 604(b) funds provided by
States must be embodied in legally binding written agreements
which specify in detail the work to be performed and a schedule
with quantified outputs related to each task wherever possible.
Copies of these agreements must be transmitted by the State to
the EPA Regional Office within 10 days after they have been
signed by the State and the RPCPA/IO.
The portion of the State work program which contains
RPCPA/IO activities should have the same level of detail as the
portion related to State activities, and the work program should
include a description of the State's process for oversight and
evaluation of RPCPA/IO tasks funded by 205(j)(2) grants.
3. Management Oversight
a. In the event that RPCPA/IOs fail to perform
satisfactorily, the State should apply appropriate measures,
including sanctions when warranted. In the event of a RPCPA's or
10's substantial and continuing failure to produce outputs or
carry out activities according to the work plan it has negotiated
with the State, the State should consider recovering pass through
funds. However, 205(j)(2) grant funds passed through to
RPCPAs/IOs must be redistributed to other RPCPAs or IOs to the
extent such funds made up a part of the annual 40 percent minimum
pass through required under 205(j)(3).
4. Waiver From Pass Through Requirements
The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 directs States
to allocate at least 40 percent of the funds available to a State
for water quality management planning under Sections 205(j)(3)
and 604(b) to Regional Public Comprehensive Planning
Organizations and/or Interstate Organizations. The shift to
exclusive reliance on Title VI reserves does not change the
authority under which planning grants are awarded that is, the
authority continues to be Section 205(j)(2). It also includes
the provision that allows the State, after consultation with
potential funding recipients, to request a level of less than 40
percent, if a determination is made that
a. the funding will not result in significant
participation by the intended organizations
and
b. will not significantly assist water quality
management planning in the State.
The WQA does not consider the level of State funding as a
justification for reducing pass-through requirements. That is to
say, diminished Federal funding to a State does not constitute a
basis for a waiver.
11
-------
5. Demonstration of Compliance with Pass Through
Requirements
Final financial status reports (FSR), which are
due within 90 days after the end of the budget period, should be
supplemented by information which provides comprehensive
information on compliance with the statutory pass-through
requirements for §5205(j)(1)/604(b).
If the end-of-year program progress report did not contain
the following information for pass through activities, it should
be -ncluded as a supplement to the final FSR:
• The name of each recipient agency
• The amount(s) awarded to each recipient agency
• Brief description of the project(s) for which the
awards were made
• Brief description and evaluation of progress achieved
during the year, delays encountered (if applicable),
and prognosis for the coming year.
a. Uses of Previously Awarded but Unspent
205(j)(1) and/or 604(b) Funds
The State should develop a list of eligible
uses for these funds which is fully coordinated with all the
appropriate State program managers early in the fiscal year
following the identification of these unspent funds. EPA Region
III encourages consideration of the following usages:
• Integrated cross-media approaches to
environmental management.
• Pollution prevention approaches, such as land
use controls which target efforts in priority
watersheds and wellhead protection areas.
• Geographic targeting of environmental
programs.
C. The Management Process for Section 319(h) Funds for
Nonpoint Sources
1. Separate guidance for nonpoint source (NPS) grants
is being provided by EPA. The agency is also in the process of
refining the manner in which it develops funding targets and
awards these grants.
12
-------
2. The following summarizes the funding situation:
a. The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987
included a provision to authorize funding for State Nonpoint
Source (NPS) Implementation Grants. The FY'93 budget includes
$52.5 million nationally while the computed target for
Region III is about $4 million.
b. In addition to the Section 319 funds, State
nonpoint source program development and implementation activities
may be funded from discretionary funds under Section
201(g)(1)(B) and 603(c). Funding under 106, 314 and 604(b) can
be used, to varying degrees, for nonpoint sources work.
0. The Management Process for Section 117 Funds:
Chesapeake Bay Program
1. Section 117 of the 1987 Clean Water Act authorizes
grant-making authority for the Chesapeake Bay Program to the EPA
Region III Administrator. Specifically, the authority to
approve grants or cooperative agreements for projects for
research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations,
surveys and studies related to the reduction of pollution and the
improvement of living resources in the Chesapeake Bay is provided
pursuant to Section 117(a). Authority for projects for the
purpose of implementing the Chesapeake Bay interstate management
programs is provided pursuant to Section 117(b).
There are three categories of grants:
• Implementation Grants
• Mainstem Monitoring Grants
• Program Support Grants
The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office provides guidance on
application and work plan content, program and administrative
guidelines, funding levels, and submittal dates for timely
awards. Since the time frames for the Bay grants differ from many
of the other Clean Water Program Grants, the Bay Office provides
separate guidance to potential applicants.
13
-------
III. PROGRAM SPECIFIC GUIDANCE
A. Water Quality Assessment and Ambient Water Monitoring
Programs
1. Program Objectives
The objectives of monitoring and quality assurance
efforts are to develop and implement surface and ground water
monitoring strategies that provide for the design, collection,
storage, retrieval and assessment of water and ecological data
necessary to support the programs and activities designed to
achieve the goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act and other
environmental initiatives. This includes trend analysis and
other appropriate statistical applications necessary to support
the programs and activities designed to achieve the environmental
goals and objectives.
2. Regulatory Requirements
a. 40 CFR Part 130.4 requires that States must
establish appropriate monitoring methods and procedures necessary
to compile and analyze data on the quality of waters of the
United States.
b. 40 CFR Part 35.260 limits the award (if any)
under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to any State which does
not monitor and compile, analyze, and report water quality as
described under Section 106(e)(1).
c. 40 CFR Part 35.360(b) does not allow the
award under Section 205(j)(l) funds to a State agency which does
not report annually on the nature, extent and causes of water
quality problems in various areas of the State and Interstate
region.
d. 40 CFR Part 130.11 stipulates the program
management aspects of these grant programs and the contents of
the State work programs.
e. 40 CFR Part 130.6 identifies the need for
continuing water quality planning and the defines the content of
the water quality management plans. Continuing water quality
planning shall be based upon the water quality management plans
and the problems identified in the latest section 305(b) report.
State water quality plans should focus annually on priority
issues and geographic areas and on development of water quality
controls leading to implementation measures.
f. 40 CFR Part 130.8(d) specifies that in the
years that the section 305(b) is not required, States may satisfy
14
-------
the annual Section 205 (j) report requirement by certifying that
the most recently submitted section 305(b) report is current or
by supplying an update of the sections of the most recently
submitted section 305(b) report which require updating.
g. 40 CFR Part 31.45 states that the grantee
shall develop and implement quality assurances practices
consisting of policies, procedures, specifications, standards,
and documentation sufficient to produce data of quality to
adequately to meet project objectives and to minimize loss of
data due to out-of-control conditions or malfunctions. Quality
assurance practices are identified in 40 CFR Part 30.503.
h. 40 CFR Part 30.503 identifies the necessary
quality assurances Practices.
3. Other Requirements
State workplans should include all costs of
developing and implementing monitoring strategies and programs
for assessing water quality conditions and trends in the State or
Tribal waters, including event related, habitat, physical,
chemical, and biological monitoring should be reported under this
program element. Applicants should also summarize all program
specific monitoring activities such as nonpoint source, lakes,
ground water, and wet weather surveys (CSO/stormwater) and
describe the coordination/relationship with the Section 106 and
other monitoring programs such as Section 319. A current ambient
monitoring program strategy should be submitted with the grant
application. For this the States can develop or revise their
existing water monitoring strategy in conjunction with Regional
monitoring staff. To the extent possible, use information
already available, such as 305(b) report information. Additional
application and reporting requirements are listed below.
4. Key Activities- Reviewer's attention is directed
to the fact that the monitoring activities section has been
modified to be consistent with EPA national monitoring program
objectives (still under development). There are additional
outputs required when compared to past years.
a. Development and Update of Monitoring Strategy
(suggested length: 5 page document)
(1) Purpose
(a) Define monitoring program
objectives. (N)
(b) Identify water quality problems.
(O)
(c) Document information needs and
expectations of scientists,
managers, and policy makers. (N)
15
-------
(d) Identify agency lead for quality
assurance, field and laboratory
activities, water quality
assessments, and data management.
(N)
(e) List and briefly describe all
quality assurance project plans.
(N)
(f) Describe how the various monitoring
programs are integrated to achieve
overall monitoring objectives. (N)
(g) Develop timelines to accomplish
program objectives. (N)
Strategic Goals
(a) Assess all significant waters
(defined by the State) on a
periodic basis to support the
development of water quality
standards, NPDES permit
limitations, and nonpoint source
controls. For example, some States
use a five-year cycle on a
watershed approach. (C)
(b) Collect chemical, physical,
biological and habitat data and use
data to: assess use attainment,
determine status and trends,
identify sources of water quality
problems, and determine
effectiveness of pollution control
measures. These surveys should use
the latest water quality assessment
techniques including fish tissue
and population surveys, habitat
assessments, sediment data, and
toxicity testing. (N)
(c) States should move towards
establishing reference stations for
their biological monitoring
programs in order to provide
baseline data for water quality
assessments and development of
biocriteria. (N)
(d) Support special
geographic/watershed initiatives.
(0)
(e) Coordinate planned monitoring
activities with existing Federal,
State, and local organizations. (N)
16
-------
b. Monitoring Workplan
(1) Identify sampling approach (fixed
station, synoptic, intensive survey).
(N)
(2) Describe fixed station sampling program.
(a) Summarize monitoring parameters
(chemical, biological, physical
parameters), sampling frequency,
and location of sites. (C)
(b) Reference or develop appropriate
quality assurance project plans
using guidance provided in
Guidelines and Specifications for
Preparing Quality Assurance Project
Plans. QAMS-005/80 (currently being
updated to EPA QA-R5; will
distribute when available) and
Guidance for Preparation of
Combined Work/Oualitv Assurance
Project Plans for Environmental
Monitoring (OWRS QA-1). (C)
(3) Estimate the number of intensive or
synoptic surveys planned to be initiated
or completed during the fiscal year in
the workplan and provide a status report
on these activities in at least an
annual report which should include:
(a) stream (or basin) name and location
of study,
(b) objective(s) of study,
(c) method of data collection and
analysis,
(d) reference to appropriate quality
assurance project plan,
(e) whether it was part of an intensive
survey, fixed station network,
facility specific survey, or
independent study, and
(f) final report date. (C)
c. Development and Use of Written Protocols for
Field Activities
(1) Review and revise (as necessary) field
methods, including sampling procedures
for physical, chemical and biological
monitoring activities. (0)
(2) A Standard Operating Procedures manual
should be prepared and submitted to the
Regional Quality Assurance Officer to
17
-------
document collection methodologies and to
ensure that those methods are comparable
to EPA guidance. (N)
(3) Any modification to collection methods
or problems associated with the
implementation of the methods should be
reported on an annual basis to the
Regional Quality Assurance Officer. (0)
d. Laboratory Analytical Support
(1) Review and revise laboratory analytical
methods currently being used to ensure
comparability with the requirements of
40 CFR, Part 136, as revised in October
1991. (C)
(2) State Laboratory personnel should
continue participation in EPA's
Performance Evaluation studies. (0)
e. Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Documentation
(1) Review, revise, and implement the
existing Quality Assurance Management
Plans (QMP) and Project Plans (QAPP) to
reflect new parameters and methods,
including toxicity testing, biological
surveys, fish tissue analysis, habitat
surveys and sediment analytical
protocols. State QMP and QAPP must be
implemented in a manner consistent with
EPA guidance (see Section B.2.b),
regulations (see Attachment A), and
Regional grant conditions. (C)
(2). The QAPP should address the newest
approved methods for both toxicant and
conventional pollutant sampling and
analysis and biomonitoring methods. All
QMP and QAPP revisions undertaken during
the fiscal year should be submitted to
Regional Office for review and approval.
Also, any problems encountered in
implementing the approved QMP and QAPP
should be reported. (C)
(3) A monitoring program audit and a QA
systems audit may be conducted by EPA to
verify compliance with EPA regulations.
(0)
18
-------
f. Development and maintenance of Data Storage,
Management and Sharing
(1) Quality assured data should be available
in ADP systems to determine progress
towards achieving environmental goals.
Biological data should be entered and
stored into BIOS unless the State
demonstrates an acceptable alternative
system. All monitoring data should be
available for review in hardcopy. (0)
(2) Water-quality monitoring data should be
entered into STORET within 6 months of
data collection. (0)
(3) Fish tissue data should be entered into
Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES).
Training for the ODES database will be
available in 1994. (N)
(4) Toxicity test data should be entered
into ODES or comparable database. (0)
g. Hater Quality Assessments
(1) Report all assessments of waterbodies
for designated use support including
causes and sources of impairments in the
section 305(b) Waterbody System.(0)
(2) Identify waters where water quality is
known or suspected of being impaired due
to toxics/toxicity and conventional
pollutants and list such waters in
accordance with section 304(1) and
303(d). (O)
h. Reporting
(1) Each State is required to submit a final
Section 305(b) Report to EPA by April 1,
1994. All States are requested to follow
the Guidelines for the Preparation of
the 1994 State Water Quality Assessment
rsection 305(b) Report I for all aspects
of report preparation including using
the Waterbody System.
In order to facilitate the completion of
the report, States are requested to
submit draft reports to the Regional
305(b) Coordinator by January 3, 1994
for review and comment. (N)
19
-------
(2) Submit, annually, a listing of all final
reports, site-specific evaluations,
biological survey reports, and special
monitoring projects to the Regional
Office. The listing should include
information on the study objective,
contact name, location of study, and
reference to the associated QA project
plan. (See Section B.3 of this guidance.
Ongoing and final reports should be
listed separately.) (0)
i. Monitoring and Data Management Training
(1) Adequate resources should be made
available to provide the necessary
training of staff for field activities,
data assessment and data management
training. (N)
j. Support and Coordinate Volunteer Monitoring
Programs
(1) Volunteer monitoring programs should be
encouraged to provide data as screening
level indicators, and used as an
educational tool. (N)
(2) Identify and report on citizen
monitoring activities involving State
personnel in the quarterly reports or at
least annual basis. (N)
(3) Where volunteer monitoring data is used
by the State for water quality
assessments, a quality assurance project
plan should be prepared by the volunteer
group and revised for approval by the
appropriate State agency.
k. Evaluation
(1) Provide an assessment of the
effectiveness of the ambient monitoring
program in providing data suitable to
meet program objectives in the 305(b)
Report. (N)
(2) Annually review and update State
strategies and quality assurance
management plans and project plans. (O)
20
-------
A. Water Quality Standards
1. Complete any follovup actions arising from the triennial
review of water quality standards scheduled to be completed by
September 30, 1993.
2. Implement an acceptable antidegradation policy and make
refinements to antidegradation implementation procedures, as
necessary.
3. Refine or adopt new policies affecting application of
criteria, particularly metals, adopted or promulgated under
Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act.
4. Continue to develop the basis for future development of
numeric biological criteria, including development of
methodologies, acquisition of baseline data, and refinement of
ongoing State programs.
5. Continue to develop the basis for future development of
numeric wetlands criteria, including development of methodologies
and appropriate use designations, acquisition of baseline data,
and refinement of ongoing State programs.
6. Review State water quality standards provisions to
insure that they are adequate to protect threatened or endangered
species and make changes or revisions as appropriate to insure
that adequate protection is provided.
7. Assess the State's regulatory framework for controlling
nutrients in order to facilitate adoption of appropriate nutrient
criteria for fresh water by September 30, 1996. Appropriate
nutrient criteria could be management strategies developed by
utilizing existing models, site-specific data, and State-adopted
dissolved oxygen criteria or other appropriate methods.
8. The Water Resources Development Act of 1992 requires EPA
to conduct a comprehensive national survey of data regarding
aquatic sediment quality and to report the findings by November
1994 and biennially thereafter. The State should participate in
this process by provided State-generated or identified data, as
appropriate. EPA expects that by September 30, 1996, States will
identify contaminated sediment sites from the 1994 Contaminated
Sediment Inventory and supplements to target revisions in State
water quality standards during the next triennium and to target
implementation of control programs.
21
-------
B. Permits and Enforcement
1. Permits—For the items below list the NPDES
number, the name of the facility and the quarter of issuance,
reissuance or modification in the work plan that Maryland will
submit to Region III for review.
a. Reissue all major permits expiring in FY'94.
As of March 1993, EPA records indicate that Maryland has 12 major
permits expiring in FY'94. (0)
b. Reissue the backlog of expired major permits.
(0)
c. In accordance with EPA regulations, include
toxic controls for both whole effluent toxicity and pollutant
specific to attain and maintain both numeric and narrative
criteria of Water Quality Standards in all issued and reissued
NPDES permits. (0)
d. Issue permits to priority sludge facilities
containing sludge conditions necessary to meet the requirements
of Section (405)(d)(4) of the Water Quality Act of 1987. If not
already delegated, prepare program delegation package for EPA
approval. 4 0 C.F.R. Part 501 and a subsequent EPA Guidance
Document entitled State Sludge Management Program Guidance
Document describe the components of an approvable State sludge
program. EPA will assist the State's development of a delegation
package or implementation of new programs with contract or grant
funds as they become available. (O)
e. Incorporate specific and enforceable
pretreatment requirements in issued and reissued NPDES permits
for POTWs with approved pretreatment programs. (0)
f. Issue/modify permits for Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) dischargers based on strategies developed in
FY'91. Revise CSO Strategy to comply with new EPA CSO policy
(issued in draft December 1992) within 90 days of the policy
becoming final. (C)
g. Resolve NPDES permit appeals for all major
permits appealed as of 9/30/93 and report quarterly progress. (0)
h. Develop municipal storm water permit for
designated municipalities. Base the permit on Part I and Part II
storm water applications and other EPA guidance. (C)
i. Continue to implement baseline general
permits. Incorporate new storm water conditions as existing
applicable NPDES permits expire. Issue storm water permits
22
-------
(individual or general permit) to cover group permits applicants.
Develop storm water permits for significant individual storm
water applications where water quality problems are possible. (C)
j. Participate in storm water Outreach
activities. (N)
k. Submit revised 303(d) TMDL list in April 1994
that incorporates streams affected by both point and non-point
sources. Establish priorities as to development of TMDLs for
these streams for the next two years. (C)
1. Submit to EPA the TMDLs Maryland has developed
for waterbodies included in the current TMDL strategy. (C)
m. Actively participate in the implementation of
Chesapeake Bay tributary nutrient control strategies developed in
FY'93. This includes modification of any NPDES permits to
include nutrient controls. (N)
n. Develop model pollution prevention language
for NPDES permits. (N)
2. Compliance/Enforcement—For permittees impacted by
the following items list the NPDES number, the permittee name and
the quarter (projected or actual) of the action.
a. Ensure compliance with all formal enforcement
actions. (0)
b. Take timely and appropriate enforcement
actions to address Significant Noncompliance (SNC) violations
with the goals of maintaining an exceptions list at or near zero
and continuously reducing the number of facilities in SNC.
Submit copies of formal enforcement actions to EPA along with
monthly enforcement reports. Monthly enforcement reports should
include: State enforcement actions (including State
administrative orders or equivalent); penalties assessed and
collected; indication of whether Administrative Orders were
issued for failure to implement pretreatment requirements.
Report at least quarterly all civil and criminal referrals sent
to SAG, and cases filed and concluded. (0)
c. Focus inspections of permittees, especially
major permittees, to assess permit compliance, biomonitoring
capabilities, TRE procedures/techniques and multi-media concerns.
Target inspections on violators and in environmentally sensitive
areas where/when resources are limited. (O)
d. Report the number of major permittees
inspected each quarter and submit the inspection reports to EPA.
As of 3/31/93 EPA's records indicate that there are 98 major
23
-------
NPDES permittees in Maryland. Indicate on reports if inspections
were conducted with another environmental compliance program. (0)
e. Incorporate and/or continue the compliance
monitoring and enforcement of requirements of sludge programs,
pretreatment programs and pollution prevention programs (0)
f. Enter accurate data for all WENDB data
elements into PCS within appropriate time frames to ensure QNCR
can be pulled from PCS by 11/28, 2/28, 5/28 and 8/28. Develop
for each quarter an exceptions list for SNC facilities. (0)
g. Continue to work with EPA and the other Bay
States to implement the long-term NPDES Compliance Strategy for
the Chesapeake Bay. (0)
h. For facilities which discharge to the
Chesapeake Bay area, work towards the goals of maintaining an
exceptions list at or near zero and continuously reducing the
number of facilities in SNC. Report the number and names of the
facilities in the Bay area in SNC. (0)
i. Develop a statewide penalty policy that will
recoup, where appropriate, economic benefit and gravity of
violations. (0)
j. Implement a municipal wastewater pollution
prevention program appropriate for Maryland. (N)
k. Meet with EPA quarterly for enforcement
meetings to discuss strategies to address non-compliance. (0)
1. Submit quarterly federal facility compliance
status reports to EPA. (0)
h. Develop, with EPA participation, a storm
water enforcement strategy to address the needs of Maryland. (N)
3. Pretreatment—The following pretreatment
requirements apply:
a. Conduct audits of approved pretreatment
programs at least once every 5 years. For those facilities not
audited, conduct a pretreatment compliance inspection (PCI).
Provide copies of the reports to EPA as soon as Maryland
completes them. As of March 1993, Region Ill's records indicate
that there are 16 approved pretreatment programs in Maryland.
(0)
24
-------
b. Evaluate and revise, as necessary,
pretreatment program implementation requirements in NPDES permits
to ensure adoption of DSS rule and PIRT rule requirements. (0)
c. Use the 9/27/89 "Guidance for Reporting and
Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation
Requirementsw to report POTWs on the QNCR for failing to
implement approved pretreatment programs. (0)
d. Enter industrial user inspections into PCS
under the IUs POTW. Provide quarterly targets for IU inspections.
(0)
e. Provide a list of POTWs required to have an
approved program but which do not; provide a schedule for
pretreatment program approval for these POTWs. (O)
f. Use the Pretreatment Permit Enforcement
Tracking System (PPETS/PCS) to enter all WENDB, RDN1 and RDN2
data elements for each PCI, audit and annual report. (0)
g. Ensure that all POTWs have technically based
local limits. Submit quarterly the names of POTWs required to
reevaluate local limits. Provide schedule dates for when each
POTW will have adequate local limits. (0)
h. Provide a list of categorical IUs discharging
to POTWs without approved programs. Take steps to ensure State
oversight of categorical users in non-pretreatment cities meet
minimum implementation requirements for POTWs implementing
approved pretreatment programs. (0) Use PPETS/PCS to enter data
on categorical users in non-pretreatment cities. In order to
enter summary-level PPETS WENDB data for State-run pretreatment
programs without approved local pretreatment programs or for
States directly overseeing SIUs in non-pretreatment cities, these
steps should be followed:
(1) Create a new facility record with a new
permit number (NPID) containing the letter "C" in the third
character (e.g., MDC0000001); the facility name (FNMS) should
indicate that this is summary-level pretreatment data; (0)
(2) Create a PPS record (using the PPS 1
data entry screen or batch cards) for the new facility, inputting
the start and end dates of the reporting period covered as PSSD
and PSED respectively, and entering the WENDB data elements SSNC
through IUPN (entry of additional data elements may be requested
by Regions); (0)
(3) Create an inspection record (using the
INSP data entry screen or batch cards) for the new facility,
coding in DTIN as the end date of the period covered by the
25
-------
report, TYPI = F, INSP = R or S (Region or State), and inspection
comments indicating that the data is actually summary-level
pretreatment data for a particular time period; in the bottom
right corner of the INSP data entry, indicate PRETREATMENT DATA?
= Y to automatically proceed to the next screen (PAU1); and, (0)
(4) On the PAU1 screen, enter the WENDB data
elements NOCM through SNIN (excluding the data elements ADLL and
EVLL) (entry of additional data elements may be requested by
Regions). (O)
i. Enter pretreatment enforcement actions,
schedules and milestone achievement dates into PCS. (0)
j. Evaluate and revise State pretreatment
regulations to incorporate DSS and PIRT amendments, as necessary.
(0)
k. Submit semiannually the compliance status of
Baltimore electroplating and metal finishing facilities. (0)
4. General
a. Revise PCS work plans by January 1, 1992, to
clarify EPA/Maryland program responsibilities, training and
support needs. (0)
b. Place biomonitoring requirements into PCS.
(0)
c. Integrate pollution prevention practices
through Outreach and training of POTWs and industrial
dischargers. (N)
d. Include a Commitment Summary as part of the
106 work plan consisting of specific dates that reports will be
submitted and dates of permits issued/reissued and target numbers
for inspections. (0)
e. Work with EPA Region III to improve program
coordination, reduce conflict and enhance overall quality of the
work product. (0)
C. Clean Lakes Program
1. Update State Lake Assessment, expanding and
updating information required under Section 314(a)(1)A - F.
Coordinate with Lake Water Quality Assessment Grant activity. (0)
26
-------
2. Use monitoring information (chemical and
biological) which assesses pollution from point and nonpoint
sources in the lake watersheds and, to the extent possible,
describe the magnitude of these sources for each public lake.
Incorporate the information into "Control Methods" and
"Restoration Efforts" sections. (0)
3. Include lake monitoring for toxics in water,
sediment and fish tissue, where appropriate. (O)
4. Continue incorporation of program into other State
programs (NPS, 305(b), 205(j), etc.). (0)
D. Pollution Prevention
1. In recognition that a more effective and
inexpensive solution to the improvement of water quality is to
prevent pollution from occurring in the first instance, the State
should consider using Water Quality Management Planning funds to
develop strategies and measures to prevent the entry of point and
nonpoint pollutants from entering surface and ground waters.
Opportunities for integrating pollution prevention into WQMP
program areas include, but are by no means limited to, water
quality standards, permitting, inspection, enforcement
settlement, multi-media coordination, reporting and training
activities. Each recipient of Section 106 grant funds for
surface water programs should provide a summary report of
activities associated with pollution prevention. The report
should also identify any barriers or impediments to including
pollution prevention in the Section 106 grant work program. (N)
E. Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs
The December 1992 Final Guidance for the development of
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP)
describes the Strategic Activities of a CSGWPP and the process
for developing a Core CSGWPP program. It also describes the
coordinated approach that both the States and EPA should follow.
In FY'94, States should build on their FY'93 Ground Water
Protection (GWP) program activities to further their
comprehensive approach to protecting the ground water resource.
It is expected that States can most effectively build on their
progrsuns' activities and successes by committing to the CSGWPP
approach.
EPA has had a number of successful experiences using the
CSGWPP approach—i.e., bringing together a number of programs to
work on common needs and priorities. For example, the Nonpoint
Source and GWP programs work closely together to identify
projects and activities which will benefit both programs and
27
-------
protect both surface water and ground water. Such coordination
also occurs very effectively at the State level. In addition,
the Pesticides program has adopted an approach toward State
Management Plans which ensures cross-program coordination for the
protection of the ground water resource. In Jefferson County,
WV, and Lancaster County, PA, nearly a dozen agencies—Federal,
State, County, and Local—are developing cross-program approaches
to Best Management Practices, Wellhead Protection (WHP), and
other water resource protection activities within a commonly
targeted, significant watershed. Finally, in West Virginia,
the legislature mandated a CSGWPP approach by enacting the West
Virginia Ground Water Protection Act (1991). The Act established
a Ground Water Coordinating Committee, enabled collection of
ground water protection and remediation fees from individuals or
industries who potentially impact ground water quality,
authorized setting of ground water quality standards, established
a central ground water database, ambient ground water monitoring
State-wide, among other ground water and coordination activities.
In FY'93, States developed a coordination mechanism or
committee involving all ground water-related programs and
developed self-assessments of their existing programs. Because
the Final Guidance was issued later than expected, States may not
have completed their final self-assessments as expected in FY'93.
Based on the CSGWPP Guidance, states are encouraged to
conduct the following activities in FY'94:
• Continue ensuring a coordinated approach across all ground
water-related programs and agencies, through the state's
coordination mechanism. This coordination mechanism or
committee should meet on a regular basis to identify common
priority program activities and commonly targeted geographic
areas. The coordination mechanism or committee should also
task programs funded by EPA to identify how various grant
funds could be used more effectively, e.g., funding common
activities through several grants.
• Complete self-assessments developed in FY'93. The self-
assessment should be based on the State's profile document,
CSGWPP Guidance and the vision it has established for itself
through the coordination mechanism. The State should
complete its self-assessment, by comparing its current
situation with its vision, using the adequacy criteria as a
guide to identify gaps which prevent achievement of a Core
CSGWPP.
• Submit a Core CSGWPP to EPA or, if the self-assessment
identifies significant gaps that are unable to be adequately
addressed in FY'94, a plan to reach a Core by FY'95. The
CSGWPP Guidance document encourages states to develop Core
CSGWPPs by 1995.
28
-------
• Hold a workshop focusing on the ground water resource for
all programs and agencies affecting ground water quality.
Such a workshop, suggested by the States at an EPA/States
meeting in February 1993, would be to encourage information
exchange and network building.
• Participate in discussions with EPA programs regarding
CSGWPP. This may take the form of formal meetings held at
both EPA and the States to identify adequate responses to
the six Strategic Activities and specific negotiations with
each State on individual flexibilities in particular ground
water-related programs.
State program managers, across all ground water-related
programs, will be expected to document in their quarterly
progress reports the progress they are making in the activities
listed above. It is critical that all ground water-related
programs be actively involved in these steps to ensure that the
States are developing programs and activities that are protective
to the entire resource and that reflect jointly developed goals.
Based on existing State ground water protection programs and
activities, States are encouraged to undertake other cross-
program activities that support elements of a CSGWPP, e.g.,
resource assessment activities, data management, and source
identif ication.
F. Wellhead Protection
1. Wellhead protection is mandated under the SDWA.
EPA provides funds which may be used for WHP under 106 of the
CWA. EPA continues to encourage all States to incorporate their
WHP programs into their CSGWPP strategies. An approved WHP
program is an important part of the CSGWPP Program.
Additionally, WHP should be incorporated into all other
environmental activities that involve the monitoring and
remediation of sources of contamination which affect ground water
quality. States should support local communities in establishing
their WHP programs.
G. Nonpoint Sources Management (NPS) Program
Section 319 funds will continue to be focused upon
those particular nonpoint source control activities that are of
highest priority. Section 319(h)(5) of the Clean water Act
establishes four categories that the EPA Administrator will give
priority to in making grants:
• Control particularly difficult or serious nonpoint
source problems, including but not limited to problems
29
-------
resulting from agriculture, mining and urban nonpoint
source pollution problems.
• Implement innovative methods or practices for
controlling nonpoint sources of pollution, including
regulatory programs where appropriate.
• Control interstate pollution problems.
• At least ten percent of the State's overall work
program should be devoted to addressing priority ground
water quality NPS activities which EPA determines are
part of a comprehensive nonpoint source pollution
control program. These activities may include
research, planning, ground water assessments,
demonstration programs, enforcement, technical
assistance, education and training programs to protect
ground water from nonpoint sources of pollution.
While a State may choose to undertake ground water
activities beyond the minimum of ten percent of its
work program, those States that choose not to undertake
ground water protection activities or choose to
undertake activities below that level should explain
their reasons.
There are additional priorities which were established by
EPA in Nonpoint Source Guidance issued by the Administrator in
December 1987, and in EPA 319(h) Grant Guidance dated December
15, 1989, which remain in effect:
• Address nationally significant, high-risk point source
problems.
• Comprehensively integrate existing programs to control
nonpoint source pollution.
Integrate Clean Water Act requirements such as
approved Clean Water strategies.
Address surface/ground water (cross media issues).
Integrate Federal, State and local programs
including multi-jurisdictional efforts such as the
water quality initiatives of the U. S. Department
of Agriculture, the Forest Service, and the Office
of Surface Mining.
• Provide for monitoring and evaluation of program
effectiveness, including adoption of rigorous water
quality protocols.
30
-------
• Demonstrate a long-term commitment to building the
institutions necessary for effective nonpoint source
management and to continue such institutions beyond the
authorization period.
• Emphasize effective pollution prevention mechanisms to
control nonpoint source pollution at the source.
• Protect particularly sensitive and ecologically
significant waters, such as wetlands, estuaries and
other coastal waters, wild and scenic rivers, and
exceptional fisheries.
• Promote comprehensive watershed management, including
the establishment and maintenance of protective
corridors such as greenways, filter strips and wetlands
along streams, lakes, and estuaries and the use of
conservation easements and other land conservancy
measures.
• Provide antidegradation provisions and other measures
necessary to assure that population growth, new
development, and new and expanded economic activity do
not result in impairment of high quality waters and
waters currently meeting water quality standards.
• Address urban stormwater that is not regulated by NPDES
permits.
State Agencies are encouraged to
1. Initiate or expand monitoring activities through
their traditional programs, such as Section 106, to assess
nonpoint source pollution loads.
2. Set up monitoring activities which specifically
measure the effectiveness of NPS control measures.
3. Leverage other Federal Agencies (e.g. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, Office of Surface
Mining, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service) to
support implementation of the approved NPS Management Programs.
(O)
4. Strive to develop/improve inter-agency and
intra-agency coordination by integrating the objectives of
nonpoint source control with stormwater management, ground water
protection, clean lakes, wetlands and near coastal waterways and
estuary program activities. (0)
5. Encourage and work with Federal, local and other
State Agencies to raise the levels of public awareness about the
31
-------
effects of nonpoint source pollution on water quality and to
provide the information and tools needed to educate the public.
(0)
6. State Agencies responsible for nonpoint source
programs should work closely with the State Agencies responsible
for developing comprehensive ground water protection programs.
Nonpoint Source Agencies should ensure the inclusion of the State
lead ground water Agencies on nonpoint source interagency work
groups. Conversely, Agencies responsible for nonpoint source
programs should participate in development of comprehensive State
ground water protection programs, including wellhead protection
programs and pesticide management. Proposed ground water related
NPS management activities should reflect the priorities cited in
the State's comprehensive ground water programs. These
priorities should be based on State assessments of ground water
use, value and vulnerability. These assessments are eligible for
funding under CWA SS 106, 604(b) and 319(h) and should be used to
update the State NPS Assessment Reports to reflect ground water
priorities. (0)
There are several key priorities under Comprehensive Ground
Water Protection (CGWP) Programs that can be partially addressed
through the State NPS program. These priorities include:
a) Development of State Pesticides-in-Ground
Water Management Plans.
b) Controlling pollution from NPS within the
Wellhead (WHP) Protection Areas.
c) Working with USDA to implement the 1990 Farm
Bill by providing maps of WHP areas and
priority vulnerable aquifers to USOA so that
USDA can prioritize pollution control
activities in these areas.
32
-------
IV. FUNDING RESERVES AND TARGETS
TOTAL S IOC TARGET8
FY'94 PRESIDENTIAL BUDGET
AGENCY
S 106
SURFACE
WATER TARGETS
S io«
GROUND
WATER TARGETS
TOTAL 5 10C
TARGETS
l
DC
$568,294
$99,062
$667,356
DE
568,294
176,712
745,006
MD
1,124,234
196,418
1,320,652
PA
2,989,720
408,117
3,397,837
VA
1,680,173
259,505
1,939,678
WV
852,441
176,712
1,029,153
DRBC
240,000
240,000
ICPRB
160,000
160,000
SRBC
|_ 80,000
80,000
TOTALS
$8,263,156
| $1,316,526
| $9,579,682
Both the surface water and ground water
figures are based upon the application of the
funding formulae to the amounts proposed in
the Presidential budget for FY'94. EPA
Regional program managers reserve the right
to negotiate funding targets which differ
from formula-computed amounts.
33
-------
s 604(b) RE8ERVES-ACTUAL AMD POTENTIAL |
8TATB
CURRENT
RESERVES
UNDER FY'93
BUDGET
ADDITIONAL
ALLOTMENT
UNDER
8UPFLE.
APPROPRIATION
FY'94 FUNDING
TARGET8
PRESIDENTIAL
BUDGET
i
2
)
DE
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
DC
100,000
100,000
100,000
MD
469,564
206,000
292,300
PA
769,048
337,000
478,800
VA
397,328
174,000
247,400
WV
302,651
133,000
188,400
TOTALS |
$2,138,591
$1,050,000 |
$1,406,900 |
These reserves are actual amounts available
for FY'93. They do not have to be obligated
in grant awards to States until September 30,
1994.
These potential reserves are based upon the
President's Economic Stimulus Package for
FY'93. These funds would have to be
obligated in grant awards to States no later
than September 30, 1993.
These potential reserves for FY94 are based
upon proposed State Revolving Fund wastewater
funding of $1.2 billion.
34
-------
V. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
ADP Automatic Data Processing
BMP Best Management Practice
CETIS Complex Effluent Toxicity Information System
CSO Combined Sever Overflow
DSS Domestic Sewage Study
ICS Individual Control Strategy
10 Interstate Organization
IU Industrial User
IUPN IUs from which a penalty has been collected
MERITS Managing for Environmental Results Initiatives
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPS Nonpoint Source
PCI Pretreatment Compliance Inspections
PCS Permits Compliance System
PIRT Pretreatment Implementation review Task Force
POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
PPETS Pretreatment Enforcement Tracking System
PPS Pretreatment Performance Summary
PSED PCS Annual report end date
PSSD PCS Annual report start date
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QAPjP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QNCR Quarterly Noncompliance report
RDN1 SIUs in SNC without formal enforcement
RDN2 Failure to take formal enforcement against SIUs causing
pass-through or interference
RPCPO Regional Public Comprehensive Planning Organization
SAG State Attorney General
SIU Significant Industrial User
SNC Significant Noncompliance
SSNC SIUs in SNC with a pretreatment compliance schedule
STARS Strategically Targeted Activities for Results System
STORET storage and Retrieval (water quality data system)
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TRE Toxics Reduction Evaluation
WENDB Water Enforcement National Data Base
WLA Waste Load Allocation
wqs Water Quality Standards
35
-------
APPENDIX A
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
POLICY
INFORMATION
-------
r
oEPA
UntM StatM
EnworuiMntal Protaaen
Offto* ct Pattuaon Prov«ruon
WanmgBn. OC 20440
M«rer '99'
Pollution Prevention
Fact Sheet
Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990
Purpose
Pollution
Prevention
Hierarchy
Definition
of Source
Reduction
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, signed into law in November
1990, establishes pollution prevention as a "national objective." The
Act notes that:
There are significant opportunities for industry to reduce or prevent
pollution at the source through cost-effective changes in production,
operation, and raw materials use... The opportunities for source
reduction are often not realized because existing regulations, and the
industrial resources they require for compliance, focus upon
treatment and disposal, rather than source reduction ... Source
reduction is fundamentally different and more desirable than waste
management and pollution control.
The Act establishes the pollution prevention hierarchy as national
policy, that pollution should be prevented or reduced at
the source wherever feasible, while pollution that cannot be
prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner. In
the absence of feasible prevention or recycling opportunities,
pollution should be treated; disposal or other release into the
environment should be used as a last resort
Source reduction is defined in the law to mean any practice which
reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant or
contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into
the environment, (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling,
treatment or disposal; and which reduces the hazards to public
health and the environment astoriitfri with the release of such
mtmincef, pollutants, or contaminants.
MnM en RtcyOtd Paper
I
-------
1
Requirements The Pollution Prevention Act formalizes the establishment of EPA's
Office of Pollution Prevention, independent of the single medium
programs, to carry out the functions required by the Art and to
develop and implement a strategy to promote source reduction.
Among other provisions, the law directs EPA to:
• facilitate the adoption of source reduction techniques by
businesses and by other federal agencies;
• establish standard methods of measurement for source reduction:
• review regulations to determine their effect on source reduction:
• investigate opportunities to use federal procurement to
encourage source reduction;
• develop improved methods for providing public access to data
collected under federal environmental statutes;
• develop a training program on source reduction opportunities,
model source reduction auditing procedures, a source reduction
clearinghouse, and an annual award program.
Grant
Program
TRI Reporting
Report to
Congress
Implementation
The Art authorizes an S8 million state grant program to
promote source reduction by businesses, with a SO percent state
match requirement
Under the Act, facilities required to report releases to EPA for the
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) must also now provide information
on pollution prevention and recycling for each facility and for each
toxic chemicaL The information includes: the quantities of each
toxic chemical entering the waste stream and the percentage change
from the previous year, the quantities recycled and percentage
change from the previous year, source reduction practices, and
changes in production from the previous year.
The Act requires EPA to report to Congress within 18 months (and
biennially afterwards) on the actions needed to implement the
strategy to promote source reduction, and providing an assessment
of the clearinghouse and the grant program.
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention will be providing supplemental
guidance concerning state pollution prevention grants that
incorporate the new Act's requirements. (Grants already awarded
are not affected by the legislation.) For further information, contact
the Office of Pollution Prevention, 202-245-4164.
-------
Un««d Stat
EmnrenmwnaJ Prouaan
Agtnqr
Offtaa of Potlutsn P'uvcraen
WaaiungBfl. DC 20*60
VUrer '99i
oEPA Pollution Prevention
Fact Sheet
EPA's Pollution
Prevention Strategy
Overview EPA's Pollution Prevention Strategy, released in February 1991, was
developed by the Agency in consultation with all program and
regional offices. The strategy provides guidance on incorporating
pollution prevention into EPA's ongoing environmental protection
efforts and includes a plan for achieving substantial voluntary
reductions of targeted high risk industrial chemicals. The strategy is
aimed at private sector initiative while challenging
industry to achieve ambitious prevention goals.
Industrial A major component of the strategy is the Industrial Toxics
Toxics Project Project EPA has identified 17 high risk industrial chemicals that
offer significant opportunities for prevention (see box on back of this
page). The Agency has set a goal of reducing environmental releases
of these chemicals by 33 percent by the end of 1992 and by at least SO
percent by the end of 1993.
The 17 pollutants identified as targets of the industrial toxics project
present both nils to human health and the environment
and opportunities to reduce such risks through prevention. The list
was drawn from recommendations submitted by program offices,
tak&t into account such criteria as health and ecological risk,
potential for multiple exposures or cross-media contamination,
technical or economic opportunities for prevention, and limitations
of treatment
All of the targeted chemicals are included on EPA's Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI); thus, reductions in their releases can be measured
in each year's TRI reports. Several hundred companies who have
reported releases of the target chemicals have already been
mitiaH by EPA. EPA is their cooperation in making
voluntary commitments to reduce releases and in developing
pollution prevention plans to cany out these commitments.
PrktmJ on Recyded Paper
-------
Guidance for
EPA Activities
The strategy also provides guidance on incorporating pollution
prevention into the Agency's existing programs, emphasizing the
need for continued strong regulatory and enforcement programs.
At the same time, the
strategy favors
flexible, cost-effective
approaches that
involve market-based
incentives where
practical For
example, the strategy
calls for the use of
"regulatory dusters,"
through which EPA
will categorize the
rules it intends to
propose over the next
several years for
certain chemicals and
their sources. The
clusters are intended
to foster improved
cross-media evaluation of the cumulative impact of standards, more
certainty for industry, and early investment in prevention activities.
Institutional The strategy outlines several short-term measures that will address
Barriers various institutional barriers within the Agency's own organization
that limit its ability to develop effective prevention strategies. Such
measures include designating special assistants for pollution
prevention in each Assistant Administrator's office, developing
incentives and awards to encourage Agency staff to engage in
pollution prevention efforts, incorporating prevention into the
comprehensive 4-year strategic plans by each program office, and
providing pollution prevention training to Agency staff.
Other Sectors Hie industrial toxics project for the manufacturing sector represents
the first focus of a comprehensive Agency strategy. EPA will be
to work with the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and
Transportation to develop strategies for preventing pollution from
agricultural practices and energy and transportation use. EPA has
already begun several joint initiatives, including a cooperative grants
program for sustainable agriculture research with the Department of
Agriculture and a joint program with the Department of Energy to
demonstrate energy efficiency and waste reduction in key sectors.
Target Chemicals
(millw pouM* itkaMd ia 19M)
Beazeae
33.1
Cidniuffl
10
Carbon Tetrachloride
5.0
Chloroform
26.9
Chromium
56.9
Cyanide
13.8
Dichloromethase
153.4
Lead
58.7
Mercury
03
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
159.1
Methyl laobutyl Ketone
43.7
Nickel
19.4
Tetrachloroethyieae
37.5
Totneae
344.6
144-Trichioroethane
190.5
Tnchloroethyieae
55.4
Xylene
20L6
For More
Information
Copies of the strategy document are available from Julie Shannon
in the Office of Pollution Prevention, 202-382-2736.
-------
Pollution Prevention: EPA's Preferred Choice
WHY EPA haa devoted two decades to treatment and
dean up of pollutants after they arc generated.
Whila thia approach has proved successful and wH
always play a significant rota in anvironmantai
protection, we hava laamad that In many inatanooe.
pollution can be avoided at the outaet thereby
eliminating or minimizing tha naad for end-of-p(pa
controls.
Tha SAB Report. Reducing Risk, which was
dasignad to halp us identfy tha most important
anvironmantai problems and bast sobttona. raoom>
manda thai "EPA should emphasize polutfon
prevention as tha prafarrad option lor reducing rttk.*
Today EPA ia defeated to examining ways
of pravanting poflutton at tha sourca as tha fM One
ofdefenee. Experience shows I can be a cheaper,
mora effective way to raduca anvironmantai riak.
For example. poflutton pravantion can b« sociaii
and economical advantageous because it can
• EHminata tha risk associated with gem
Ing pototants.
• Raduca waste.
• Oecraasa wortear exposure to high ns>
chemicaia.
• ESmlnate cross-media transfer of poUu
that can occur with treatment and disp
• Increase efficiency and performance.
• Reduce consumption of energy, natun
resources, virgin materials, and hazan
toxic inputs.
• Raduca costs of treatment and dispos
• Reduce the costs of ongoing regulator
complanca and Habiifty that result wtw
control systems taJL
• Oecraasa long-term liability a*. .«
off-tte dsposal.
WHAT Po*Jtton prevention maana "source reduction," aa
defined under tha 1990 Polution Prevention Act.
and other pracocaa thai reduce or aMnaaa tha
creation of poflutanta through:
• increased efficiency In trie uee of raw
materials, energy, water, or ofher
* rrotecoonot rwjrai resources oy
coneervadon. or
«3ubettuttono< non-toxic for toxic inputs In
The Petition Pravantion Act deflnes'sourca •
reduction" to mean any practice which:
• Reducea tha amount of any hazardous
subatanca, poflutart, or contaminart
entering any waste stream or otherwise
reieased into the environment (indudii
fugitive emiaaions) prior to recycling,
treatment, or disposaL
• Raducaa tha hazards to public hesRh
tha environment associated with the
reieaae of such substances, pollutant!
Polution prevention includes: equip mi
technology modfications; process or procedura
modffcatione; reformulation or redesign of proc
substitution of raw materials; and improvement:
houaekeeping. maintenance, training, or invent
.Undertha Polution Prevention Act. rec
dng, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal
methoda of managing waste once it has been
generated and. therefore, are not included with
definition of polution prevention. (Som
commonly described as "in-process rec,
quality as pollution prevention.)
-------
HOW E?A * fully committed to pollution prevention u its
preferred alternative for environmereal protection.
To achieve its objectives, EPA wtt:
Reduce Pollution
Strategic; apply poMlon prevention to al
environmental problems and oonoeme;
incorporate the strategy across existing
regulatoiy and norvregulatory programs;
implement the core requirements of the
Poflutton Prevention Act
Tactical: target high-risk problems both wlhln
and beyond thatradttonal scope of EPA*»
programs and regulatory authorities; use a
broad range of approaches, both vofantary
and regulatory, to promote polution preven-
tion.
Institutionalize PoButton Prevention:
Incorporate pofction prevention imo the
Agency's planning, budget, polcy. regula-
tory development and pemifttlng. enforce-
ment and implementation processes.
BuBd pubic understand*^ and gain support lor
pollution prevention in the snvlronmertal.
business, industry, agrlculure. and Federal
convnunUta.
Use comparative risk and the SAB Report to
target poButlflff prevention opportunMes.
EstabHah chaNngtog, measurable goals lor
problem areas thai have been identnod.
BuM Federal, stale, local, and tribal
Key potutbn prevention actMUes sihsr
currency underway or anticipated for the near future
Innovative Pollution Prevention initiatives, su
as:
33/80 Project, which encourages volun
participation by industry to reduce toxc
releases and off-site transfers of 17 sp«
chemicals in al meda (seeking 33% r*
tlona by 1093 and 50% reductions by 1<
using source reduction as the preferred
Source Reduction Review Protect, under which
the Agency wi target and review reguia-
tionam 17 key industries to identity oppor-
tunities to promote source reduction.
Green Lights Program, which encoura
Industry and states to hstafl high-efficie
BgWng. The Agency is extending this
program to encompass Green Cooling,
Green Computers, and other opporturvt
pramOii •fwgy*wmosnpy.
Pollution Prevention Enforcement Settiemer
obtain commitments by violators to retu
complance through poflutton prsventiot
measuree or to engage in supplements
prefects that wi achieve other eauiron-
mereaty beneficial imprevemr
Oealgn for tho Environment (DfE) pre ..w
involves working cooperatively with indt
to Identify and promote safer substitute:
toxic chemicals, along with other prevei
approaches. A pflot project, which will s
out the DfE model, is underway with tnt
printing industry.
Pollution Prevention Act: implementation of
requirements to facttate the adoption c
source reduction by: Poflutton Prevent!
incentive grants for states, the Potlutior
Prevention Clearinghouse, and training
Pollution Prevention Reporting Require*
ments Under the Toxic Release
inventory provisions of Emergency Pn
paradness Cteen Right to know Act
(EPCRA).
Pollution Prevention Sector Strategies in the
agriculture, energy and transportation,
federal government and consumer are
-------
(g)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C 204*0
MAY 2 81992
0»»ICI or
TMK AOaiNIITItTO*
fUBJICTs integration of Pollution Prevention into Media state
Grants
TBOKs r. Henry Habicht II
Deputy Administrat
YOi Grants Administration Personnel
Ibis memorandum expresses EPA's intention to encourage
pollution prevention in our aedia State grant programs, me
decision to issue this aeaorandua on pollution prevention vas
aade by the Senior Policy Council—whose members include
Assistant and Regional Administrators—at its March 19, 19*3
seeting. While ve recognise that vorkplan negotiations for FY*93
aay be undervay, the aeaorandua should be considered in addition
to existing guidance doeuaents to the extent possible in this
grants cycle. Zt is not intended to disrupt coapleted or on-
going vorkplan negotiations.
The stateaent reflects EPA's overall policy plan to
integrate pollution prevention into the Agency's activities
generally. Zn the longer tera, ve hope that this aeaorandua vill
proapt developaent of aore pollution prevention-oriented
activities in the rY'94 grants cycle. A aore detailed prograa-
specific strategy for the FY*94 grants cycle and beyond is being
considered and developed by a cross-agency workgroup with the
advice of the State/EPA Operations Conyittee.
Where possible ve ask that you approach each proposed
vorkplan and negotiate each avard vith a creative eye toward
buildiM in pollution prevention. The principles stated below
vill oulde your efforts in this regard. Clearly* these
principles aust be applied in the context of statutory and
prograa purposes and limitations, and aay be used to encourage
coordination of coapleaentary activities betveen aedia programs.
As a matter of policy and practice EPA defines pollution
prevention consistent vith the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
as elaborated on by the 1991 EPA Pollution Prevention Strategy.
Accordingly, pollution prevention is the first step vithin the
-------
2
environaental aanageaant hierarchy of: l) preventing or reducing
pollution at tha source, 2) recycling, 3) treataent, and 4)
diaposal or ralaaaa into tha environaent. Preventing or reducing
pollution at tha aourca ia tha firat atap in tha hiararchy of
option* for raducing tha riaks to huaan haalth and tha
anvironaant froa pollution. Sourca raduction alao includaa
practicaa coaaonly callad in-procaaa racycling. EPA recognizee
that tha raaaining ataps ara not undaairabla in thaaaalvaa and
aay adaquataly protact human haalth and tha anvironaant; tha
point is to eaphasite and sake uaa of pollution pravantion
opportunities where possible.
Consistent with the national policy established by the
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, the pollution prevention ethic
¦ust becoae an integral part of EPA's way of doing business,
including our grant awards. Our aadia State grants prograas
provide ua tha opportunity to proaote this ethic outside of EPA,
assisting State efforts to eliminate or reduce the aaount of
pollution they Bust deal vith in their environaental prograas.
Although activities that can be identified as discrate pollution
prevention activities are important, it is equally iaportant for
all environaental activities to integrate the pollution
prevention ethic to the aaxiaua potential.
Where consistent vith statutory and regulatory requireaanta,
the following principles are provided for consideration to tha
extent deeaed feasible by the parties when developing FY'93 aedi
State grant workplanst
1) The propoaed workplan reflects an explicit preference for
pollution prevention (reduction at the source) when feasible or
appropriate, and identifies pollution prevention activities as
appropriate.
2) The proposed workplan incorporates pollution prevention as a
priority in declalonaaklng done aa part of the activity.
3) The proposed workplan encourages opportunities to aodify
existing or develop new equlpaent, technology, processes,
proceduresi products, or educational or training aatarials to
proaote pollution prevention.
4) The proposed workplan encouragee institutional and aulti-aadia
coordination when appropriate.
5) The propoaed workplan identifies aaaauraa of pollution
prevention success (for exaaple, opportunities for aaaaurable
pollution prevention, apecific aethod of quantifying and
docuaenting quantitiea and/or toxicity of pollutante prevented,
conaidaration of other environaental benefits).
-------
3
6) When appropriate, the proposed vorkplan increasea tha
flexibility afforded to Stataa to incorporate pollution
prevention approaches into their grant-assisted activities, e.g.
through nuabers or typas of required outputs, or tiaing of EPA
deadlines.
7} When appropriate, tha proposad vorkplan includes specific
pollution prevention activities or approaches that say serve as
innovative models for other State progress and nationally. Zn
the alternative, the propoaed vorkplan encourages the use of
innovative activities or approaches already developed by other
progress or States, including coordinating with thea in order to
build on the existing success.
•) The proposed vorkplen includes e aechanisa to aaka pollution
prevention data and experience available.to other States and the
Pollution Prevention Xnforaatlon Clearinghouse.
Finally, the attached list of exaaples of pollution
prevention-oriented activities aay prove useful.
Attachaent
cct Assistant Adainistrators
Associate Adainistrators
Regional Adainistrators
-------
FYAMPLES OF STATF-BASFD POMITTTON PRFVFVTmM AfTTVTTTF.S
RCRA Programs
Since 1989, OSWER has allowed Regions and states to side off activities that would
otherwise cany national RCRA priorities for specific activities desired by a Region or «¦«»
Currently, op to 25% of enforcement resources may bended off. The remainder of the RCRA
program also has a flexibility process that favors activities: a) identified by Regions and as
nigh priority environmental needs (pollution prevention (P2) may be included acre), and b)
involving facilities ranked by Regions and states as priorities for environmental benefit and
significance.
This flexible approach has been used in a variety of ways to promote P2 by:
• funding a waste mimsnzadon position in a state to establish a newsletter and information
clearinghouse, provide irrhniraf assiwanrr through workshops and RGRA inspections,
and provide coortinarion and program development through waste exchange forums, trufe
association meetinp and conferences and gaining couraes;
• compiling a wrhniral resoace library in a state to serve as a sate-wide clearinghouse,
developing and presenting industry specific seminars, developing industry spccitc foes
sheets, and performing individual she visits. Industries targeted m tfais case include
equipment auto "f*" autobody repair, finishing, printing, and
laundries and dry riraning;
• in a Region, working with industries on P2 and waste minimization, compiling industry-
sjpeciffc waste mummzation manuals, and assisting stass with regulations and strategies for
• establishing a P2 library,
-------
• providing challenge grants to indirect dischargers to solve discharge problems by using
source reduction techniques and technologies;
• providing education and technical assistance to industrial dischargers;
• characterizing wastestreams, prioritizing industries for reduction opportunities, and
identifying methods for measuring progress;
• conducting energy audits at specific POTWs;
• establishing water conservation programs in the community.
Grants ranging from $30,000 to $100,000 were awarded to the States of North Carolina.
Utah, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Mexico. These demonstrations are intended to support
the development of a national pollution prevention in POTWs program.
Other Water Pmmrm; The following are EPA HQ and Regional activities, funded by the
P2 2ft program, that might serve as models for grant-funded activities in the stales:
• reviewing state laws to identify pollution prevention authorities and providing examples
of pollution prevention requirements in NPDES permits - products include a report on the
review of state legal authorities and model permit language for NPDES permits;
• conducting pollution tsevendon workshops for NPDES pennit writers and updating
NPDES BMP manual for use in workshop - products include workshops and updated
• assisting POTWs in identifying pollutants, determining sources of targeted pollutants,
and instituting changes ® reduce pollutant loadings at POTWs and IUs - products include
reports en mnimrmind changes, successes, and problema geared towards KUWs;
• developing a conference for the iron and steel industry to dijeuss pollution prevention
activities - products workshop companion notebook.
Pestlddcs and Toxics Progrun
The pesridde compliance program encourges states® consider poflutioo prevention
activities which a violator could undertake in exchange for appropriate enforcement penally
reductions.
In both pesticide and tosdes programs, states could achieve pollution prevention objectives
through tnspacdoo targeting and inspection procedures.
F1FKA groundwater protection grants support development of Pesticide State Management
Plans (SMPiX The plans outline environmentally sound use of pesticides that might pose a high
risk of groundwater contamination. Prevention actions, such as adoption of Integrated Pest
Management (1PM) and other measures to reduce th&quantity and toxicity of pesocide use, may be
components oif SMPa.
The pesticide certified applicator education and training program also has pollution
prevention components in that pesticide applicators are instructed in the proper use of pesticides
Certified applicator programs for protection of groundwater are provided in many states.
-------
Air and Radiation Programs
An underlying goal of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) is the prevention of pollution ax its
sooce. Rather than simply relying on a additional command and control approach, the CAA
provides a variety of ways k> foster reductions at the source: through market-based, emission
offset and trading programs; through economic incentives and disincentives: through the provision
of technical and financial assistance to industry to develop and utilize cleaner technology; through
the use of leaner fuels and vehicles; and through public education and outreach.
The CAA recognizes that the primary responsibilities for ensuring the success of these
efforts rests with state and local governments. Accordingly, reduction at the source is the
motivating force behind manyarthe Act's strategies and programs being carried out by state and
local agencies and for which EPA is providing financial astinanrc,
The CAA contains numerous provisions intended to reduce pollution at its source and
which are effected through grants d states and local agencies. For example, OAR has awarded or
will award grants to sate and local agencies toe
• incorporate early reductions provisions in their air toxics piogi ams to encourage sources to
rednce heavily upfront in orier to receive an extension for compliance and more time to investigate
and adopt alternative control technologies;
• frW ***** cnntwl twrtwirfngy i«*jii'n»ii»wt« nAM* nA»
source reduction options, and where not promulgated by EPA, to do caae by case sovoe
determinatioos or encourage those sources to secure emissions offsets to araid such
deternrinnkiu;
• revise their VOC regulations BfacoKponae acceptable alternative production processes and
menials;
• establish or expand efforts to funhcrredoce or avoid generation ofVOCs, CO and air toades
through enhanced motor vehicktonection and maintenance programs, oxygenated fad,
reformulated gas, vapor recovery, clean vehicle and dean fuels programs;
• promote and implement alternative transportation measures including the use of mass transit and
ride-sharing
• enable the provision of technical assistance to aid small bcsinesscs in understanding and
complying ndth the CAA in a cost effective way, hrhrfng tha consideration of source reduction
• unoantaPB ana petocipag a an innovative manrrT-oaseo acMucpuswon allowance taugiam mo
in efforts to conserve energy and promote renewable sources of energy by odlities and the
iiiimi factoring kus
• fnmnfr f*Vr ry^ft-kmd ir pJiMtfr*!, hw»im«»g
with the public and private sector* md
• work with EPA in targeting compliance activities and resources on the basis of risk, and ia
seeking compliance agreements that result in the institution of pollution prevention practices or
investments.
In the area of radiation, OAR has utilized the Radon Abatement Act to institute a non-
-------
itgnlatoy pogpni that relies heavily on pollution prevention as is philosophical underpinning ir
older to mingiae or avoid naturally occuring radon gas. This includes working with sate or loci
agencies on jiubtic outreach and education and on modification of building codes and with industt
on the me «
streamline the way facilities are regulated. The three companies participating m the pilot projects
will conduct in-depth inventories and audits of how they use hazardous subsonces. Tbey will then
explore P2 options such as process changes and the use of new, less polluting manufeuting
equipment uwy will also investigate the substitution of non-toxic raw materials for toxic ones.
These fadBdas will be the first in New Jersey to begin complying under a "facility-wide" permiL
Rather than ism separate permits for each discharge into air, water, and land, the facQides will
receive a single permit, designed to build P2 into the process.
-------
JUTTED STATU SMV1AONIIKMTAL PROTECTION AOENCY
VASHINQTON. O.C. 20490
•;0V I :592
hbisiiibsx
ewe>
n«4CMWT1UT0R
aUUBCTs 3t*ta Granta ouidaneat Integration or Pollution
mia aaaorandua announcaa tba Aftnoy-vldi pollution
aravantion Ouidanoa, baginning with tha r*'94 Stata granta cycla.
:t .taa four fo«lii
• Promoting pollution pravantion in Stata prograaa
auppui'tad through radaral granta lay aatafellahlng
Nation*! Prinoiplaa to guido vorkplana nagotiatad
botvaan Aagional Offlcoa and Stataa;
t Ensuring that grant raquiraaanta aa intarpratad by
9JL/Stata vorkplana an flaxlbla anougn to rapport
inaovativa stata pollution prevention activitiaa;
• satabliahiag a aiapla aoooqntinq prooaaa to ahara
information on suocaaaful Stata projects# and idantiry
statutory or ot&ar barriers to fu&dia? stata propoaalar
and
• Building austained Stata capacity la pollution
prevention to tba extant conaiatant with atatutory
grant raquiraaanta.
All of rbaaa objaetivaa ara aub-ject to any statutory and
regulatory limitations that apply in spaciflo circuaatancea.
Tha Goidaace should balp integrate pollution pravantlon into
^he Agency's activitlee aa required by tba
xtx ttaa. By sapfiaaislng flexibility, the Guidance
eoapleeenta other Agaaoy afforta to build a productive
anvironaental aaaagaaaat ayetaa in partnerabip vith tba Stataa,
and iaprova coordination vith axiatiag Stata pollution pravantlon
prograaa.
P. Hanry Kabieat llr*
Deputy Adaimatrator
Aaaiatant Adainiatratora
Regional Adainiatratora
-------
In general/ thia Guidance Applies to a_i zt the Agency's
.tadia-epeciflc Stata grant prograaa. isut par-ioularly to ma
followingi ^,affTl ft if ftflTi JiOS—Air Pollution Planning and
control; ean««wgiaw «»<* haaww Act J3011—rlazardoua
'aatai Tn««a^4^S^. TuwoiclAm. and ttadantlclde A**
323(a) (l)— Peatieidaej ^avie siihataneae emtral Act 531—
inforcewent tad Xhforceaent Activitiea under 5313 of the
2aergency Planning and Canualty Rlght-to-Knov Act; and eie«w
Water left JlOfl—Surface Water, 5104(b) (3)—wetlanda and Water
duality Management, and S319(h)—Mon-Point Source Management.
Building on the Agency'a aany eucceeaful pollution
prevention efforte, bag inning in rt'94 OA's grant prograne—
working vith Statee«»-saould explicitly pronota pollution
prevention in state worXplane (also called agreeaenta). Tfcis
saaorandua vill be incorporated into the annual Agency Operating
Guidance aa veil aa prograa-apecific Guidance developed thia
winter with the advice of the State/sm operatlona conittae.
Prograa Guidance, intended to tailor the Agency-vide caaaitaent
to each grant prograa, will be epplled by Regional Offices and
statae in the development of grant-aealeted vorfc.
The aatioaal Prlaoiplee elated belov abould help guide
lavelopae&t of m/atata verfcplana. These should be reflected ia
prograa-epeelfle ouldaaee# veighed la voctplaa diaouaaiona, and
uaed to qualitatively aaaeee prograa progress ia integrating
pollution prereatloa. Xh applying thaae Priaolpiee, legionsi
offieea aheulA use or eapead upea Ue menu ef fleaihility optioaa
belov to respond to state neada to the eatea* peeeihle* karnl
aaooBpllahaeat reperta# dlaeoaeed belov# vill help aaaeee m'a
pxogreee ia ¦qppaeClaf pellutiea preveation-orieatad itata
vorfcplaaa aad iiitiatlvM.
auifleeLJziafljsiei
Guidance for aech grant prograa covered by thia docuaent
should aafca dear that pollution prevention—aa defined in the
Agency-vide aaaorandsa of May 2S, 199* (attached)—ia EPlk*a
preferred approach to eavironaaatal aanagsaont where teohnlcally
and eoonoedoelly feeeihla. cone latent with the Pollution
Prevention lot, the duldeaoe ahould further the integration of
pollution prevention into state aetivitiee—e.g. inapeetlona and
permits—that are enpported by SFA grants. While pollution
prevention ia not aandated, the Princlplee are intended to aneure
that it la ooaaldered fairly in EPA/state vorkplana.
Specif lo propoeals froa stataa that are ceaaletant with
these Princlplee ahould be coneldered good candidates for funding
through the grant prograaa. In addition* aeglonai Officae ahould
take the initiative to euggeat pollution prevention approaches,
drawing upon program-specific Guidance and iapleaentation
workshops. Regional Offices and Stataa are expected to uae t»eir
-------
liscratlon m applying ~«m ?rinc:.plaa; tAay ara not colicatory
3l«o«nci of avary nagetiatad wormian. cue ratnar factor® for
sarioua eonaldaration m rha nagotiation procaaa.
?iia Prlnciplaa ara:
1) Tha vorfcplan appliaa tha EPA dafinition of pollution
pravantlon (aaa naaorandoa of May 21, 1992) conaiatant, with tha
Pollution Pravantlon Act of 1990 and tha 1991 ETA Pollution
Pravantlon stratagy.
2) Tha vorfcplan raflaeta an aacplicit prafaranca for pollution
pravantlon and ldaatlflaa pollution pravantlon actlvitlaa,
product!, or approachaa.
2) Tha vorfcplan incorporataa pollution pravantlon aa a priority
m anvironaantal oanagaaant daclalona aada by tha grantaa aa part
zt tha grant-aaaiatad actlvitlaa.
4) Tha vorfcplan ancooragaa opportunltlaa to modify axlatlnq or
to davalop nav aqulpaant. taohnology, procaaaaa, procaduraa,
preducta, or aduoatlonal or training aatariala to proaota
pollution pravantlon.
5) "Zhm vorfcplan ancouragaa institutional coordination— including
coordination with axiatlng Stata pollution pravantlon prograaa—
and aultl-aadla opportunltlaa for pollution pravantlon.
6) Tha vorfcplan cooplaaanta or builda upon axiatlng SPA
pollution pravantlon prajaeta (a.g. tha vorfc of aultl-aadla
induatry oluatara such aa tha Seorea Baduotloa ttaviav Projact,
and tha uaa of pollution pravantlon in anforcaaant aattlaaanta).
Tha vorkplan idantiflaa and appliaa aaasuraa and vaya of
doeuaantlng pollution pravantlon prograaa aa part of tha grant-
aaaiatad actlvitlaa (a.g. provldaa opportunltlaa for aaaaurabla
pollution pravantlon).
8) Tha vorkplan lnoludaa actlvitlaa or approaohaa that aay aarva
nationally aa ianovmtiva aodala for othar Stata or looal
prograaa. werfcplana alao ahould aneouraga innovativa approachaa
alraady davalopad by othar fltata or local prograaa, and isprova
coordination to build on axiatlng tuocaaaaa.
9) Tha vorkplan atructuraa grant output inforaation ao taat EPA
can aaka pollution pravantlon data and axparlanea availahla to
othar Stataa and tha Pollution Pravantlon Inforaation
Claaringnooaa.
Claarly, both partaara anat comply with any applicabla atatutory
or ragulatory raqulraaants and taJea into aocount othar faetora
that aay ba iapartant. Ragienal offlcaa and Stataa aay idantify
-------
i
-aditional Prirteiplaa -s guida worXplan raquiraaanta.
Pimm ±MH+j
Many aagional officaa alraady hava aada adjuataanta to
acconodata flaxibility naada. Tfia purpoaa of thia suidanca is
to aneouraga aue& flaaibillty. Uhanavar poaalhla, vorkplans
ahould acc.fi—mlata Stata flaxibility naada aaaoclatad with
uieorporatlng pollution pravantion approaohaa into thair grant-
aaaiatad actlvitlaa. That aaana vorXlng within tha paraaatars of
statutory aad ragulatory raquiraaaata eo trriva at an agraaaant
that ia practical and aaata tha partlaa* naada. Optiona Cor
rlaxibility ineluda (but ara not lisitad to)s
a) Adluataanta in nuabara or typaa of raquirad outputa
including, for aacaapla, (1) tradaoffa at dlaiavaataant froa
traditional raquixananta (noa-atatutory and non-ragulatory)
and (2) nultipla cradit for a aingla "aulti-aadia"
laapaction mat aaphaaiaaa pollution pravaation.
—An axaapla of (1) ia SOIA*a StZP-riax Suidanca. which
allowa dlaiavaataant froa national priority actlvitlaa and
ra-iavaaoaat in Xagional or Stata prior it iaai up to 2S% of
•nfornaaant raaourcaa in TY'ta and '93.
—An aaaapla of (2) ia baiag taatad in Ragion ona with
Haaaaobuaatta • Blacfcatona projact. Tha fear iacua la ho* to
"baan-oouat" a aingla aulti-aadia inapaction clalalng co
aatlafy anforcaaant raqulrananta undar sultipla atatutaa and
proaota pollution pravantion taohaioal aaaiatanea.
b) Xdjuataanta ia tlatng of noa-atatutory and non-
ragulatory OX daadliaaa.
c) Idaatification of a parcantaga of funda for pollution
pravantion within aach aadia prograa* coordiaatad by a
pollution pravantion offioa.
—For a*aa»la, Ragion 10 haa agraad to Alaaka'a raquaat to
allow tha Itata to idaatlfy 3% (9% ovar tha naat two yaarat
of graat piugiaa aoniaa—RC*A, air# aad vatar—for pollution
pravantion, to ba ooariUnarad by tha pollution pravantion
offlaa* Jhm aaaiaa will ba raflaetad ia apaoifio activitiaa
i aaaanalily ralatad to aaoh prograa*a contribution and
aeatatary objactivaa. Tha annual DA/ftata Agraaaant will
aapXisitiy idantify pollution pravaation actlvitlaa and
•paeif is diaiavaatnaata ia aach prograa.
d) Adluataanta in traditional or adaiaiatrativa proeaduro*
or achadulaa to aaaa SPA/ftata interaction.
To allow EPA to avaluata prograaa in intagratiag pollution
pravaation into Stata grant prograaa, aach Raglonal Offiea anouid
-------
3
proviaa an annual rapore ausaar^zinq pollution pravantion
kccoapliabaanta (a.g. activitiaa, produota, approach**, ate.), as
raflactad in gxanta-aaaiatad work, ma rapore nay taJca any farm
and say draw upon raperea davalopad to aatlafy otbar
raquiraaanta.
vfliila proqrtm apaolfio Ouldanca aay alaborata furtbar, aaea
raport ahould idantifyt a) auoeaaa atoriaa, including innovative
3tata projacta fuadad undar thia ooidanoa? and b) any barriara
(statutory or otftarviaa) that lad a proqran to rajaet stata
propoaala or to daolda agalnat including pollution pravantion
approacbaa. in addition, raoonandationa on ragulatory/
adainiatrativa, or othar ebangaa to lvrov* flexibility vould ba
halpful. Your contribution of thia inforaation la toay to aaJcing
pollution prevention a raallty in ZPX'a on-going braad and buttar
jor*.
gflMlttllWI
Incorporating pollution pravantion into BPX'a polioiaa and
proqraaa la a collaborativa effort raquirlng Ok to work in
soncart vltb our State partners* Tbe National Prinoiplaa and
Annual Reports daaeribad abowa will help ua to aaaaura our
proqraaa and build an our euooeeees.
Attacbaent
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C. 20460
NOV I 2 1992
(3)
MEMORANDUM ncACMNOTMro*
SUBJECT1 State Grants Guidance: Integration of Pollution
Pravantion \ »
FROMs F. Hanry Habicht
Daputy Adainiatrator -f
-------
2
In general, this Guidance applies to all of the Agency's
media-specific State grant programs/ but particularly to the
following: Clean Kir Act S105—Air Pollution Planning and
Control; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act §3011—Hazardous
Waste; Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
523(a) (1)—Pesticides; Toxic Substances Control Act 528—
Enforcement and Enforcement Activities under 5313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Knov Act; and Clean
Water Act 5106—Surface Water, 5104(b)(3)—Wetlands and Water
Quality Management, and 5319(h)—-Non-Point Source Management.
Building on the Agency's many successful pollution
prevention efforts, beginning in FY'94 EPA's grant programs—
working with States—should explicitly promote pollution
prevention in State workplans (also called agreements). This
memorandum will be incorporated into the annual Agency Operating
Guidance as well as program-specific Guidance developed this
winter with the advice of the State/EPA Operations Committee.
Program Guidance, intended to tailor the Agency-wide commitment
to each grant program, will be applied by Regional Offices and
States in the development of grant-assisted work.
The National Principles stated belov should help guide
development of EPA/State vorkplans. These should be reflected in
program-speeifio Guidance/ weighed in vorkplan discussions/ and
used to qualitatively assess prograa progress in integrating
pollution prevention. Zn applying these Principles, Regional
Offices should use or expand upon the menu of flexibility options
belov to respond to state needs to the extent possible. Annual
accomplishment reports/ discussed belov/ will help assess EPA's
progress in supporting pollution prevention-oriented ftate
vorkplans and initiatives.
ffltlPBll Prlnglplf
Guidance for each grant program covered by this document
should make clear that pollution prevention—as defined in the
Agency-vide memorandum of May 28, 1992 (attached)—is EPA's
preferred approach to environmental management where technically
and economically feasible. Consistent with the Pollution
Prevention Act, the Guidance should further the integration of
pollution prevention into State activities—e.g. inspections and
permits—that are supported by EPA grants. While pollution
prevention is not mandated, the Principles are intended to ensure
that it is considered fairly in EPA/State workplans.
Specific proposals from States that are consistent with
these Principles should be considered good candidates for funding
through the grant programs. In addition, Regional Offices should
take the initiative to suggest pollution prevention approaches,
drawing upon program-specific Guidance and implementation
workshops. Regional Offices and States are expected to use the
-------
3
discretion in applying these Principles; they are not obligatory
elements of every nagotiatad vorkplan, but rather factors for
serious consideration in the negotiation process.
The Principles are:
1) The vorkplan applies the EPA definition of pollution
prevention (see memorandum of May 28, 1992) consistent with the
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and the 1991 EPA Pollution
Prevention Strategy.
2) The vorkplan reflects an explicit preference for pollution
prevention and identifies pollution prevention activities,
products, or approaches.
3) The vorkplan incorporates pollution prevention as a priority
in environmental management decisions made by the grantee as part
of the grant-assisted activities.
4) The vorkplan encourages opportunities to modify existing or
to develop nev equipment, technology, processes, procedures,
products, or educational or training materials to promote
pollution prevention.
5) The vorkplan encourages institutional coordination—including
coordination with existing State pollution prevention programs—
and multi-media opportunities for pollution prevention.
6) The vorkplan complements or builds upon existing EPA
pollution prevention projects (e.g. the vork of multi-media
industry clusters such as the Source Reduction Reviev Project,
and the use of pollution prevention in enforcement settlements).
7) The vorkplan identifies and applies measures and vays of
documenting pollution prevention progress as part of the grant-
assisted activities (e.g. provides opportunities for measurable
pollution prevention).
8) The vorkplan includes activities or approaches that may serve
nationally as innovative models for other State or local
prograa*. Workplans also should encourage innovative approaches
already developed by other State or local programs, and improve
coordination to build on existing successes.
9) The vorkplan structures grant output information so that EPA
can make pollution prevention data and experience available to
other States and the Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse.
Clearly, both partners must comply vith any applicable statutory
or regulatory requirements and take into account other factors
that may be important. Regional Offices and States may identify
-------
4
additional Principles to guide workplan raquirananta.
Flexibility
Many Regional Officas alraady hava made adjustaants to
accomnodata flexibility naads. Tha purpose of this Guidance is
to encourage such flexibility. Whenever possible, workplans
should accomodate State flexibility needs associated with
incorporating pollution prevention approaches into their grant-
assisted activities. That neans working within tha parameters of
statutory and regulatory requirements to arrive at an agreement
that is practical and meets the parties' needs. Options for
flexibility include (but are not limited to):
a) Adjustments in numbers or types of required outputs
including, for example, (1) tradeoffs or disinvestment from
traditional requirements (non-statutory and non-regulatory)
and (2) multiple credit for a single "multi-media"
inspection that emphasizes pollution prevention.
—An example of (1) is RCRA's RZP-Flex Guidance, which
allows disinvestment from national priority activities and
re-investment in Regional or State priorities: up to 25% of
enforcement resources in FY'92 and *93.
—An example of (2) is being tested in Region One with
Massachusetts' Blackstone project. The key issue is how to
"bean-count" a single multi-media inspection claiming to
satisfy enforcement requirements under multiple statutes an
promote pollution prevention technical assistance.
b) Adjustments in timing of non-statutory and non-
regulatory EPA deadlines.
c) Identification of a percentage of funds for pollution
prevention within each media program, coordinated by a
pollution prevention office.
—For example, Region 10 has agreed to Alaska's request to
allow the State to identify 3% (5% over the next two years)
of grant program monies—RCRA, air, and water—for pollution
prevention, to be coordinated by the pollution prevention
offiee. The monies will be reflected in specific activities
reasonably related to each program's contribution and
statutory objectives. The annual EPA/State Agreement will
explicitly identify pollution prevention activities and
specific disinvestments in each program.
d) Adjustments in traditional or administrative procedures
or schedules to ease EPA/State interaction.
Annual Accomplishment Report
To allow EPA to evaluate progress in integrating pollution
prevention into State grant programs, each Ragional Office should
-------
s
provide an annual report summarizing pollution prevention
accomplishments (e.g. activities, products, approaches, etc.)/ a
reflected in grants-assisted work. The report nay take any form
and may draw upon reports developed to satisfy other
requirements.
While program-specific Guidance say elaborate further, each
report should identify: a) success stories, including innovative
State projects funded under this Guidance; and b) any barriers
(statutory or otherwise) that led a program to reject State
proposals or to decide against including pollution prevention
approaches. In addition, recommendations on regulatory,
administrative, or other changes to improve flexibility would be
helpful. Your contribution of this information is key to making
pollution prevention a reality in CPA's on-going bread and butter
work.
Conclusion
Incorporating pollution prevention into EPA's policies and
programs is a collaborative effort requiring EPA to work in
concert with our State partners. The National Principles and
Annual Reports described above will help us to measure our
progress and build on our successes.
Attachment
-------
APPENDIX B
SECTIONS 106 AND 604(b)
SUGGESTED
WORK PROGRAM ELEMENTS
-------
01/12/9
RECOMXBHDBD LZ8T 07 PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR 106 and 604(b) GRANT8
1. OUTREACH/TECHNICAL AS8Z8TAMCE - All costs associated with
public participation and providing technical assistance
should be included in this program element.
a. Technical assistance
b. Public participation
- Public notice of regulations
- Workshops
c. Training
d. Operator certification
e. Operation and Maintenance (06M)
f. Outreach
- Providing assistance to communities (including
schools and volunteer groups)
- Public meetings
- Public education on EPA policies (beneficial use of
sludge, stormvater, etc.)
2. WATER QUALITY PLANNING - All costs of preparing and updating
water quality management plans, assuring the consistency of
permits and construction grants with them, and of meeting
other point and non-point source planning requirements of
the Clean Water Act belong to this program element.
a. Geographic/Watershed planning
b. Basin Plans/Water Quality Management (WQM) Plan
certification
c. Nonpoint Source (NPS) planning activities
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
e. State Continuing Planning Process (CPP)
f. State Capacity
g. Interstate/international consistency (EIS,
Clearinghouse)
h. 304(1) List
i. 303(d) List
j. ..Contingency plan development revision
k. Coastal Zone Management (CZM) NPS program planning
-------
2
3. EM70RC2MZHT AND COMPLIANCE - All costs of State/Tribal
enforcement of general permit and National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions and
compliance schedules (including sludge), and other
legislative and regulatory requirements under the Clean
Water Act and directly related legislation belong under this
program element.
a. Compliance monitoring evaluation (source monitoring)
b. Inspections (Sampling/Non-sampling)
c. Special Investigations
d. Performance audits
e. Lab and field support for enforcement
f. Emergency response/contingency plans
g. Legal support
h. Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Coding/DMR Mailing
- Violation evaluations
- Data maintenance (PCS/PPETS)
- Submission of DMR QA information independent of
national studies
i. Quarterly Non-compliance Report (QNCR) preparation
j. Preparation case documents/coordination to establish
clear administrative record
k. Issue State administrative and consent decrees
(compliance penalty)
1. Respond to EPA notices of violation
m. Civil/criminal referrals to State Attorney General/
follow-up
n. Draft judicial consent agreements
o. Development/updating of program authorization
p. Technical support to judicial actions
q. Administrative and judicial order tracking and
follow-up
-------
PSXMXT8 - (other than Sludge, Pretreatment, CSO,
storavater).
All costs of issuing, reissuing and modifying NPDES permits,
including general permits belong under the Permits program
element. Also, costs of reviewing and processing CWA
section 402 applications and section 404 permit programs
should be included.
a. Processing NPDES permits and general permits
b. Develop NPDES permit conditions, compliance schedules
c. Re-issuance of existing National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits/terminations
d. Processing NPDES permit modifications
e. Review and process 402 applications
f. Public Notice of permit activities
g. 401 Certification (State permit certification)
j. 404 Permits (dredge and fill)
i. Permit tracking system operations
k. Final Determination Finding (FDF) review/decision
1. Evidentiary hearing resolutions
m. 316 Determinations
n. Review of TRE/TIE
o. Application review
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (C80) - All costs of establishing
and operating a State/Tribal NPDES program for combined
sewer overflows (CSO's) belong to this program element.
a. Enforcement activities
b. Processing NPDES permits
c. Re-issuance of existing NPDES permits
d. Processing NPDES permit modifications
e. Review and process 402 application
STOianaTXR - All costs of establishing and operating a
State/Tribal NPDES program for stormwater belong to this
program element.
a. Enforcement activities
b. Processing NPDES permits and general permits
c. Re-issuance of existing NPDES permits
d. Processing NPDES permit modifications
e. Review and process 402 application
f. Review pollution prevention plans
g. Review group applications
h. Pre-permit inspections or site visits
i. Development and updating of State stormwater program
-------
4
7. 8LUZK3I KAHXQZMSKT - All costs of establishing and operatir
a State/Tribal program to ensure that sludge from waste
water treatment facilities meets sludge use and disposal
requirements belong to this program element.
a. Compliance monitoring and enforcement activities
b. Processing NPDES or other approved State sludge
management permits and general permits
c. Re-issuance of existing NPDES or other approved State
sludge management permits
d. Processing NPDES or other approved State sludge
management permit modifications
e. Development of sludge permit conditions
f. Development of delegated sludge management programs
8. VRETREATMEMT - All costs of State pretreatment programs and
oversight of technical assistance of local pretreatment
programs belong under this program element.
a. Enforcement activities
b. Processing NPDES permits
c. Re-issuance of existing NPDES Permits
d. Review and process 402 application
e. Legal support
f. Review local CWA POTW pretreatment program
g. Establish State authority/program to include PT in potw
permits
h. Develop pretreatment programs for municipalities
-------
OROOVDWATER - All costs of establishing and operating a
Comprehensive state Groundwater Protection Program (cscwpp)
consistent with EPA's National CSGWPP guidance, including
the Well Head Protection Program (WHPP) belong in this
program element.
a. Groundwater Protection Seal
- strategies
- state ground water policy
b. Priority-Setting
-- Classification (including Sole Source Aquifers)
- Wellhead Protection Area Delineations
- Geographic targeting
- state management areas/recharge areas
- Mapping and vulnerability
- source inventories and assessments
- Formal adoption of standards and measures of ground
water protection
c. Roles, Authorities, Coordinating Mechanisms
- Legislation
- Regulations development
- Local ordinances
- state funding
- Local funding
- Delegation
- Coordinating committees (intrastate)
- International and interstate activities
- Tribal programs
d. Strategio Implementation Activities
- Permit programs
- Regulations/ordinances related to WHPP and other
priority areas
- Well standards program
- Source control programs (e.g., Pesticides, RCRA,
CERCLA, UIC, UST, etc.)
- Spill response program
- Program evaluation and planning
e. Integrated Information Collection and Management
- Geographic information systems
- Integrated data management, including monitoring,
record keeping, QA/QC plans, Minimum Set of Data
Elements
f. Publio Education and Participation
- Outreach/information
- Public education
-------
6
10. N70 IMPLEMENTATION - All costs of carrying out State/Triba.
programs to implement non-point source controls belong in
this program element. (Note: Some NPS programs are
regulatory)
a. Establish NPS legal/administrative capabilities
b. Regulatory NPS control programs management
c. Implementation of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) NPS
Program
d. Education and information activities
e. Federal consistency reviews
f. BMP audits
11. AMBIENT MONITORING - All costs of developing and
implementing monitoring strategies and programs for
assessing water quality conditions and trends in the state
or Tribal waters, including event related, habitat, and
biological monitoring belong under this program element.
Summarize all monitoring activities under other program
elements such as nonpoint source, lakes, estuaries,
wetlands, groundwater and wet weather surveys
(CSO/stormwater).
a. Development and Continued Planning of Monitoring
Strategies and Plans (Objectives)
b. Monitoring Design (including
stat ions .^parameters) /frequency
- Fixed station network
- Intensive surveys
- Targeted areas under watershed, multi-program
and individual programs
- Biological and physical integrity monitoring
(including reference site characterization)
c. Development of written protocols (field/lab/assessment)
d. Laboratory analytical support
e. Quality assurance/quality control (field/lab/data)
f. Data storage, management and sharing
g. Assessment
h. Reporting (including 305(b))
i. Monitoring and data management training
j. Volunteer monitoring
k. Evaluation
-------
7
12. WATER QUALITY STAHDARDS - All costs of developing and
adopting and administering State/Tribal water quality
standards, including numeric and narrative criteria, and
anti-degradation policies, including use attainability
analyses, belong under this program element.
a. Setting beneficial use/water quality standards
b. Review/revision of water quality standards (WQS)
c. Antidegradation policy formulation and implementation
d. Use attainability analyses
e. Development of biocriteria and bioassessment
methodologies
13. ADKXMX8TRATXOV - All necessary costs of program
administration, including allowable indirect costs, not
assigned to categorical program elements belong under this
program element.
- work program development
- Preparation for EPA mid-year, year-end program
reviews
- Financial/administrative tracking
- Program ovirsight
- Activities related to assuming delegations
- Updating State statutes rules, and delegation
documents of delegated programs.
- public participation not in other PEs
- supervisory/clerical costs not in other PEs
- Billing/fee collection
- state capacity studies
14. OTXZR - All costs of State/Tribal specific priority water
quality activities and outputs included in a work program
belong under this program element, but only if they cannot
be assigned to any of the categorical program elements.
This should be considered the category-of-last-resort, and
be used primarily to avoid distorting the resource levels
addressing national priorities.
a. Wetlands
b. Statewide Lakes Program
c. Bays/Estuary Studies
-------
APPENDIX C
EPA
OFFICE OF
WASTEWATER ENFORCEMENT
AND
COMPLIANCE
FY94 SECTION 106
SURFACE WATER
GRANT GUIDANCE
-------
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: FY 1994 Section 106 Surface Water Grant Guidance
FROM: Michael B. Cook, Director
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
(WH-546)
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
PURPOSE
This guidance, pertaining to the procedures and principles
for award and oversight of the Section 106 Surface Water grant
funds to States and interstate agencies, is intended to
supplement the FY 1994 Agency Operating Guidance.1 2
BACKGROUND
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes
assistance to States and interstate agencies to administer
programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of water
pollution including programs for the development and implementa-
tion of ground water protection strategies. The CWA in Section
106(d) requires States and interstate agencies to sustain a
maintenance of effort (MOB), to expend annually for recurrent 106
program expenditures an amount of non-Federal funds which are at
least equal to expenditures during the fiscal year ending
1 This guidance should be used in conjunction with: the
Administrator's Policy on Performance-Based Assistance, May 31,
1985; 40 CFR Part 31 General Grant Regulations; 40 CFR Part 35,
Subpart A, Regulations for Financial Assistance for continuing
Environmental Programs; 40 CFR Part 130 Water Quality Planning
and Management Regulations; and the annual Agency Operating
Guidance (AOG) which identifies specific priorities for Section
106 eligible activities.
2 The September 27, 1989, guidance for grants to Indian
Tribes under Section 106 and 314 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is
still in effect (Attachment 2). Supplemental FY 1994 guidance
for grant awards under Section 106 for ground water protection
will be developed by the Headquarters Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water.
-------
2
June 30/ 1971. Sine* 1978 they have been required by regulation
to maintain at least FY 1977 levels in order to receive funds for
construction grants management under Section 205(g). (See 40
CFR 35.305 Maintenance of Effort.)3 In accordance with Section
106(f)(3) of the CWA, States and interstate agencies oust submit
annually for approval, prior to July 1, their water pollution
control programs.
Section 106(e) of the CWA requires States to establish and
maintain adequate monitoring programs as prerequisites for
Section 106 grant awards and to maintain provisions for updating
the Section 305(b) report. (See 40 CFR 35.260 Limitations.)
WORK PROGRAM
State and Local Assistance Regulations at 40 CFR
35.130 specify the structure of the Section 106 work program as
does the Water Quality Management Regulations at 40 CFR 130.11
(a) thru (e). The work program is part of the grant application
and serves as the basis for the management and evaluation of
performance under the grant. The grantee must provide in the
work program:
- the work years;
- amount, and source of funding estimated to be needed for
each program element;
- outputs committed to under each program element;
- schedule for accomplishment; and
- identification of the agency responsible for each of the
elements and outputs.
For consolidated grant applications see the regulation
requirements at 40 CFR 35.145. The terms work program, program
element, and outputs are defined under 40 CFR 35.105.
Regions have the flexibility to negotiate specific program
elements for use in developing Section 106 grant application
program element budgets and work programs with States. However,
the Regions must assure that all grantees comply with current
statutory and SPA regulatory requirements by providing in their
Section 10* grant applications a program element budget and a
work pi mil1 am which supports it. A recommended list of program
elements for use in developing Section 106 grant work programs
and program element budgets is provided in Appendix A
(Attachment 1).
3 Until Section 205(g) funds obligated to a State by EPA in
all fiscal years, including fiscal years after 1990 have been
spent by the State or returned to EPA, the State is required to
maintain at least its FY 1977 water pollution control program
spending level.
-------
3
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
In accordance with 40 CFR 35.150, Regions will oversee
performance under Section 106 assistance agreements. Grantees
are responsible for performing activities and completing outputs
outlined in the negotiated grant work program within the
specified timelines. The Regional project officer will (1)
evaluate each recipient's performance and progress toward
completing the outputs in the approved work program according to
the schedule, (2) provide the findings of the evaluation to each
recipient, and (3) will include the findings in the grant file.
If the evaluation reveals deficiencies in a work program, the
Region will in coordination with the Regional Grants Management
Office, develop an action plan as needed for addressing
performance problems. The Regional Administrator will impose
sanctions only when corrective actions have failed to solve
significant performance deficiencies.
INTEGRATING POLLPTIOH PREVENTION INTO SECTION 106 GRANTS
The Section 106 grant work programs in FY 1994 should
emphasize a pollution prevention approach in conducting grant-
assisted activities as outlined in Deputy Administrator
F. Henry Habicht II's guidance memorandum of November 12, 1992
(Attachment 3). The memorandum also has an attachment that
provides the Agency's definition of pollution prevention and is
included in Attachment 3. The guidance memorandum encourages and
supports State pollution prevention initiatives in grant-assisted
activities and promotes the pollution prevention ethic as a way
of conducting environmental management responsibilities under
State grant programs. To the degree possible, grant-assisted
activities should be conducted according to the environmental
management hierarchy which places highest priority on source
reduction/pollution prevention, followed in order by recycling,
treatment, and disposal. Opportunities for integrating, pollution
prevention into Section 106 program areas include, but are by no
means limited to, water quality standards, permitting,
inspection, enforcement settlement, multi-media coordination,
reporting and training activities. Each grantee should provide a
summary report of activities associated with pollution
prevention. The report should also identify any barriers or
impediments to including pollution prevention in the Section 106
grant work program.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AMP NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
ISSUES
Section 106 grant applicants must currently specify the
following regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 O.S.C.
Section 1531-1544, and the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), 16 U.S.C. Section 470-1 to 470w-6:
-------
4
[The applicant] [v]ill comply with environmental standards
which Bay be prescribed pursuant to...protection of
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act...
[The applicant] [v]ill assist the awarding agency in
assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act...
EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are engaged in ongoing
discussions regarding Section 106 grants and the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
program. Based on these discussions, supplemental guidance on
Secton 106 grants and the ESA may be necessary at a future date.
In addition, the NHPA was recently amended. As with the ESA,
supplemental guidance on Section 106 grants and the NHPA may
become necessary.
REVISED POLICY REGARDING TREATMENT AS A STATE (TX3) FOR INDIAN
tribes
Deputy Administrator F. Henry Habicht IZ issued a policy
memorandum dated November 10, 1992, which will affect our TAS
process and current regulations at 40 CFR Parts 35 and 130. (See
Attachment 4.) Office of General Counsel has advised that until
our current existing regulations are amended, they remain in
effect. Therefore, the September 27, 1989, guidance memorandum
entitled "Guidance for Grants to Indian Tribes Under Section 106
and 314 of the Clean Water Act" also remains in effect. Revised
Section 106 Indian Grant Guidance will1be developed following the
amendments to current Agency regulations. The Office of Water
will be taking the lead in revising affected program regulations.
MILESTONES
The following milestones for the Section 106 grant awards
process was developed to assure that all State Section 106 grants
are awarded by September 30, or as soon as funds are made
available.
3/1 OWIC will issue Section 106 State funding targets to
Regional Program and Grants Management Office (GKOs) based
upon the President's budget request by March 1.
4/1 Prior to April 1, Regions/States are encouraged to conduct
senior level meetings to discuss mutual priorities, long-
term objectives, and work program development. It is
recommended that 106 work programs support long-range
strategic plans which are mutually agreed to by the Regions
and States.
-------
5
4/1 By April 1 Regions will issue final work prograa and funding
guidance to their States for the Section 106 prograa
reflective of prior Region/State senior level planning
discussions. If EPA Headquarters Agency Operating Guidance
is not final toy April 1, Regions will use the Headquarters
draft guidance in preparing State guidance.
6/1 All States will submit draft Section 106 work programs and
grant applications to EPA by the first of June.
7/15 Regions will respond to draft State work programs within 30-
45 days of receipt. Regional Hater Management Division
staff will conduct work prograa negotiations, but unresolved
issues will be elevated as they occur in the process to
allow for issue resolution in time to coaplete the grant
work prograa negotiation and be ready for funding by
Septeaber 30.
9/15 By Septeaber 15, the Regions will notify the States on the
status of their Section 106 grant applications and work
prograas which will serve as the official notification of
the need to finalize the documents.
9/30 Section 106 grant applications and work prograas will be
finalized and forwarded to the Regional Grants Management
Office by Septeaber 30, pending award upon the availability
of fxrnds.
Attachments (4)
1) Appendix A — Revised Prograa Eleaent List for Section 106
and 604(b) Grants
2) Septeaber 27, 1989, Guidance for Grants to Indian Tribes for
Section 106 and 314 of the Clean Hater Act
3) Deputy Adainistrators' State Grants Guidance: Integration
of Pollution Prevention dated Noveaber 12, 1992, including
the attachaent (Deputy Adainistrator P. Henry Habicht Il's
aeaorandua dated May 28, 1992, Subject: EPA Definition of
"Pollution Prevention")
4) Deputy Adainistrators' Noveaber 10, 1992, aeaorandua
"Simplification of EPA'a Process for Treating Indian Tribes
as States"
cc: Hater Quality Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Hater Quality Coordinators, Regions I-X
Hater Prograa Indian coordinators, Regions I-II, IV-X
-------
ssm
MRU AND X£GUL>7)OMS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Policies and Procedures for the Stat* Continuing
Planning Process
Preparation of Watar Hualtty Management Plans
Procedures for Providing Grants to State and
Designated Areawlde Planning Agencies
SUBCHAPTER O— POLICIES AND PPOTFrxlRCS
FOR STATE CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS
| FRL 461-41
PART 130—POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS
Policies and Procedures for the State
Continuing Planning Process
On July 16. 1975. notice was published
In the Federal Register. 40 FR 29882,
that the Environmental Protection
Agency was proposing to amend the poli-
cies and procedures for the State con-
tinuing planning process (40 CFR Part
130) pursuant to sections 208 and 303(e)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972. Pub. L. 92-500.
86 Stat. 816 (1972): (33 tJ.S.C. 1251 et
seq.) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
On September 8.1975, notice was pub-
lished In the Federal Recxster. 40 FR
41649. that the Environmental Protection
Agency was proposing to amend the reg-
ulations (40 CFR Fart 126) which de-
scribes the policies and procedures for
designating areas and agencies In ac-
cordance with section 208(a) (2). (3), or
(4) of the Act. The designation regula-
tions have now been Incorporated Into
40 CFR Part 130. Part 131 of this Chap-
ter has also been amended. The amend-
FCOtRAL RtCISTER, VOI. 40. NO 1JC—F»IOAT. NOVEMSI* 18, 197S
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
55335
ments are In accordance with a Court
Order issued by Judge John Lewis Smith,
r in Natural Resources Defense Coun-
,l'et al. v. Train, et al., D.C. D.C. Civ.
Act No. 74-1485, which stipulates that
Section 208 planning must be conducted
by the States In all areas that are not
designated In accordance with section
208(a) (2) through (4) of the Act.
Sections 303(e) and 208 of the Act re-
quire State and designated area wide
planning agencies to submit a continuing
planning process which Is consistent with
the Act. The continuing planning process
directs the development of water quality
management plans and implementing
programs prepared pursuant to sections
208 and 303(e) of the Act and Part 131
of this Chapter (Preparation of Water
Quality Management Plans). All States
have a continuing planning process
which has been approved previously by
EPA: these amended regulations, how-
ever, will necessitate revision of the
States continuing planning process.
The amendments to 40 CFR Parts 130
and 131 are specifically designed to in-
corporate section 208 requirements for
both State and designated areawide
planning agencies Into a single set of
regulations that describes the policies
and procedures for such planning. Reg-
ulations under 40 CFR Part 35. Subpart
A describe the procedures for providing
grants to both State and areawide plan-
ning agencies for the conduct of section
208 planning. This consolidation of the
requirements of section 208 for area-
wide planning agencies and sections
303(e) and 208 for State planning agen-
cies will establish a single Statewide
process that fulfills all applicable re-
quirements for water quality manage-
ment planning and implementation un-
der the Act.
These amended regulations describe
the necessary elements of. and provide
procedures for review, revision, and ap-
proval of a State's continuing planning
process. In addition, these regulations
now provide the mechanism for States to
satisfy the Statewide requirements of
section 208. They also provide the States
with a mechanism for satisfying portions
of sections 303(c) (Review and revision
of water quality standards); 303(d)
(Critical waters and total maximum
daily loads): 305(b) (Assessment and
projection of water quality and related
Information. including nonpoint
sources); 314(a) (Clean lakes): and 516
(b) (Federal/State estimate of publicly
owned treatment works construction
needs); they also provide data for 104
(a) (5) (Federal report on water quality).
The broad goals of the continuing
planning process are to assure that the
necessary institutional arrangements and
management programs are established to
make and implement coordinated de-
cisions designed to achieve water quality
goals and standards; to develop a State-
wide (State and areawide) water quality
assessment; and to establish water qual-
ity goals and State water quality stand-
ards which take Into account overall
State and local policies and programs, in-
cluding those for management of land
and other natural resources; and to de-
velop the strategic guidance for prepar-
ing the annual State program plan re-
quired under Section 106 of the Act.
Assistance to State and local agencies
under Section 106 is dealt with In Sub-
part B of 40 CFR Part 35.
The level of detail of water quality
management plans will be tailored to the
water quality problems of the area, vary-
ing from intensive planning in desig-
nated, complex problem areas to mini-
mal planning where the State certifies
that no water quality problems exist.
The timing for development and the
content of plans will be established by
agreement between the State and the
Regional Administrator, consistent with
the following;
(a) Phase I plans consist of those plans
submitted prior to July 1, 1975, or those
plans submitted prior to July 1, 1976,
where an extension of up to one year has
been granted by the Regional Adminis-
tractor for specific basins or other ap-
proved planning areas. For Phase I. the
requirements for planning are those re-
quirements set forth in 40 CFR Parts 130
and 131. "Water Quality Management
Basin Plans," promulgated on June 3,
1974.
(b) Phase n plans consist of those
plans, or portions thereof, submitted af-
ter Phase I plans are approved. Initial
Phase II State water quality manage-
ment plans and areawide water quality
rrana?
-------
33336
RULES AND REGULATIONS
flict with the plan. Recognizing that
other determinations outside the plan-
ning process by EPA and/or the States
could lead to inconsistencies with ap-
proved plans, the final regulations clarify
how such determinations are to be dealt
with In revising the plans
3. Designation Procedures for Area-
wide Planning Areas and Agencies.
Many comments indicated that the
proposed procedures were unclear as to
whether the Governor made the final
decisions on designations or whether the
chief elected officials could override the
Governor's decision. In addition, many
comments also indicated that the pro-
posed regulations put an undue burden
on States that have already designated
the eligible areas and agencies within
their States by requiring them to reopen
the designation process.
The designation procedures have now
been clarified to indicate that the Gov-
erno;- makes the final designation deci-
sions. However, the chiel elected officials
are given the opportunity to fully par-
ticipate m the Governor's decision. In
addition, the designation procedures
have been revised to provide for a waiver
for those States where the Regional Ad-
ministrator determines that the initial
designation process resulted In the des-
ignation of all eligible areas and agencira
within the State.
4. Lack of Adequate Manpower and
Funding.
Concern was raised regarding the lack
of adequate manpower and funding
needed for the State and areawide plan-
ning agencies to conduct 203 planning.
The final regulations recognize that the
ability to conduct this planning in the
nonpoint source area will be dependent
upon the availability of additional re-
sources. Thus, these reflations have
been amended to allow flexibility for the
States in reorienting their water quality
management programs. The State'EPA
agreement on timing and level of detail
and the areawide planning agency work
plan are to be used as the mechanisms to
identify the specific planning to be con-
ducted by agreement with the EPA Re-
gional Administrator The timing of plan
preparation, however, is constrained by
the November 1. 1978 deadline. Thus, the
States and areawide planning agencies,
are required to tailor their individual
planning processes to fit the specific
planning constraints facing the agency
a6 well as the specific water quality
problems to be solved.
5. Water Quality Standards Revisions/
Antidegradation
State and areawide planning agencies
have been concerned throughout the de-
velopment of these regulations that EPA
has not adequately addressed the issue of
revisions to water qualitv standards and
development of a Statewide policy on an-
tidegradation. These regulations set
forth clearly EPA's policy regarding the
role of water quality standards In
achieving the goals of the Act and the
Agency's antidegradation position.
EPA strongly supports the establish-
ment of water quality standards which
will support the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish and wildlife p.nd
recreation in and on the water In fur-
therance of this objective. EPA believes
that water quality standards should be
established at levels consistent with the
national water quality goal of section
101(a) (2i of the Act for every stream
segment wherever those levels arc attain-
able. The guidance to the States in these
regulations regarding revisions of their
water quality standards is based on this
general principle While standards at
these levels may not be attainable now
for some stream segments. EPA expects
the State to continue to review their
standards and upgrade them to the na-
tional water quality goal whenever such
standards become attainable.
EPA Regional Administrators will re-
view the actions of the States regarding
these revisions and will, when appropri-
ate. request additional information from
the States to evaluate the basis for estab-
lishing standards at levels less stringent
than the national water quality goal
These regulations further provide that
existing water uses shall be maintained,
and where existing water quality stand-
ards do not specify and protect the exist-
ing uses, that the State shall upgrade
its standavSj to achieve such specifica-
tion and protection of these uses. These
regulations also provide that designated
uses in existing water quality stand-
ards shall be maintained and that the
existing standards, shall not be down-
graded to designate and protect le.cs re-
strictive uses unless one or more of the
criteria listed in 5 130 17(c) (3) are met.
It should also be emphasized that In
addition to the water quality standards
established by the States. EPA's commit-
ment to achieving the national water
cunlity goal will also be implemented
through the application of section 302 of
the Act That provision allows the Ad-
ministrator to establish effluent limita-
tions for point sources more stringent
than the technology-based limitations
mandated for 1983 when a greater reduc-
tion in discharges is necessary to achieve
the national water quality goal for a par-
ticular stream segment. The statute al-
locs a discharger to request adjustments
of such limitations if the discharger
demonstrates that there Is no reasonable
relationship between the economic and
social costs and the benefits to be ob-
tained. EPA Is convinced, however, that
the adoption of stringent water quality
standards, supplemented with appropri-
ate use of Section 302 limitations will
make the achievement of the national
water quality goal a reasonable prospect.
The Agency's antidegradation policy is
the same m many respects as the policy
that EPA and its predecessor Agency
liave encouraged the States to adopt in
the past. The policy provides for protec-
tion of existing instream water uses and.
for water whose quality exceeds the na-
tional water quality goals, prohibits deg-
radation except to allow necessary and
justifiable economic and social develop-
ment. In no event may degradation of
water quality interfere with or become
injurious to existing instream water uses.
The effect of including antidegradation
•requirements in these regulations is to
require the States to review their cur-
rent antidegradation policies and to es-.
tablish a mechanism, including a public
process, for implementing the State anti-
degradation policies.
As discussed above, these regulations
are issued in response to an Order of the
District Court for the District of Colum-
bia. and contain a provision for plan sub-
mission no later than November 1. 1978.
as required by the Order of the Court.
Given the limited amount of tune for
the plans to be completed, and the conse-
quent need for both State and areawide
agencies to move forward quickly to ad-
just their planning processes to these
regulations, good cause is hereby found
for making these regulations effective
upon publication.
In consideration of the foregoing. 40
CFR is hereby amended by deleting the
existing parts 126 and 130 by adding
a new Part 130 to read as follows.
Dated: November 21, 1975.
Russell E. Train,
Administrator.
Subpart A—Scope and Purpose; Definitions
Sec.
130.1 Scope and purpose.
130.2 Definitions.
Subpart B—General Requinmwiti
130.10 Planning process requirements.
130.11 Agreement on level of detail and
timing of State water quality man-
agement plan preparation.
130.12 Designation of State planning
agency.
130.13 Designation of areawide planning
Areas and agencies.
130.14 Delegation of planning responsibili-
ties.
130.15 Designation of management agencies.
130.16 Intergovernmental cooperation and
coordination.
130.17 Water qua! Ity standards.
Subpart C—Requirements for State Strategy
130.20 State strategy; contents and sub-
mission.
Subpart D—Relationship of Planning Process
and Other Programs
130.30 Relationship to monitoring and sur-
veillance program.
130.31 Relationship to municipal facilities
program.
130.32 Relationship to National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System.
130.33 Relationship of State and designated
areawide planning programs.
130.34 Relationship to other local. State,
and Federal planning programs.
130 35 Planning requirements for Federal
properties, facilities or activities.
Subpart E—State Planning Process Adoption,
Approval and Revisions Procedures: Separa*
b fifty
130.40 Adoption and submission of State
process description.
130 41 Review And approval or disapproval
of State process.
130.42 Withdrawal of approval of Stat*
process.
130.43 Review and revision of State process.
130.44 Separability.
Authobitt: Sees. 106. 20B. 303(d), 303(e).
305(b), 314. 501. 616(b) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended; Pub. I*
FEDERAL RCCr:TE», VOL. 40, MO. 230—FRIDAY, NOVEMBER J8, 197J
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
55337
62-500. 86 Stat. 816 (1972): (33 US.C. 1251
et. «eq.).
Subpart A—Scope and Purpose;
Definitions
8 130.1 Scope and purpose.
grams. including those for manage-
„nt of land and other natural re-
oources: and to develop the strategic
guidance for preparing the annual State
program plan required under section 106
of the Act.
(d) The "continuing planning process"
Is a time-phased process by which the
State, working cooperatively with desig-
nated areawide planning agencies:
(1) Develops a water quality manage-
ment decision-making process Involving
elected officials of State and local units
of government and representatives of
State and local executive departments
that conduct activities related to water
quality management.
i2) Establishes an intergovernmental
process which provides for water quality
management decisions to be made on
an areawide or local basis and for the
incorporation of such decisions into a
comprehensive and cohesive Statewide
program. Through this process. Stats
regulatory programs and activities will
be incorporated into the areawide water
qunlity management decision process.
(3) Develops a broad based public
participation aimed at both informing
and involving the public in the water
quality management program.
(4) Prepares and implements water
quality management plans, which iden-
tify water quality goals and established
State water quality standards, define
specific programs, priorities and targets
for preventing and controlling water pol-
lution in individual approved planning
areas and establish policies which guide
decision-making over at least a twenty-
year span of time (in increments of five
years).
(5) Based on the results of the State-
wide (State and areawide) planning
process, develops the State strategy, to
be updated annually, which sets the
State's major objectives, approach, and
priorities for preventing and controlling
pollution over a flve-year period.
(6) Translates the State strategy
Into the annual State program plan (re-
quired under section 106 of the Act),
which establishes the program objec-
tives. identifies the resources committed
for the State program each year, and
provides a mechanism for reporting
progress toward achievement of program
objectives.
<7) Periodically reviews and revises
water quality standards as required un-
der section 303(c) of the Act:
§ 130.2 Definitions.
As used in this part the following
terms shall have the meanings set forth
below.
(a) The term "Act" means the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended; Pub. L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816
(1972); (33 D.S.C. 1251etseq).
(b) The term "EPA" means the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
(c) The term "Administrator" means
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
(d) The term "Regional Administra-
tor" means the appropriate EPA Re-
gional Administrator.
(e) The term "continuing planning
process" means the continuing planning
process, including any revision thereto,
required by sections 208 and 303(e) of
the Act for State agencies and section
208(b) of the Act for designated area-
wide agencies.
(f) The term "water quality manage-
ment plan" means the plan for manag-
ing the water quality, including consid-
eration of the relationship of water
quality to land and water resources and
uses, on an areawide basis, for each
EPA/State approved planning area and
for those areas designated pursuant to
section 208a <2>. (3). or (4) of the Act
within a State. Preparation, adoption,
and implementation of water quality
management plans in accordance with
regulations under this part and Part 131
of this Chapter shall constitute compli-
ance with State responsibilities tinder
sections 208 and 303(e) of the Act and
areawide responsibilities under section
208 of the Act.
(g) The term "State planning area" ¦
means that area of the State that is not
designated pursuant to section 208(a)
<2>. (3), or (4) of the Act. State plan-
ning areas are to be identified in the
planning process description that is sub-
mitted by the State for approval by the
Regional Administrator. Depending
upon the requirement being considered.
the State planning area may be subdi-
vided into "approved planning areas"
that may Include the entire State or por-
tions of the State defined by hydrologic,
political, or other boundaries.
(h) The term "designated areawide
planning area" means all areas desig-
nated pursuant to section 208(a) (2),
(3), or (4) of the Act and 1130.13.
(I) The term "State planning agency"
means that State agency designated pur-
suant to section 208ta) (6) of the Act
and 9 130.12(a).
(j) The term "designated areawide
planning agency" means that agency
designated in accordance with section
208(a) (2), (3), or (4) of the Act.
(k) The term "effluent limitation"
means any restriction established by a
State or the Administrator on quantities,
rates, and concentrations of chemical,
physical, biological, and other constitu-
ents which are discharged from point
sources into navigable water, waters of
the contiguous zone, or the oceans.
(1) The term "schedule of compliance"
means in reference to point and non-
point sources of pollutants, a sequence of
actions or operations leading to compli-
ance with aoplicable effluent limitations,
other limitations, prohibitions, practices,
or standards which are contained in a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System permit or In a State permit
or other regulatory program which is
legally binding on the owner or operator
of the source.
(m) The term "target abatement
dates" means:
(1) For point sources, a sequence of
actions or control measures which have
not yet been formally adopted through
the permit process.
(2) For nonpolnt sources, a sequence
of remedial measures, actions, or op-
erations which have not been formally
adopted through Implementation of
management or regulatory programs
established pursuant to approved State
water oualltv management plans, or por-
tions thereof.'
(n) The term "National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System" means
the national permitting svstem author-
ized under section 402 of the Act, in-
cluding anv State permit program which
has been approved bv the Administrator
pursuant to section 402 of the Act.
(0) The term'Segment" means a por-
tion of an approved planning area, the
surface waters of which have common
hvdrologtc characteristics (or flow reg-
ulation patterns): common natural
physical, chemical and biological char-
acteristics and processes: and common
reactions to external stresses, such as the
discharge of po'lutants. Segments will be
classified as either a water quality seg-
ment or an effluent limitation segment as
fol'ows:
(1) Water quality segment. Any seg-
ment where it is known that water
quality does not meet applicable water
quality standards and/or is not expected
to meet applicable water quality stand-
ards even after the application of the
effluent limitations required by sections
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 40, NO. 230—FRIDAY. NOVEMBER 28, 197S
-------
M.'VW
RULES AND REGULATIONS
30in>>(lHB> and 301(b)(2)(A) of the
Act.
(2) Effluent limitation segment. Any
segment where It Is known that water
quality is meeting and will continue to
meet applicable water quality standards
or where there is adequate demonstra-
tion that water quality will meet appli-
cable water quality standards after the
application of the effluent limitations re-
quired by sections 301(b)Xl) (B) and 301
(b)(2)(A) of the Act
(p) The term "significant discharge"
means any point source discharge for
which timely management action must
be taken in order to meet the water
quality objectives within the period of
the operative water quality management
plan. The significant nature of the dis-
charge is to be determined by the State,
but must include any discharge which is
causing or will cause water quality prob-
lems.
(q) The term "Best Management
Practices" (BMP) means a practice, or
combination of practices, that is deter-
mined by a State (or designated area-
wide planning agency) after problem as-
sessment, examination of alternative
practices, and appropriate public partici-
pation to be the most effective, practi-
cable (including technological, economic,
«nH institutional considerations) means
of preventing or reducing the amount of
pollution generated by nonpoint sources
to a level compatible with water quality
goals.
(r) The term "residual wastes" means
those solid, liquid, or sludge substances
from man's activities in the urban, agri-
cultural. mining and industrial environ-
ment remaining after collection and
necessary treatment.
(s) The definitions of the terms con-
tained in Section 502 of the Act shall be
applicable to such terms as used in this
part unless the context otherwise re-
quires.
Subpart B—General Requirements
§ 130.10 Planning process requirements.
(a) The State and designated area-
wide planning agencies shall establish
a planning process which provides for
the establishment of necessary institu-
tional arrangements and management
programs to make and implement coor-
dinated decisions designed to achieve
water quality goals and standards. The
planning process shall Include:
(1) Public participation during plan
development, review, and adoption in ac-
cordance with section 101(e) of the Act
and in accordance with Part 105 of this
Chapter;
(2) Adequate intergovernmental input
in the development and implementation
of water quality management plans as
described in } 130.17;
(3) The coordination and Integration
of the water quality management plan-
ning" in State planning areas and in des-
ignated areawlde planning areas as de-
scribed In } 130.33, and coordination of
water quality management planning
with related Federal, State, interstate,
and local comprehensive, functional, and
other developmental planning activities,
including land use and other natural re-
sources planning activities, as described
in } 130.34;
(4) The preparation, adoption, and re-
vision. of water quality management
plans for the appropriate areas and
waters within the State that fulfill the
requirements contained in Part 131 of
this Chapter;
(5) The establishment and implemen-
tation of regulatory programs identified
in approved water quality management
plans prepared pursuant to Part 131 of
this Chapter;
(b) In addition to the requirements of
3 130.10(a), the State agency planning
process shall provide for the following:
(1) The development, review and
adoption of water quality standards in
accordance with § 130.17(a) and with
section 303(c) (1> and (2) of the Act;
(2) The development, adoption and
implementation of a Statewide policy on
antidegradation, consistent with the cri-
teria identified in 9 130.17(d);
(3) The review, and certification of
plans for designated areawide planning
areas as required pursuant to § 130.33:
and
(4) The annual preparation of the
State strategy as described in Subpart C
of this part.
(c> The description of the State plan-
nine process that is to be submitted by
the Governor pursuant to S 130.40(b)
shall contain, as p minimum, the fol-
lowing .
(1) A description of how each of the
requirements specified in S 130.10 (a)
and (b) will be achieved.
(2) A listing (s> and a map(s) of the
State showing proposed State planning
areas in which planning is to be con-
ducted by the State pursuant to this part
and Part 131 of this Chapter and a list-
ing(s) and a map(s) showing those area-
wide planning areas that have been des-
ignated or are expected to be designated
(including a timetable for designation)
under section 208(a) (2). (3). or (4) of
the Act in which planning is to be con-
ducted by areawide planning agencies
pursuant to 5 130.13.
(3) A listing(s) and map(s) of the
State showing each segment and its clas-
sification.
(4) A State'EPA agreement on the
level of detail and the schedule for prep-
aration of State water quality manage-
ment plans as described in 9 130.11.
<5> A schedule for review and revision,
where necessary, of water quality stand-
ards and 1 or development and adoption
of a Statewide policy on antidegradation,
together with a schedule of milestones
which includes proposed dates for public
hearings on the revisions and antideg-
radation policy. The schedule shall pro-
vide that the water quality standards
and the antidegradation policy will be
reviewed and revised In ample time to
be used as a basis for 1977-1983 manage-
ment and regulatory decisions.
(6) The Identification of the State
planning agency designated pursuant to
3 130.12(a).
(7) A listing of the areawide planning
agencies that have been designated by
the Governor or the identification of
areawide planning agencies that will be
designated by the Governor (including a
timetable for designation) to perform
planning in areawide planning areas
designated pursuant to section 208(a) (2)
or (3) of the Act and $ 130.13(b).
(8) A description of the State's man-
agement program to oversee water qual-
ity management planning conducted by
designated areawide planning agencies,
including the monitoring of progress and
accomplishment of key milestones speci-
fied in the areawide planning agency's
work plans, and to otherwise assure
timely and meaningful State involve-
ment in the areawide planning process.
(9) A listing of the delegations made
pursuant to 5 130.14(a) to the agency or
agencies that will perform the planning
under this part and Part 131 of this
Chapter.
'10) A listing of proposed represent-
atives on the policy advisory commit-
tee's) established in accordance with
5 130 16 for each approved planning
area
(11 > A statement that legal authori-
ties required at the local and/or State
levels to prepare, adopt, and implement
State water quality management plans
as required by the planning process exist
or will be sought.
§ 130.11 AsrffiiH-nt on Irvrl of dcluil
iind limine of Stute *ruter quality
ntunncrmriit plan preparation.
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
5.*>339
area wide water quality management
-<
-------
5.VU0
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(5) A statement on the factors con-
sidered In agency designation as de-
scribed in S 130.13(c).
(6) A summary of public participation
In accordance with the requirements set
forth in Part 105 of this Chapter.
(f) For areawide planning areas and
agencies to be designated after FY 1976.
the information received by 5 130.13(e)
shall be submitted at a later date to be
established by the Administrator.
(g) The Regional Administrator and
the Administrator shall review each sub-
mission pursuant to 9 130.13 (e) and (f)
to determine compliance with the Act
and the criteria set forth in S 130.13 (a)
through (d).
(h) Upon completion of his review, the
Administrator shall publish notice in the
Federal Register and shall notify in
writing the appropriate Govemor(s) of
his approval. The effective date of desig-
nation is the date of the Administrator's
approval of each designation. In the
event that the Administrator disap-
proves any of the designations, he shall
specify his reasons with his notice of
disapproval.
The appropriate Governor(s) may
from time to time designate additional
areawide planning areas and agencies.
In such cases, approval of the designa-
tion shall be at the discretion of the Ad-
ministrator, taking into account its con-
sistency with the State continuing plan-
ning process. The Administrator will also
take Into account the ability of any such
designated areawide planning agency to
develop and submit the areawide plan no
later than November 1, 1978.
§ 130.14 Delegation of planning respon-
sibilities.
(a) The State planning agency desig-
nated pursuant to 5 130.12(a) may dele-
gate responsibility, with the approval of
the Regional Administrator, to other
State. Federal, local, or Interstate agen-
cies for the conduct, where appropriate,
of any portion of the State's required
water quality management planning un-
der this part and Part 131 of this
Chapter.
(Note: The States ore encouraged particu-
larly to delegate water quality management
planning responsibilities to Federal agencies
where those agencies express a willingness to
accept delegation of State planning respon-
sibilities and possess adequate capability and
resources to undertake such planning.)
(b) Locally elected officials of major
general purpose units of government,
and other pertinent local and areawide
organizations within the Jurisdiction of
a proposed local or Interstate planning
agency, shall be consulted prior to any
delegation of planning responsibility to
an agency made pursuant to } 130.14
(a).
(c) Each delegation of planning re-
sponsibility to an agency made pursuant
to $ 130.14(a) of this section shall In-
clude:
(1> Hie agency's name, address, and
name of the director; and
.(2) The agency's Jurisdiction (geo-
graphical coverage and extent of plan-
ning responsibilities).
id) In the event that responsibility
for preparation of a portion of a State
water quality management plan is dele-
gated pursuant to J 130.14(a) to an agen-
cy other than t,-2 State water pollution
control agency, evidence from such other
agency shall be supplied which shows ac-
ceptance of such delegation of planning
responsibility and the agency's capa-
bility and intent to comply with the time
schedules set forth in the planning proc-
ess and to develop a plan, or portion
thereof, consistent with the laws of the
respective State, the requirements of this
part. Part 131 of this Chapter, and the
Act.
(e) The State planning agency may
make additional delegations, as set forth
in this section, from time to time. Such
delegations shall be accomplished by re-
vising the planning process as provided
in § 130.43.
3 I.>0.15 Di—iunuliim of ninii.T^cnu'iit
iiponcics.
i a) Upon completion and submission
of a water quality management plan, the
Governor shall designate Federal, State,
interstate, regional, or local agency(ies)
appropriate to carry out each of the pro-
vision^) of the water quality manage-
ment plan(s).
(b) In the event the State or desig-
nated areawide planning agency deter-
mines that cooperation from a Federal
agency (les) is required to carry out cer-
tain provisions of the plan, the State or
designated areawide planning agency
shall identify such Federal agency and
seek cooperation in accordance with
5 130.35.
(c) The Governor may designate a
specific agency(ies) to begin implement-
ing an approved portion(s) of the water
quality management plan(s) prior to
completion of the plants).
id) The Regional Administrator shall
accept and approve all designated man-
agement agency(ies) unless, within 120
days of a designation, he finds that, the
agency (ies) does not have adequate au-
thority, including the requirement that
statutory and regulatory provisions re-
quired to implement the plan be adopted
by the date of plan approval by the Re-
gional Administrator, and capability, as
required in 5 131.11(0) (2) of this Chap-
ter, to accomplish its assigned responsi-
bilities under the plan. The Regional Ad-
ministrator shall approve, conditionally
approve or disapprove such management
agency designations in accordance with
the same procedures to be used in ap-
proving water quality management plana
(see 5 131.21 of this Chapter).
(e) The Regional Administrator may
withdraw his approval made pursuant
to 5 130.15(d) in the event that a desig-
nated management agency(ies) fails to
implement the provlslon(s) of an ap-
proved water quality management plan
for which the agency (les) Is assigned
responsibility.
§ 130.16 Intergovernmental cooperation
and coordination.
(a) The process shall assure that ade-
quate and appropriate areawide and
local planning results will be Included
in the development and implementation
of water quality management plans for
the State.
(b) Local governments within the
State are to be encouraged to utilize
existing, or develop, appropriate Institu-
tional or other arrangements with local
governments in the same State in the
development and implementation of
water quality management plans, or por-
tions thereof.
(c) The State shall provide a mecha-
nism for meaningful and significant re-
sults from local. State, interstate, and
Federal units of government. As an ele-
ment of this mechanism, a policy advi-
sory committee(s) shall be established
to advise the responsible planning or im-
plementing agency during the develop-
ment and implementation of the plan on
broad policy matters, including the
fiscal, economic, and social impacts of
the plan. Use of existing policy advisory
committees is encouraged: however as a
minimum, this policy advisory commit-
tee shall include a majority membership
of representatives of chief elected offi-
cials of local units of government.
(Note: The Regional Administrator may.
at the request of a State, agree to a lesser
percentage of representation on the policy
advisory committee from chief elected offi-
cials of local units of government provided
there Is no substantial disagreement with
such a request from the affected local Juris-
dictions. Any proposal for lesser representa-
tion should consider the elements of plan-
ning that are being conducted and the tradi-
tional local role or Interest In the activities
covered by the planning.)
fd) The policy advisory committee for
designated areawide planning areas sha).
include representatives of the State and
public and may include representatives
of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture.
Army, and the Interior, and such other
Federal and local agencies as may be
appropriate in the opinion of ETA, the
State(s), and the designated areawide-
planning agency.
(e) The State shall provide for inter-
state cooperation (and where necessary,
in conjunction with and under the direc-
tion of appropriate Federal agencies
should provide for International coop-
eration) whenever a plan Involves the
interests of more than one State. When
a water quality management plan or
portion of a plan Is under development
or Is being Implemented In the State for
an area affecting or affected by waters
of one or more other States, the State
shall cooperate and coordinate with each
such other State in the development and
implementation of the water quality
management plan pertinent to such area.
EPA will provide assistance, upon re-
quest, to assure the appropriate coop-
eration and coordination between other
States and Federal agencies.
§ 130.17 Water quality standards.
(a) The State shall hold public hear-
ings for the purpose of reviewing water
quality standards and shall adopt re-
visions to water quality standards, as ap-
propriate, at least once every three years
and submit such revisions to the appro-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 40. NO. 130—FRIDAr, NOVEMBER IS, 1975
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
55341
prlate Regional Administrator pursuant
to section 303(c) of the Act.
(b) The water quality standards of the
State shall:
(1) Protect the public health or wel-
fare. enhance the quality of water and
serve the purposes of the Act:
(2) Specify appropriate water uses to
be achieved and protected, taking Into
consideration the use and value of water
for public water supplies, propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife, recreation
purposes, and agricultural, industrial,
and other purposes, and also taking into
consideration their use and value for
navigation: and
(3) Specify appropriate water quality
criteria necessary to support those water
uses designated pursuant to S 130.17(b)
(2).
(c) In reviewing and revising its water
quality standards pursuant to { 130.17
(a). the State shall adhere the following
principles:
(1) The State shall establish water
quality standards which will result in the
achievement of the national water qual-
ity goal specified in section 101(a)(2) of
the Act, wherever attainable. In deter-
mining whether such standards are at-
tainable for any particular segment, the
State should take into consideration en-
vironmental, technological, social, eco-
nomic, and institutional factors.
(2) The State shall maintain those
water uses which are currently being at-
tained. Where existing water quality
standards specify designated water uses
less than those which are presently being
achieved, the State shall upgrade its
standards to reflect the uses actually be-
ing attained.
(3) At a minimum, the State shall
maintain those water uses which are cur-
rently designated in water quality stand-
ards. effective as of the date of these reg-
ulations or as subsequently modified in
accordance with 5 130 17(c) (1) and (2).
The State may establish less restrictive
uses than those contained in existing
water quality standards, however, only
where the State can demonstrate that:
(i) The existing designated use is not
attainable because of natural back-
ground:
(11) The existing designated use Is not
attainable because of irretrievable man-
induced conditions: or
(iii) Application of effluent limitations
for existing sources more stringent than
those required pursuant to section 301(b)
(2> (A) and (B> of the Act In order to at-
tain the existing designated use would
result in substantial and widespread ad-
verse economic and social Impact.
(4) The State shall take into consid-
eration the water quality standards of
downstream waters and shall assure that
its water quality standards provide for
the attainment of the water quality
standards of downstream waters.
(d) The Regional Administrator shall
approve or disapprove any proposed re-
visions of water quality standards in ac-
cordance with the provisions of section
303(c) (2) of the Act.
(e) The State shall develop and adopt
a Statewide antidegradation policy and
Identify the methods for Implementing
such policy pursuant to (130.10(b)(2).
The antidegradation policy and imple-
mentation methods shall, at a minimum,
be consistent with the following:
(1) Existing instream water uses shall
be maintained and protected. No fur-
ther water quality degradation which
would Interfere with or become Injurious
to existing Instream water uses Is allow-
able.
(2) Existing high quality waters which
exceed those levels necessary to support
propagation of fish, shellfish and wild-
life and recreation In and on the water
shall be maintained and protected unless
the State chooses, after full satisfaction
of the intergovernmental coordination
and public participation provisions of the
State's continuing planning process, to
allow lower water quality as a result
of necessary and justifiable economic or
soical delevolpment In no event, how-
ever, may degradation of water quality
interfere with or become Injurious to
existing Instream water uses. Addi-
tionally. no degradation shall be allowed
in high quality waters which constitute
an outstanding National resource, such
as waters of National and State parks
and wildlife refuges and waters of excep-
tional recreational or ecological signifi-
cance. Further the State shall assure
that there shall be achieved the highest
statutory and regulatory requirements
for all new and existing point sources and
feasible management or regulatory pro-
grams pursuant to section 208 of the Act
for nonpoint sources, both existing and
proposed.
(3) In those cases where potential
water quality Impairment associated
with a thermal discharge is Involved, the
antidegradation policy and implement-
ing method shall be consistent with sec-
tion 316 of the Act.
Subpart C—Requirements for State
Strategy
§ 130.20 Stale strategy; content* and
submission.
(a) Based on current water quality
conditions, evaluation of program
achievement to date, water quality man-
agement plans developed under this part
and Part 131 of this Chapter (Including
basin water quality management plans).
and the annual EPA guidance (described
in Subpart B of Part 35 of this Chapter),
each State shall prepare and update an-
nually a State strategy for preventing
and controlling water pollution over a
five-year period. The strategy shall con-
tain:
(1) A Statewide assessment of water
quality problems and the causes of these
problems.
(Note: This assessment m>; be based on
the water quality analysis used to prepare
the State's report required under Section
305(b) of the Act. Once the water quality
assessment pursuant to I 131.11(b) of this
Chapter and the nonpoint source assessment
pursuant to I 131 11(d) of this Chapter are
developed, the Statewide assessment of water
quality problems and causes of these prob-
lems should be based on tlie plan assess-
ments Such assessments should then be re-
flected In the State's annual report under
•action 305(b) of the Act.)
(2) A ranking of each segment based
on the Statewide assessment of water
quality problems. *
(3) An overview of the State's ap-
proach to solving Its water quality prob-
lems Identified In paragraph (b)(1) of
this section. Including a discussion of the
extent to which nonpoint sources of pol-
lution will be addressed by the State
program.
(4) A year-by-year estimate of the fi-
nancial resources needed to conduct the
program in the State, by major program
element (as defined In Subpart B of
Part 35 of this Chapter).
(5) A listing of the priorities, and
scheduling of the State's water quality
management plan preparation and im-
plementation. areawide plans, and other
appropriate program actions to carry out
S 130.20(a)(4).
(6) A brief summary of the State
monitoring strategy (described In Ap-
pendix A to Subpart B of Part 35 of this
Chapter).
(b) The State strategy shall be sub-
mitted annually as part of the annual
State program submission pursuant to
{ 35.555 of this Chapter.
Subpart D—Relationship of Planning
Process and Other Programs
§ 130.30 Relationship to monitoring
and surveillance program.
(a) The State shall assure that an
appropriate monitoring program will be
established In accordance with provisions
of Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 35
of this Chapter.
(b) The process shall provide that each
water quality management plan shall be
based upon the best available monitoring
and surveillance data to determine the
relationship between instream water
quality and sources of pollutants and.
where practicable, to determine the rela-
tionship between disposal of pollutants
on land and groundwater quality.
(c) In areas where a State or desig-
nated areawide planning agency deter-
mines that a groundwater pollution or
contamination problem exists or may ex-
ist from the disposal of pollutants on
land, or In subsurface excavations, the
State or designated areawide planning
agency, to support the establishment of
controls or procedures to abate such pol-
lution or contamination as Identified In
5 131.11 (J)-(l) of this Chapter, shall
conduct (or the State shall require to be
conducted by the disposing person), a
monitoring survey or continuing pro-
gram of monitoring to determine present
or potential effects of such disposal,
where such disposal Is not prohibited.
Groundwater monitoring conducted un-
der this paragraph shall be coordinated
with groundwater monitoring programs
established pursuant to the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act (Pub. L. 93-523).
§ 130.31 Relationship to municipal fa-
cilities program.
(a) Before awarding Initial grant as-
sistance for any project for any treat-
ment works under section 201(g) of the
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 40, NO. 230—FRIOAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1975
-------
:,5342
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Act. where an applicable State water
quality management plan, or relevant
portion thereof, has been approved tn
accordance with this part and Part 131
of this Chapter, the-Regional Adminis-
trator shall determine, pursuant to sec-
tion 208(d) of the Act. that the applicant
for such grant is the appropriate des-
ignated management agency approved
by the Regional Administrator pursu-
ant to { 130.15.
(b) Before approving a Step n or Step
HI grant for any project for any treat-
ment works under section 201(g) of the
Act. the Regional Administrator shall de-
termine. pursuant to { 35.925-2 of this
Chapter, that such works are in con-
formance with any applicable State wa-
ter quality management plan or relevant
portion thereof, approved by the Re-
gional Administrator tn accordance with
this part and Part 131 of this Chapter.
(c) The Regional Administrator may
elect not to approve a grant for any mu-
nicipal treatment works under section
201(g) of the Act where an Incomplete
or a disapproved water quality manage-
ment plan does not provide an adequate
assessment of the needs and priorities for
the area In which the project is located,
consistent with the Act's planning re-
quirements.
(d) The Regional Administrator and
the State, through the agreement de-
scribed in { 130.11. shall assure that plan-
ning under this part and Part 131 of tills
Chapter related to any municipal treat-
ment works is accomplished In a timely
manner, consistent with State priori-
ties for construction of such municipal
treatment works.
§ 130.32 Relationrhip lo National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System.
(a) State participation In the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem pursuant to section 402(b) of the
Act shall not be approved for any State
which does not have a continuing plan-
ning process approved by the Regional
Administrator pursuant to 9 130.41.
(b) Approval of State participation In
the National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System pursuant to section 402
(b) of the Act may be withdrawn In ac-
cordance with the provisions of section
402(c) (3) of the Act and { 124.93 of this
Chapter from any State If approval of
the continuing planning process Is with-
drawn pursuant to i 130.42.
(c) No permit under section 402 of the
Act shall be Issued for any point source
which Is in conflict with a plan approved
by the Regional Administrator In accord-
ance with this part and Part 131 of this
Chapter, provided however, that no such
permit shall be deemed to be in conflict
with any provision of such plan or por-
tion thereof, hereafter approved, which
relates specifically to the discharge for
which the permit is proposed, unless the
State has provided the owner or operator
of the discharge and the Interested pub-
lic with notice and the opportunity to
appeal such provision.
§ 130.33 Relationship of Slate and desig-
nated areawide planning programs.
(a) The State planning agency desig-
nated by the Governor pursuant to
| 130.12(a) is responsible for assuring
that the requirements of section 20B of
the Act. this part, and Part 131 of this
Chapter are achieved Statewide.
(Nott : Where a designated areawide plan-
ning agency falls to achieve the require-
ments of section 208 of the Act. this part
or Part 131 of this Chapter, the State plan-
ning agency Is responsible for assuring that
such requirements are achieved In the de-
signated areawide planning area.)
(b) In order to assure that designated
areawide planning agencies achieve the
requirements specified in { 130.33(a) In a
timely manner and that such agencies
conduct planning that Is consistent with
planning developed by the State, the
State planning agency designated pur-
suant to { 130.12(a) is expected to pro-
vide leadership and support to desig-
nated areawide planning agencies and to
monitor progress of such agencies.
(c) Designated areawide planning
under section 208 of the Act shall be
incorporated In the water quality man-
agement plan for the State. The State
planning agency shall provide the review
and certification of such designated area-
wide planning pursuant to { 131.20(f) of
this Chapter prior to formal incorpora-
tion Into the State's water quality man-
agement plan.
§ 130.34 Relationship to other local.
State, and Federal planning pro-
prams.
(a) The process shall assure that State
water quality management plans are co-
ordinated, and shall describe the re-
lationship with plans for designated
areawide planning areas within the State,
v.-ith planning required in adjacent States
under section 208 of the Act, with af-
fected State, local, and Federal programs,
and with other applicable resource and
developmental planning Including:
(1) State and local land use and de-
velopment programs.
(2) Activities stemming from appli-
cable Federal resource and developmental
programs Including:
(I) The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended (Pub L. 91-512).
(II) The Safe Drinking Water Act
(Pub. L. 93-523).
(ill) The Clean Air Act, as amended
(Pub. L. 91-604).
(iv) The Coastal Zone Management
Act (Pub. L. 92-583).
(v) The Watershed Protection and
Flood Protection Act (Pub. L. 83-566).
(vi) The Rural Development Act of
1972 (Pub. L. 92-419).
(vtl).The Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund Act, as amended (Pub. L. 85-
578).
(vlil) The National Historic Preserva-
tion Act (Pub. L. 89-665).
(lx) The Fish Restoration Act (Pub. Lu
81-681) and the Federal Aid tn Wildlife
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 75-415).
(x) The Endangered Species Act (Pub
L. 93-205).
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
55343
mulatlon and Implementation of water
\ality management plans relating to
deral properties, facilities or activities
id land areas contiguous with Feder-
ally-owned lands.
(c) The Regional Administrator shall
assist in coordination of substantive
planning requirements for Federal prop-
erties. facilities or activities between the
appropriate State and Federal agency
(ies).
(d) Disputes or conflicts between Fed-
eral agencies and State, Interstate, or
local agencies In matters affecting the
application of or compliance with an
applicable requirement for control and
abatement of pollution shall be mediated
by EPA. In such cases, if attempted medi-
ation is unsuccessful the matter will be
referred to the Office of Management and
Budget under provisions of Executive
Order 11752.
Subpart E—State Planning Process Adop-
tion, Approval and Revisions Procedures;
Separability
§ 130.40 Adoption and sul»i«ii«.Mon of
Slate process description.
(a) The description of the State con-
tinuing planning process developed pur-
suant to § 130.10(c) or revisions to the
description of the State continuing plan-
ning process made pursuant to 5 130.43
shall be adopted as the official continuing
planning process of the State after ap-
propriate public participation in accord-
ance with section 101(e) of the Act and
with Part 105 of this Chapter.
(b) The Governor shall submit the
'dopted State continuing planning
ocess description to the Regional Ad-
inistrator for approval. Subsequent re-
visions to the continuing planning
process description, however, shall be
submitted as a part of the State program
submittal pursuant to J 35.555 of this
Chapter.
(c) Submission shall be accomplished
by delivering to the Regional Adminis-
trator the adopted planning process de-
scription, as specified in 5 130.10(c) of
this part, and a letter from the Governor
notifyfng the Regional Administrator of
such action.
§ 130.41 Koiirw nnd approval or dis-
approval of Stale process.
(a) The Regional Administrator shall
approve, conditionally approve, or dis-
approve, the State planning process de-
scription submitted pursuant to 5 130.40
of this part within 30 days after the date
of receipt, as follows:
(1) If the Regional Administrator de-
termines that the State planning process
conforms with the requirements of the
Act and this part, he shall approve the
process and so notify the Governor by
letter.
(2) If the Regional Administrator de-
termines that the State planning process
fails to conform with the requirements of
the Act-and this part, he shall either con-
ditionally approve or disapprove the
process and so notify the Governor by
letter and shall state:
(1) The specific revisions necessary to
obtain approval of the process; and
(11) The time period for resubmission
of the revised process or portions thereof.
(b) The Regional Administrator shall
not approve any State continuing plan-
ning process description which will
not result in timely State water quality
management plans that conform with
the applicable requirements of the Act
and Part 131 of this Chapter for all areas
within the State.
§ 130.42 Withdrawal of approval of
Stale process.
Substantial failure of any plan or
plans prepared pursuant to the approved
State planning process to conform with
applicable requirements of this part and
Part 131 of this Chapter, including gross
failure to comply with the schedule for
State water quality management plan
preparation, may indicate that the plan-
ning process by which such plan or
plans were developed was deficient and
shall be revised. Failure to accomplish
necessary revisions of the State planning
process may result in withdrawal of ap-
proval of part or all of the process.
§ 130.43 Review and revisions of Slate
process.
(a) The State shall review annually its
continuing planning process and shall
revise the process as may be necessary
to assure the development and mainte-
nance of a State strategy and State pro-
gram for preventing and controlling
water pollution, based on current State
and area wide water quality management
plans which will accomplish national
water quality objectives in conformity
with the requirements of the Act.
(b) In addition to any other necessary
revisions identified by the State or the
Regional Administrator, the Governor
shall submit, within 150 days after these
regulations become effective, whatever
revisions to the planning process descrip-
tion are necessary to Insure conformity
with this part.
(c) Subsequent revisions to the plan-
ning process description shall be sub-
mitted by the State as a part of the
State program submittal pursuant to
{ 35.555 of this Chapter.
§ 130.44 Separability.
If any provision of this part, or the
application of any provision of this part
to any person or circumstance, is held
invalid, the application of such provision
to other person or circumstance, and the
remainder of this part, shall not be
affected thereby.
|FR Doc.75-32012 Filed 11-26-76:8-45 ani|
| FRL 461-51
PART 131—PREPARATION OF WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
On July 16, 1975. notice was published
in the Federal Register. 40 FR 29887,
proposing amendments to the policies
and procedures for the preparation of
water quality management basin plans
(40 CFR Part 131) pursuant to Section
303(e) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972; Pub.
L. 92-500. 86 Stat. 816 (1972); 33 U.S.C.
1251 et. seq. (hereinafter referred to as
the Act). Part 130 of this Chapter has
also been amended. The amendments are
In accordance with a Court Order issued
by Judge John Lewis Smith. Jr.. In Nat-
ural Resources Defense Council, et al.
v. Train, et. al., D C. D.C. Civ. Act. No.
74-1485, which stipulates that Section
208 planning must be conducted by the
States In all areas that are not desig-
nated In accordance with Section 208
(a) (2) through (4) of the Act.
Sections 303(e) and 208 of the Act
require State and designated areawlde
planning agencies to have a continuing
planning process which Is consistent
with the Act. State water quality man-
agement plans are to be prepared in ac-
cordance with the State's continuing
planning process submitted and approved
pursuant to Part 130 of this Chapter.
These amended regulations describe
the requirements for preparation of
water quality management plans and the
procedures governing plan adoption, sub-
mission. revision, and EPA approval.
These regulations now specifically in-
clude the provisions for the State as well
as areawlde water Quality management
planning responsibilities under Section
208 of the Act and are designed to assure
that the plans prepared pursuant to this
Part 131 will be appropriate for water
quality management both In areas having
complex water oualitv problems and in
less complicated situations.
The primary objective of the water
quality management plans will be to
achieve the 1983 national water ouality
goal of the Act. where attainable. In
those areas where the 1983 water quality
goal mav not be attainable, the plans
shall Identify the water quality goals to
be achieved and. where necessary, pro-
vide appropriate information (such as
wasteload allocation Information) which
may be relevant In making water quality
related effluent limitation determinations
pursuant to Section 302 of the Act.
The water quality management plan
will serve as a management document
which identifies the water quality prob-
lems of a particular basin or other ap-
proved planning areas and sets forth an
effective management program to allevi-
ate those problems and preserve water
quality for all Intended uses. Thus, de-
velopment of the plans will Involve an
iterative process of establishing attain-
able water quality goals. Identifying nec-
essary controls and regulatory programs,
and determining the resulting environ-
mental, social, and economic impact.
EPA will prepare guidelines concern-
ing the development of water quality
management plans to assist the State
and areawlde planning agencies In carry-
ing out .the provisions of these regula-
tions.
Written comments on the proposed
rulemaking were Invited and received
from nearly 100 Interested groups, In-
cluding EPA Regional Offices, State and
local governments, other Federal agen-
cies, industrial organizations and special
Interest groups. In addition, verbal com-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 230—FRIDAY. NOVEMBER 28. 1975
-------
35014
RULES AND REGULATIONS
ments were also obtained from repre-
sentatives of State and local government.
All written comments are on file with the
Agency. Most of these comments have
been adopted or substantially satisfied by
editorial changes, deletions from, or ad-
ditions to these regulations. The majority
of substantive comments centered around
the issues discussed below
1. Timing of Plan Preparation.
Many of the comments received indi-
cated that the November 1. 1978 deadline
for plan submission was unrealistic. This
deadline has not been changed due to the
above mentioned Court Order which im-
posed a time schedule requiring "final
submission to EPA of complete Section
208 plans for nondesignated areas no
later than November 1. 1978."
The final regulations require the States
to submit Initial plans for the entire
State (including areawide plans devel-
oped by designated areawide planning
agencies) to EPA for final approval no
later than November 1. 1978. Although
the final regulations no longer require
the States to submit plans for pre-adop-
tion review, the regulations make it clear
that areawide plans must be submitted
to the States for certification and the
State. In turn, must submit the certified
areawide plans to EPA for approval
within two years from the date the area-
wide planning process is in operation
(and no later than November 1. 1978).
Pre-adoption review of areawide plans
by the State is required- pre-adoption re-
view of plans for the entire State by EPA
is encouraged although not required In
order to assure a minimal amount of
conflict once the plans are formally
adopted.
2. Nonpoint Source Controls.
Many of the comments received indi-
cated that planning for the management
of nonpoint sources of pollution wiU be
the most difficult and complex water
quality control problem confronting the
State and areawide planning agencies
due to Insufficient funding, manpower
and technology.
Taking these Insufficiencies Into ac-
count. EPA. In conjunction with a num-
ber of State representatives, has devel-
oped a strategy for management of non-
point sources of pollution as part of the
third edition of the "Water Quality
Strategy Paper". This strategy for non-
point source management has been In-
corporated into the final regulations.
As discussed above, these regulations
are issued in response to an Order of the
District Court for the District of Colum-
bia. and contain a provision for plan sub-
mission no later than November 1. 1978.
as required by the Order of the Court.
Given the limited amount of time for the
plans to be completed, and the conse-
quent need for both State and areawide
agencies to move forward quickly to ad-
Just their planning processes to these
regulations, good cause is hereby found
for making these regulations effective
upon publication.
in consideration of the foregoing. 40
cpR. Part 131 is hereby amended by de-
leting the existing part and substitut-
ing a new Part 131 to read as follows.
Dated: November 21.1975.
Russell E. Train,
Administrator.
Subpart A—Scope and Purpose; Definitions
Sec.
131 l Scope and purpose.
131 2 Definitions.
Subpart B—Plan Content Requirements
131.10 General requirements.
131.11 Plan content.
Subpart C—Plan Adoption. Approval, and
Revision Procedures; Separability
13120 Adoption, certification, and sub-
mission of plans
131 21 Review and approval or disapproval
of plaiu>.
131.22 Review and revision of plans.
131 23 Separability.
AtrrnoRmr: Sees 106. 208. 303(d). 303(e),
305(b). 314. 501. 516(b) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. as amended; Pub. L.
92-500. 86 Stat. 816 (1972); (33 U.S.C. 1251
et scq ).
Subpart A—Scope and Purpose;
Definitions
§131.1 Scope and purpose.
(a) This part establishes regulations
specifying procedural and other require-
ments for the preparation of water qual-
ity management plans and the estab-
lishment of regulatory programs de-
signed to achieve the goal specified in
Section 101(a) (2) of the Act. The water
quality management plans and imple-
menting programs are to be prepared
and established by State planning agen-
cies pursuant to Sections 208 and 303(e)
of the Act and by designated areawide
planning agencies pursuant to Section
208 of the Act.
(b> These regulations describe the re-
quirements for State and designated
areawide planning agency planning and
implementation under Section 208 of the
Act: water quality management plans
developed by State and designated area-
wide planning agencies pursuant to this
part and the implementation of these
plnns must comply fully with the require-
ments of Section 208 of the Act.
(c) A water quality management plan
Is a management document which iden-
tifies the water quality problems of a
particular approved State planning area
or designated areawide planning area
and sets forth an effective management
program to nllcviate those problems and
to achieve and preserve water quality
for all intended uses. The value of the
water quality management plan lies in Its
utility in providing a basis for making
sound water qualitv management de-
cisions and in establishing and imple-
menting effective control programs To
achieve this objective, the detail of the
water quality management plan(s)
should provide the necessary amlysis
and information for management de-
cisions. Moreover, there must be a flexi-
ble revision mechanism to reflect chang-
ing conditions in the area of considera-
tion. A writer quality management plnn
should be a dynamic management tool,
rather than a rigid, static compilation
of data and material In addition the
plan should be as concise as possible,
thereby minimizing unnecessary paper-
work.
(d> A water quality management plan
will provide for orderly water quality
management by:
(1) Identifying Problems: assessing
existing water quality, applicable water
quality standards, point and nonpoint
sources of pollution, and identifying con-
straints on the plan.
(2) Assessing Needs/Establishing Pri-
orities: assessing water quality and
abatement needs. Including coordination
with oncoing construction grant award
and NPDES programs, and establishing
priorities, including consideration of
existing construction grant and NPDES
reouirements.
(3) Scheduling Actions: setting forth
compliance schedules considering all
existing schedules Issued pursuant to
construction grant awards arid NPDES
permits, and target abatement dates In-
dicating necessary Federal. State, and
local actions.
(4) Defining Regulatory Programs: de-
scribing existing State/local regulatory
programs and defining necessary addi-
tional regulatory programs' designed to
achieve water quality standards and
goals.
(5) Defining Management Agency Re-
sponsibilities: Identifying management
agency Ues). Including Implementing,
regulatory and operational agpnries and
setting forth specific responsibilities to
carry out required actions within the
approved planning area and to assure
that water quality objectives are made
a part of the land management process.
(6) Coordinating Planning and Man-
agement: coordinating developmental
planning and management related to
water quality In order to attain the
objectives of the Act.
§ 131.2 Definitions.
The definitions set forth In ? 130 2 of
this Chapter shall apply to this Part 131.
Subpart B—Plan Content Requirements
§ 131.10 Cencral rcquirfm^nh.
(a) This subpart describes the re-
quired content-of water quality manage-
ment plans to be prepared for each ap-
proved State planning area lnc'urted In
the State planning process submitted pnd
approved pursuant to ? HO.41 of this
Chapter and for each area designated
pursuant to Section 208(a)(2). ("?>. or
(4) of the Act. The primarv objective of
the water oualitv management plans
shall be to define the programs necessary
to achieve the 1983 national water qual-
ity goal established In Section 101(a)(2)
of the Act. The plans shall Identify the
controls, regulatory programs, and man-
agement aepneies necessary to attain the
w"»f?r nuallty goals and the established
St'te water quality standards.
(b) Water quality management plans
shall be prepared for all areas and waters
FEDERAL MOISTiR. VOL. 40. NO. 230—W,C:'.ia:R 2."!, 1975
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
5oo45
of the State. Generally, water quality
management planning elements will be
>ie same throughout each State and
jsignated areawide planning area. How-
ever. the level ol detail required will vary
according to the water quality problems
(ranging from intensive planning in
areas designated pursuant to Section
208(a) (2). (3). or (4) of the Act and in
other areas with similar water quality
problems, to essentially no planning In
those areas where the State certifies that
certain types of planning and implemen-
tation will not be undertaken pursuant
to § 130.11(b) of this Chapter) and shall
be established m the agreement between
the State and the Regional Administra-
tor (see § 130.11 of this Chapter) or in
the work plan developed by the desig-
nated areawide agencies (see 5 35.220 of
this Chapter).
(c) The water quality management
plans shall contain the information and
analyses necessary for making sound
water quality management decisions and
for establishing and implementing effec-
tive control programs. Supportive data
and calculations need not be included in
the plans, but shall be made available to
the Regional Administrator and the pub-
lic upon request.
(d) Initial water quality management
plans, or portions thereof, and sub-
sequent refinements shall be prepared
pursuant to the approved continuing
planning process and submitted to the
Regional Administrator in accordance
with the State/EPA agreement described
in 5 130.11 of this Chapter or the work
plan for designated areawide planning
^reas described in § 35 220 of this Chap-
r.
(e> Each water quality management
plan shall incorporate appropriate in-
formation concerning other local, State
and Federal planning as required under
3 130.34 of this Chapter
(f) Each water quality management
plan shall include, where appropriate, a
delineation of the relative priority of ac-
tions to be taken toward prevention and
control of water pollution problems.
Such priorities shall reflect the coordi-
nation of water quality management
plans with ot.'ier related planning pro-
grams including those identified in
5 130.33 and § 130.31 of this Chapter.
tg) Water quality management plan-
ning elements shall include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Planning boundaries ({ 131.11
(a)).
(2) Water quality assessment and seg-
ment classification (§ 131.11(b)).
(3) Inventories and projections
(5 131.11(c) j.
(4) Nonpoint source assessment
(J 131.11(d)).
(5) Water quality standards (5 131.11
(e>).
(0) Total maximum dally loads
(5 131.11(f)) '.
(7) Point source load allocations
(5 131.11(g)) \
1 Not necessary In effluent limitation seg-
ments.
(8) Municipal waste treatment sys-
tems needs (5 131.11(h)).
(9) Industrial waste treatment sys-
tems needs <5 131.11(1)).
(10) Nonpoint source control needs
(5 131.ll(j)).
(11) Residual waste control needs;
land disposal needs (§ 131.11 (k)).
(12) Urban and Industrial storm-
water needs (5131.11(1)).
(13) Target abatement dates (5 131.11
(m>).
(14) Regulatory programs (5131.11
(n>).
(15) Management agencies (3 131.11
(o)).
(16) Environmental, social, economic
impact (5 131.ll(p)).
Except as otherwise provided in Part
131.11.
§131.11 Plan content.
Recognizing that the level of detail
may vary according to the water quality
problems, the following elements shall be
included In each water quality manage-
ment plan unless a certification pursuant
to S 130.11(b) of this Chapter provides
otherwise:
(a) Planning boundaries. A delinea-
tion. on a map of appropriate scale, of
the following: (1) The approved State
planning areas included in the State
planning process submitted and ap-
proved pursuant to 5 130.41 of this Chap-
ter and areawide planning areas desig-
nated pursuant to § 130.13 of this
Chapter.
(2) Those areas in which facilities
planning has been deemed necessary by
the State pursuant to § 35.917-2 of this
Chapter.
(3) The location of each water quality
and effluent limitation segment Identified
in 5 131.11(b) (2).
(4) The location of each significant
discharger identified in 5 131.11(c).
(5) The location of fixed monitoring
stations.
(Note: Such monitoring station locations
may be omitted if sucb locations are avail-
able In the EPA water quality Information
system).
(b) Water Quality assessment and seg-
ment classifications. (1) An assessment
of existing and potential water quality
problems within the approved planning
area or designated areawide planning
area, including an identification of the
types and degree of problems and the
sources of pollutants Projected land use patterns basec
on 5 131.11(c) (2) and (3).
(d) Nonpoint source assessment. Ai
assessment of water qualitv problem-
caused by nonpoint sources of pollutants
(1) The assessment shall include a de
scription of the type of problem, an lden
tiflcatlon of the waters affected (by se',»
ment or other appropriate plannin'
area). an evaluation of the seriousness o'
the effects on those waters, and an lden
tificatlon ol nonpoint sources (by cate-
gory as defined in «131,11 rj)) con
trlbuting to the problem.
(2) Any nonpoint sources of po'lutont
orieinntlnir outside a segment which ma
terlally afreet water quality within th
segment shall be-considered.
(3) The results of this assessmer.
should be reflected In the States' repor
required under Section 305(b) of th
Act.
(e) Water quality standards. The ap
plicable water quality standards, includ
incr the Statewide antidegradatlon pollcj
established pursuant to Section 303(a)
(b). and (c) of the Act and any plan
for the revision of such water qualit
standards.
(f) Total maximum daily loads. (1
For each water quality segment, or ap
propriate portion thereof, the total al
lowable maximum daily load of relevan
pollutants during critical flow condi
tions for each specific water qualit
criterion being violated or expected to b
violated.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 130—.'R:OAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1975
-------
35346
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(1) Such total maximum daily loads
shall be established at levels necessary
to achieve compliance with applicable
water quality standards.
(li) Such loads shall take into ac-
count:
(A) Provision for seasonal variation;
and
(B) Provision of a margin of safety
which takes into account any lack of
knowledge concerning the relationship
between effluent limitations and water
quality.
(2) For each water quality segment
where thermal water quality criteria are
being violated or expected to be violated,
the total daily thermal load during
critical flow conditions allowable in each
segment.
(i) Such loads shall be established at
a level necessary to assure the protection
and propagation of a balanced. Indige-
nous population of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife.
<11) Such loans shall take into account:
(A) Normal water temperature:
(B) Flow rates:
(C) Seasonal variations:
(D) Existing sources of heat input;
and
(E) The dlsslpatlve capacity of the
waters within the identified segment.
(ill) Each estimate shall Include an
estimate of the maximum heat input that
can be made Into the waters of each
segment where temperature is one of the
criteria being violated or expected to be
violated and shall Include a margin of
safety which takes into account lack of
knowledge concerning the development
of thermal water quality criteria for pro-
tection and propagation of fish, shellfish
and wildlife in the waters of the identi-
fied segments.
(3) For each water quality segment, a
total allocation for point sources of pol-
lutants and a gross allotment for non-
point sources of pollutants.
(i) A specific allowance for growth
shall be included In the allocation for
point sources and the gross allotment for
nonpoint sources.
Population or population equiva-
lents to be served, including forecasted
growth or decline of such population
over at least a 20-year period following
the scheduled date for Installation of
the needed facility.
(Ill) The results of preliminary and
completed planning conducted under
Step I and Step II grants pursuant to
Title II of the Act.
(Note: In the absence of the Title n plan-
ning described atx>ve. the State is expectet
to develop the necessary estimates and anal-
yses required under i 131 11(h)(1)).
(1) Industrial waste treatment systems
needs. (1) The anticipated industrial
point source wasteload reductions re-
quired to attain and maintain applicable
water quality standards and effluent
limitations for at least a 20-year plan-
ning period (in 5-year increments).
(2) Any alternative considerations for
industrial sources connected to munici-
pal systems should be reflected in the
alternative considerations for such mu-
nicipal watse treatment system.
(j) Nonpoint source control needs (1)
For each category of nonpoint sources
of pollutants to be considered In any
specified area as established In the
State/EPA agreement (see § 130.11 of
this Chapter). an identification and
evaluation of all measures necessary to
produce the desired level' of control
through application of best management
practices (recognizing that the applica-
tion of best management practices may
vary from area to area depending upon
the extent of water quality problems).
(2) The evaluation shall Include an
assessment of nonpoint source control
measures applied thus far, the period of
time required to achieve the desired con-
trol (see 5 131.11(m)). the proposed reg-
ulatorv programs to achieve the controls
(see 5 131.11
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
55347
tb* Act that the State will develop non-
* source control requirements on a
vide basts.)
Residual waste control needs;
land disposal needs. (1) An Identification
of the necessary controls to be estab-
lished over the disposition of residual
wastes which could affect water quality
and a description of the proposed actions
necessary to achieve such controls.
(2) An Identification of the necessary
controls to be established over the dis-
posal of pollutants on land or In sub-
surface excavations to protect ground
and surface water quality and a descrip-
tion of the proposed actions necessary to
achieve such controls.
(Note: Residual waste control needs need
not be determined by designated areawlde
planning agencies where the Governor has
determined pursuant to Section 208(b) (4) of
the Act that the State will develop residual
waste control requirements pursuant to Seo-
tion 208(b)(2) (J) and (K) on a Statewide
basis.)
(1) Urban and industrial stormvoater
systems needs. (1) An Identification of
the required Improvements to existing
urban and Industrial storm water sys-
tems. including combined sewer over-
flows. that are necessary to attain and
maintain applicable water quality stand-
ards.
(2) An Identification of the needed
urban and industrial storm water systems
for areas not presently served over at
least a 20-year planning period (in 5-
year Increments) that are necessary to
attain and maintain applicable water
lity standards, emphasizing appro-
e land management and other non-
;tual techniques for control of urban
..-j Industrial stormwater runoff.
(3) A cost estimate for the needs iden-
tified In (1) and (2) above, the reduction
In capital construction costs brought
about by nonstructural control measures,
and any capital and annual operating
costs of such facilities and practices.
(m) Target abatement dates. Target
abatement dates or schedules of com-
pliance for all significant dischargers,
nonpoint source control measures,"resid-
ual and land disposal controls, and
stormwater system needs. Including
major interim and final completion dates,
and requirements that are necessary to
assure an adequate tracking of progress
toward compliance.
(n) Regulatory programs. (1) A de-
rcription of existing State/local regula-
tory programs which are being or will be
utilized to implement the State water
quality management plan. The descrip-
tion shall Include the regulatory ap-
proach to be employed, the statutory
basis for the program, and relevant ad-
ministrative and financial program
aspects.
(2) A description of necessary addi-
tional State,'local regulatory programs to
be established In order to implement the
State water quality management plan.
The description shall Include the pro-
posed regulatory approach, the necessary
-tslation. and anticipated administra-
and financial capabilities.
(3) The regulatory programs described
In ( 131.11(n) (1) and (2) should gen-
erally take full advantage of ertiting
legislative authorities and administrative
capabilities. However, such programs
shall assure that:
(1) To the extent practicable, waste
treatment management Including point
and nonpoint source management shall
be on a Statewide and/or an areawlde
basis and provide for the control or
abatement of all sources of pollution In-
cluding lnplace or accumulated deposits
of pollutants;
(ii) The location, modification and
construction of any facilities, activities,
or substantive changes In use Qf the lands
within the approved planning area,
which might result In any new or delete-
rious discharge directly or Indirectly Into
navigable waters are regulated: and
(111) Any Industrial or commercial
wastes discharged into any publicly
owned treatment works meet applicable
pretreatment requirements.
(0) Management agencies. (1) The
Identification of those agencies recom-
mended for designation by the Oovemor
pursuant to {130.15 of this Chapter to
carry out each of the provisions of the
water quality management plan. The
identification shall Include those agen-
cies necessary to construct, operate and
maintain all treatment works identified
in the plan and those agencies necessary
to implement the regulatory programs
described In i 131.ll(n).
(2) Depending upon an agency's as-
signed responsibilities under the plan,
the agency must have adequate author-
ity and capability:
(1) To carry out Its assigned portions
of an approved State water quality man-
agement plants) (including the plans
developed for areawide planning areas
designated pursuant to Section 208(a)
(2). (3). or (4) of the Act) developed
under this part:
(ii) To effectively manage waste treat-
ment works and related point and non-
point source facilities and practices
serving such area in conformance with
the approved plan:
(ill) Directly or by contract, to design
and construct new works, and to operate
and maintain new and existing works as
required by any approved water quality
management plan developed under this
part;
(lv) To accept and utilize grants or
other funds from any source for waste
treatment management or nonpoint
source control purposes:
tv) To raise revenues, including the
assessment of user charges:
(vi) To incur short and long term in-
debtedness;
(vli) To assure, in implementation of
an approved water quality management
plan, that each participating community
pays its proportionate share of related
costs;
(viii) To refuse to receive any wastes
from a municipality or subdivision
thereof, which does not comply with any
provision of an approved water quality
management plan applicable to such
areas: and
(lx) To accept for treatment industrial
wastes.
(p) Environmental, social, economic
Impact. An assessment of the environ-
mental. social, and economic Impact of
carrying out the plan.
Subpart C—Plan Adoption, Approval, and
Revision Procedures; Separability
§ 131.20 Adoption, certification, and
submission of plana.
(a) During development and prior to
formal adoption, the State and desig-
nated areawide water quality manage-
ment plans or portions thereof, shall be
the subject of appropriate public partici-
pation In accordance with Section 101 (e)
of the Act and with Part 105 of this
Chapter requiring public participation in
all phases of the water quality manage-
ment plan development.
(1) The goal of the public participa-
tion Is to Involve the public In the for-
mulation of the plan, including the de-
termination of the planning goals, and
to develop public support that will ulti-
mately lead to acceptance and imple-
mentation of the plan.
(Note: Beyond continuing participation
in the development of the plan, a more
structured opportunity for public meet-
ings or hearings should be provided at
key points In the process.)
(2) State and designated areawlde
planning agencies may delegate public
participation activities to appropriate
governmental units within the planning
area.
(b) Designated areawlde planning
agencies shall submit areawide water
quality management plans, for review
and recommendations to the Governor,
or his designee, and to chief elected of-
ficials of local units of government that
have responsibility for or are directly
affected by the plan prior to formal sub-
mission of the plan for the Governor's
certifications pursuant to § 131.120(f).
(1) The Governor, or his designee,
shall provide for timely review and com-
ment In order to minimize potential ob-
jections once the plan Is formally sub-
mitted to the Governor for the certifica-
tions. Concurrence • with -a designated
areawide water quality management plnn
at the time of the review by the Gover-
nor. or his desienee. will not substitute
for formal certifications by the Governor
pursuant to S 131 20(f) after the plan
has been the subject of further public
participation.
(2) In the event that a local unit of
government fails to provide a recom-
mendation within 30 days of receipt of
the plan for review and comment prior
to formal submission to the Governor, or
his designee, a favorable recommenda-
tion on adoption of the plan shall be as-
sumed.
(c) The State planning agency shall
submit State water quality management
plans for review and recommendations,
to appropriate chief elected officials of
local units of government that have re-
sponsibility for or are directly affected
by the plan prior to formal adoption of
the plan by the State pursuant to
5 131.20(h).
FEOERAL REGISTER. VOl 40, NO 730—FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28. 197S
-------
55348
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(d) The State is encouraged (although
not required) to submit the water quality
management plan(s) for State and des-
ignated areawide planning areas to the
Regional Administrator for review prior
to formally adopting the plants). The
Regional Administrator shall provide for
timely review and comment in order to
minimize potential objections once the
plan is formally adopted by the State
pursuant to 5 131.20(h). Concurrence
with a water quality management plan
at the time of any pre-adoption review
will not substitute for approval by the
Regional Administrator pursuant to
§ 131.21 after the plan has been the sub-
ject of further public participation and
formally adopted by the State.
(e) After comments and recommenda-
tions are received from the Governor, or
his designee, and from chief elected offi-
cials of local units of government pur-
suant to 5131.20(b). designated areawide
planning agencies shall submit the area-
wide water quality management plans, or
portions thereof, to the Governor, or his
designee for final review and formal
adoption and certification.
(f) The Governor, or his designee,
shall review areawide water quality man-
agement plans, or portions thereof, sub-
mitted by designated areawide planning
agencies.
(1) The Governor shall certify that
the State has reviewed the plan and:
(1) Has found the plan to be in con-
formance with the provisions of the ap-
proved planning process for the State, in-
cluding State water quality management
plans prepared pursuant to the process,
and that the plan will be accepted as a
detailed portion of the water quality
management plans of the State:
Has found the plan to be con-
sistent with the water quality manage-
ment needs of the area:
(iii) Has found the plan to be in con-
formance with all State and local legisla-
tion, regulations, or other requirements
or plans regarding land use and protec-
tion of the environment, except for those
cases where the plan specifically recom-
mends changing such legislation, regula-
tions, or other appropriate requirements:
(iv) Has found that the plan provides
adequate basis for selection of manage-
ment agencies to be designated pursuant
to i 130.15(a) of this Chapter and Sec-
tion 208(c) of the Act; and
(v) Has adopted the plan as the State's
official water quality management plan
for the designated areawide planning
area pursuant to i 131.20(h).
(2) The procedures set forth in 5 131.20
(f) (1) shall be followed by intrastate and
interstate designated areawide planning
agencies, except where the plan has been
developed by an Interstate agency, the
plan shall be submitted to the Governor,
or his designee, of the State which In-
cludes the largest portion of the desig-
nated area's population. The Governor,
or his designee, shall coordinate the plan
review and certification process with all
other affected States.
(g) If the Governor determines that
the water quality management plan for
the designated areawide planning area
fails to conform with the requirements
of the Act, this part, or the approved
work plan of the designated areawide
planning agency is not consistent with
contiguous water quality management
plans including those of neighboring
States, he shall either conditionally cer-
tify or not certify the plan and so notify
the Regional Adminstrator and the des-
ignated areawide planning agency by
letter and shall state:
(1) The specific revisions necessary to
obtain full certification of the water
quality management plan; and
(2) The time period for submission of
necessary revisions to the water quality
management plan or portions thereof.
(h) Each State and areawide water
quality management plan, or portion
thereof, shall be adopted as the official
water quality management plan(s) of
the State. Each adopted water quality
management plan shall Include assur-
ances and a certification by the Governor
that the plan is the official water quality
management plan for the area covered
by such plan, that the plan will be Im-
plemented and used for establishing per-
mit conditions, nonpoint source controls,
schedules of compliance and priorities
for awarding grants for construction of
municipal treatment works pursuant to
Section 201(g) of the Act. and that the
plan meets all applicable requirements
of the Act, this part, and Part 130 of this
Chapter.
(i) The Governor shall submit adopted
water quality management plans to the
Regional Administrator, together with
a summary of public participation In the
development and adoption of the plan
(required by Section 101(e) of the Act
and Part 105 of this Chapter) and a letter
from the Governor notifying the Regional
Administrator of such action. Such plans
shall be submitted in accordance with
the following schedule;
(1) Water quality management plans
for the entire State shall be sub-
mitted to the Regional Administrator no
later than November 1, 1978.
(2) Water quality management plans
for designated areawide planning areas
shall be submitted no later than two
years from the date that the planning
process Is In operation (pursuant to
§ 35.222-1 of this Chapter) and no later
than November 1. 1918.
(j) Portions of the plan (Interim out-
puts) , developed in accordance with the
requirements of Parts 130 and 131 may
be adopted, certified, and submitted dur-
ing the development of the plan and
approved In the same manner as a plan
under 1131.21.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 230—FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1973
-------
RULES AND
REGULATIONS
55349
(k) At the time of submission, the
Governor shall Identify those modifica-
tions, If any. that need to be made, as a
result of the plan, to the agreement be-
tween EPA and a State under Part 124
of this Chapter.
§ 131.21 Review and approval or dig-
approval of plana.
The Regional Administrator shall ap-
prove. conditionally approve or dis-
approve the water quality management
plan, or portion thereof, submitted pur-
suant to | 131.20(1) or (J) within 120
days after the date of receipt, as follows:
(a) If the Regional Administrator de-
termines that the water quality manage-
ment plan conforms with the require-
ments of the Act. this part, and the ap-
proved continuing planning process (in-
cluding compliance with any State/EPA
agreement or designated areawide plan-
ning agency work plans) and Is consist-
ent with contiguous water quality man-
agement plans, including those of neigh-
boring States, he shall approve the plan
and so notify the Governor or his desig-
nee by letter.
(b) If the Regional Administrator de-
termines that the water quality manage-
ment plan fails to conform with the re-
quirements of the Act, this part, or the
approved continuing planning process
(including compliance with any State/
EPA agreements or designated areawide
planning agency work plans) or is not
consistent with contiguous water quality
management plans including those of
neighbonng States, he shall either con-
ditionally approve or disapprove the plan
and so notify the Governor or his desig-
nee by letter and shall state:
(1) The specific revisions necessary to
obtain full approval of the water quality
management plan: and
(2) The time period for submission of
necessary revisions to the water quality
management plan or portions thereof.
(c) Where water quality management
plans involving interstate waters are
found to be inconsistent, the Regional
Administrator shall notify the Governor
of each concerned State of the specific
areas of inconsistency and the specific
revision(s) necessary to eliminate sucli
inconsistency.
§ 131.22 Review and ro Uiou of plane.
(a) As a minimum, the State or desig-
nated areawide planning agency shall re-
view. and if necessary revise, each water
quality management plan at least an-
nually. The Regional Administrator may
request specific plan revisions. The water
quality management plan shall be revised
such that it remains a meaningful and
current water quality management doc-
ument.
(b) Minor revisions, particularly those
which incorporate updated information
but do not involve substantive change,
may be submitted directly to the Re-
gional Administrator by the State plan-
ning agency designated under J 130.10
(c) (6) of this Chapter.
(Non: Minor revisions to plans for desig-
nated area vide planning areas shall be sub-
mitted to the Stats planning agency, which
In turn shall incorporate such revisions in
the Statewide plan and notify the Regional
Administrator of the revisions).
(c) Changes to the water quality man-
agement plan(s) which result from a de-
termination by the Administrator or the
State, as appropriate, pursuant to Sec-
tions 301(c), 302. or 316 of the Act, an
amendment to the Act, or an adjudi-
catory or judicial proceeding, shall be
incorporated Into a revised plan. Such
revisions need not be subject to formal
public participation, adoption, certifica-
tion and submission, unless the Regional
Administrator determines that the revi-
sion is of a substantive nature.
(d) Revisions of a substantive nature
shall be subject to formal public partici-
pation, certification, adoption, and sub-
mission as well as review and approval
procedures described In S 131.20 and
§ 131.21. The Regional Administrator
may waive requirements for public par-
ticipation and other formal revision pro-
cedures where he determines that such
requirements have been met as a result
of other proceedings conducted pursuant
to the Act and other EPA regulations.
§ 131.23 Separability.
If any provision of this part, or the
application of any provision of this part
to any person or circumstance, is held
invalid, the application of such provision
to other persons or circumstances, and
the remainder of this part, shall not be
affected thereby.
|FR Doc.75-32013 FUed ll-2o-75:815 am|
SUBCHAPTER E—PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
(FRL 462-2; PP4F1432/R64]
PART 180—TOLERANCES AND EXEMP-
TIONS FROM TOLERANCES FOR PESTI-
CIDE CHEMICALS IN OR ON RAW AGRI-
CULTURAL COMMODITIES
4-Amino-6-(l,l-Dimethylethyl)-3-
(Methylthio)-I,2,4-Triazin-5(4H)-One
On November 15, 1973. notice was
given (38 FR 31559) that Chemagro Ag-
ricultural Division. Mobay Chemical
Corp.. PO Box 4913, Hawthorn Rd.. Kan-
sas City MO 64120 (formerly Chemagro
Division of Baychem Corp.). had filed a
petition (PP 4F1432) with the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA). This
petition proposed that 40 CFR 180.332 be
amended to establish tolerances for com-
bined residues of the herbicide 4-amlno-
6 - (1.1 - dlmethylethyl) - 3 - (methyl-
thio)-1.2.4-triazin-5(4H) -one and Its
trlazlnone metabolites In or on the raw
agricultural commodities sugarcane and
tomatoes at 0.1 part per million. Chem-
agro subsequently amended the petition
by deleting the proposed tolerance for
residues in or on tomatoes. [Chemagro
also submitted a petition requesting the
establishment of a regulation to permit
the use of this herbicide on sugarcane
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 40. NO. 230—FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1975
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
35321
m or on the raw agricultural commodity
Jug arcane also appears ui today's Fto-
«al Register.]
Any person adversely affected by these
regulations may on or before Decem-
ber 29. 1975. file written objections with
o,e Hearing Clerk. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. 401 M St. SW, East
Tower. Room 1019. Washington DC
20460. Such objections should be submit-
ted m quintuplicate and specify the pro-
visions of the regulation deemed objec-
tionable and the grounds for the objec-
tions. If a hearing is requested, the Ob-
jections must state the issues for the
bearing. A hearing will be granted if the
objections are supported by grounds
legally sufficient to justify the relief
sought.
Effective on November 28. 1975. Part
123. 5 123.25, and Part 561 are amended
u follows.
(Sec 409 of the Federal Food. Drug, and
(Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 34811
Dated: November 20, 1975.
Edwin L Johnson.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Pesticide Programs.
Part 123, S 123.25 is amended to In-
clude a tolerance limitation in sugarcane
molasses as follows.
§ 123.25 4-Ainino-6-( 1.1 -iliiiirilnrlpthyl).
3 - (nietiiylthio)-1.2.4-lri;uin-5(4Ii)-
one.
Tolerance are established for combined
residues of the herbicide 4-amino-6-( 1.1-
dlmethylethyl) - 3 - (mcthyithio) -1.2.4-
triazin-5(4H>-one and its triazinone
metabolites resulting from application of
the herbicide to growing crops as follows:
3 parts per million in processed pota-
toes (including potato chips).
0.3 part per million in sugarcane
molasses.
• • • • •
Part 561 is amended by adding the
! 561.41 as follows:
S 561.41 4-Amino-6-( 1 .l-dimolhylethy!)-
3 - (metliyllliio)-l,2,4-triazin-5(lH)-
one.
A tolerance of 0 3 part per million Is
established for combined residues of the
herbicide 4-amino - 6 - (1.1 - dimethyl-
ethyl)-3 - (methylthio) - 1.2.4 - trtazin-
5(4H)-one and its triazinone metabolites
in sugarcane molasses resulting from ap-
plication of the herbicide to growing
sugarcane.
1FR Doc.75-32047 Filed 11-28-75.8:45 am|
Title 29—Labor
CHAPTER V—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PART 511—WAGE ORDER PROCEDURE
FOR PUERTO RICO, THE VIRGIN IS-
LANDS, AND AMERICAN SAMOA
Compensation o< Committee Members
Pursuant to authority in section 5 of
U>e Pair Labor Standards Act of 1938
<52 Stat. 1062. as amended: 29 U.S.C.
205) and Reorganization Plan No. 6 of
1950 (3 CFR 1949-53 Comp. p. 1004). I
hereby amend 29 CFR 511.4 to read as set
forth below. The purpose of this amend-
ment is to increase the compensation of
each member of an industry committee
from S108 to $114 for each day spent in
the work of the committee.
As this amendment concerns only a
rule of agency practice, and is not sub-
stantive. notice of proposed rule making,
opportunity for public participation, and
delay in effective date are not required by
5 U.S.C. 553. It does not appear that such
participation .or delay would serve a use-
ful purpose. Accordingly, this revision
shall be effective immediately.
§ 311.1 Compensation of committee
member?.
Each member of an industry commit-
tee will be allowed a per diem of $114 for
each day actually spent In the work of
the committee, and will, in addition, be
reimbursed for necessary transportation
and other expense incident to traveling
in accordance with Standard Govern-
ment Travel Regulations then in effect.
All travel expenses will be paid on travel
vouchers certified by the Administrator
or his authorized representative. Any
other necessary expenses which are inci-
dental to the work of the committee may
be incurred by the committee upon ap-
proval of. and shall be paid upon certifi-
cation of. the Administrator or his au-
thorized representative.
(Sec. S. 52 Stat. 1062, as amended: 29 U.S.C.
205)
Signed at Washington, D.C this 21st
day of November. 1975.
XVarren D. Land:s.
Acting Administrator.
Wage and Hour Division.
IFR Doc.75-32154 Filed 11 -26-75; 8 • 45 am 1
Title 40—Protection ol the Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER B—GRANTS AND OTHER
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
|FRL 461-4|
PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
Grants to State and Designated Areawide
Planning Agencies—Conditions, Policies
and Procedures
On September 8. 1975, notice was pub-
lished in the Federal Recister. 40 FR
41644. that the Environmental Protection
Agency was proposing to amend the in-
terim 208 grant regulations (40 CFR Part
35, Subpart F) and to publish final reg-
ulations setting forth procedures for pro-
viding grants to State as well as area-
wide planning agencies approved pursu-
ant to 40 CFR 130 12 and 130.13 respec-
tively. for the development of a planning
process and a section 208 plan for water
quality management.
Section 208 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act Amendments of 1972
Is designed to encourage and facilitate
the development and implementation of
areawide water quality management
plans. The law requires the Governor
of each State to designate eligible area-
wide planning agencies to perform in-
tensive areawide planning for those geo-
graphic areas of the State which meet
the criteria set forth tn Part 130.13 of
this Chapter. The State is required to
undertake the planning for remaining
geographic areas. In accordance with a
Court Order Issued by Judge John Lewis
Smith. Jr. in Natural Resources Defense
Council, et al. v. Train, et al.. D C. D C.
Civ. Act. No. 74-1485. grants are author-
ized for State as well as areawide plan-
ning agencies.
Since section 208 planning must be
done on a nationwide basis for all sur-
face areas of the United States by either
areawide or State planning agencies pur-
suant to 40 CFR Part 130. It is important
to have compatible planning require-
ments for section 208 planning con-
ducted by both areawide and State
planning agencies. Hence, the substan-
tive planning requirements have been
deleted from the 208 grant regulations
<40 CFR Part 35. Subpart A) and placed
in the following regulations to be pub-
lished in the Federal Recister concur-
rently with the 208 gTant regulations:
Policies and Procedures for the Continu-
ing Planning Process (40 CFR Part 130)
and Preparation of Water Quality Man-
agement Plans (40 CFR Part 131). As a
result, the 208 grant regulations are
solely procedural, referencing the ap-
propriate portions of 40 CFR Parts 130
and 131 for the substantive planning
requirements.
Written comments on the proposed
rulemaking were invited and received
from numerous interested parties In ad-
dition. verbal comments were also ob-
tained from representatives of State and
local government. EPA has carefullv
considered all submitted comments. All
written comments are on flle with the
Agency. Many of these comments have
been adopted or substantially satisfied
by editorial change, deletions from, or
additions to the regulations. The major-
ity of the substantive comments cen-
tered around the three issues discussed
below.
1. Allocation of Funds. Numerous
methods for allocating funds to State
and designated areawide planning agen-
cies were considered including: (a) A
nationally denve4- formula based on
point and nonpoint source pollution
problems: a formula based on a combination
of the population and land area of each
State within a Region minus the popu-
lation and land area of previously funded
designated areas.
Many of the commentors indicated
that they did not think that an accurate
nationally derived formula based on
point and nonpoint source pollution
problems could be derived and that they
FEDERAL RECISTER. VOL 40. NO. 230—FRIDAY. NOVEMBER 23. 1975
-------
would prefer a formula based on popu-
lation. The regulations, therefore, con-
tain a formula based on a combination
of population and land area. This com-
bination was selected because State and
areawide water quality management
planning must consider both point and
nonpomt source problems and many
nonpoint source problems are associated
with large land masses and not neces-
sarily with large concentrations of
population.
2. Requirement for a Financially Self-
Sustaining Planning Process. Many of
the comments that were received
opposed this requirement, stating that it
was impractical to expect the planning
agencies to obtain funds from other
sources to pay for the required continu-
ing planning, including the annual plan
update. The self-sustaining provision,
however, has been retained since Federal
funding Is presently envisioned for only
development of the initial plan. The sub-
stantial Federal investment is intended
to spur continuing planning over the
long-term.
3. Establishment of a State Manage-
ment Role in Areawide Planning Areas.
The above mentioned Court Orderstip-
ulates that the State is responsible for
assuring that the provisions of section
208 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972 are im-
plemented in areawide as well as State
planning areas. Many of the comments
that were received stated that in order
for the States to carry out their respon-
sibilities. it was imperative to provide
for a strong State management role in
areawide planning areas. These regula-
tions have therefore been revised to
clarify previous policy regarding the
State management role. The areawide
planning agencies are required to obtain
State review and comment on their
grant applications, work plans and any
substantial revisions thereto and interim
progress reports. The areawide planning
agencies are also required to provide
the State with a copy of their plan for
pre-adoption review to minimize any
conflicts that might arise at the time of
formal plan submittal.
As discussed above, these regulations
are issued in response to an Order of the
District Court for the District of Colum-
bia. and contain a provision for plan sub-
mission no later that November 1, 1978.
as required by the Order of the Court.
Given the limited amount of time for the
plans to be completed, and the con-
sequent need for both State and area-
wide agencies to move forward quickly
to adjust their planning processes to
these regulations, good cause is hereby
found for making these regulations ef-
fective November 28, 1975.
In consideration of the foregoing, 40
CFR Part 35 Is hereby amended by delet-
ing Subpart F and substituting the fol-
lowing for Subpart A. J 9 35.200 through
35.240. .
Dated: November 21, 1975.
Russn.L E. Train.
Administrator.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Subpart A—-Planning Grants
Grants to State and Desicnated Area-
wide Planning Agencies—Conditions,
Policies and Procedures
Sec.
35-200
35-202
36.204
35 206
35.208
35.208-1
35208-2
35.210
35.210-1
35.210-2
35 212
35.212-1
35.212-2
35 212-3
35 214
35 218
35 218
35 218-1
35 218-2
35 218-3
35.218-4
35.218-5
35 218-6
35.220
35 220-1
35.220-2
35 220-3
35 220—4
35 222
35 222-1
Purpose.
Definitions.
Allocation of funds.
Eligibility for grant award.
Application for grant.
Preappllcatlon requirements.
Application requirements.
Review, certification and approval
or grant application.
State review and certification of
applications from areawide plan-
ning agencies designated pursu-
ant to 40 CFR 130.13.
EPA review and approval.
Grant award and adjustment.
Rate of federal assistance.
Matching.
Period of grant.
Grant conditions and limitations
Allowable and unallowable costs
Payments.
Payment method.
Advance payments—letter of
credit.
Advance payments — treasury
check.
Reimbursable payments.
Compliance.
Withholding of funds.
Work plan development.
Applicability.
Content.
Submission.
Punding for work pliui develop-
ment.
Plan Development.
Plan development period—area-
wide planning agencies.
Sec.
35 222-2 Plan development period—Slate
planning agencies.
35.224 Content of plan.
35228 Submission of the plan
35.228 Flan approval.
35.230 Authority of States for nonpoint
source planning in areawide
planning areas.
35.232 Reports.
35 232-1 Interim progress reports.
35.332-2 Financial status reports.
35 234 Suspension and termination
35.236 Disputes.
Subpart A—Planning Grants
Grants to State and Desicnated Area-
wide Planninc Acencies—Conditions.
Policies and Procedures
§ 35.200 Purpose.
These provisions establish conditions,
policies and procedures for grants to
State and areawide planning agencies,
and reference requirements for the sub-
stance of the planning process and the
content of required plans. These provi-
sions supplement the EPA general grant
regulations and procedures set forth in
Part 30 of this Chapter.
§ 35.202 Definitions.
The definitions of the terms contained
in S 130.2 of this Chapter shall be used
herein except as the context otherwise
requires.
§ 35.204 Allocutions of funds.
(a) The Administrator will establish a
Regional allotment ratio for each EPA
Region in accordance with the following
formula:
i Popnl.itif>ti of Region) — (Population of Region's Prc\ ion-ly Funded De*igniitedn
Planning Arcua)
(Population of United — I Population of Previously Funded Di-igii.iti'il Planning
.States mid TerritoruM Are;w Nationally)
''L.ind Area of llcgiou) — (Land Area of Region's Previously Funded Dc«igtiaicd~
PliiQQing Areas)
(Land Area of United —(Land Area of Previously Funded IJc^ignaled Planning
_States and Territories) Area* Nationally)
(b) The Regional allotment ratio for
each Region established pursuant to
§ 35.204(a) will be applied to sums avail-
able for each fiscal year after June 30.
1975 to produce an allotment for each
Region.
(c) As soon as practicable after the
President's budget has been submitted
to the Congress, the Administrator will
issue to each Regional Administrator a
tentative Regional allowance (planning
target) based on the amount of the ap-
propriation requested by the President.
The Regional Administrator shall notify
each State and appropriate areawide
planning agency of the funds available
for State and areawide water quality
management planning as soon as practi-
cable after receipt.
(d) As soon as practicable alter funds
are appropriated, the Administrator will
issue to each Regional Administrator a
final Regional allowance for allotment
to State and appropriate areawide plan-
ning agencies In each Region. Within
the limits of each final Regional allow-
ance. the Regional Administrator shall
negotiate grant amounts for each eligi-
ble applicant (State and areawide plan-
ning agencies) within the Region.
(e) On June 1, 1976, all unobligated
funds remaining within a Region will
revert back to the Administrator for
reallocation to other Regions (for sub-
sequent reallocation to State and area-
wide planning agencies) which can
demonstrate a need for funds In excess
of. their final Regional allowance. In
Fiscal Year 1977 and in subsequent fiscal
years, unobligated Regional funds will
revert back to the Administrator ninety
days after the date the final Regional al-
lowance is issued to the Regional Ad-
ministrator pursuant to 9 35.204(d). or
not later than thirty days prior to the
end of the fiscal year, whichever date is
earlier.
§ 35.206 Eligibility for grant award-
fa) Areawide planning agency. Area-
wide planning agencies shall be eligible
for grant award pursuant to these provi-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL 40. NO. 130—FRIQJkY. NOVEMBER 28, 197S
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
sions only 11 designated pursuant to
« 130.13 oI this Chapter and approved by
* Administrator as the official area-
e planning agency for the area. The
jncy shall further agree to develop a
plan and a continuing planning process
lor the entire area that meets the re-
quirements of these provisions and Parts
130 and 131 of this Chapter.
(b) State planning agency. State
agencies designated by the Governors
pursuant to i 130.12 of this Chapter and
approved by the appropriate Regional
Administrator shall be eligible for jrant
award pursuant to these provisions, pro-
vided that the State continuing plan-
ning process has been approved by the
appropriate Regional Administrator
pursuant to § 130.41 of this Chapter.
§ 35.208 Application for grant.
§ 33.200-1 Preapplication rccfuircuienU.
(a) All agencies applying for section
208 planning grants shall comply with
all applicable requirements of Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Cir-
cular No. A-95, pursuant to S 30.303 of
this Chapter.
(b) Areawlde planning agencies desig-
nated by the Governor's) pursuant to
5 130.13 of this Chapter shall submit
their applications and supporting data
to the State planning agency designated
pursuant to 5 130.12 of this Chapter. In-
terstate areawide planning agencies
shall submit the application to the des-
ignated State agency In the State which
includes the greatest portion of the
area's population, and provide copies to
the Governors of other affected states.
35.203—2 Applimlion requirement*.
fa> Each agency applying for section
208 planning grants shall meet the fol-
lowing application requirements:
(1) Applications shall be made to
EPA on such forms as the Administra-
tor may prescribe pursuant to § 30.315 of
this Chapter.
<2> Evidence shall be provided that
all requirements of OMB Circular No.
A-95 have been met.
(3) A statement shall be provided In-
dicating that provisions have been made
or will be made for the establishment of
the following appropriate advisory
groups:
ii> For State planning areas, a policy
advisory committee for each approved
planning area: the membership and role
of this committee shall be consistent
with 5 130.16'c) of this Chapter:
'in For areawide planning areas, a
policy advisory committee whose mem-
bership shall be consistent with 3 130.16
'd> of this Chapter.
'4) A statement ?hall be provided that
the proposed activity takes into account
the relationship with affected State, local
and Federal orograms. and with other
applicable resource and developmental
planning programs as set forth in 5 130.-
34'a) of this Chapter.
(5> A statement shall be Included In-
dicating that the planning process will
become financially self-sustaining and
provide for annual update of the plan
once the initial plan Is developed and
approved.
(6) An outline of the work plan which
the applicant will submit pursuant to
S 35.220 herein shall be provided by State
and designated areawide planning
agencies.
(7) A statement Indicating how
matching funds, if required, will be
provided.
(b) Areawide planning agencies desig-
nated by the Governor(s) shall provide.
In addition to the requirements set forth
in J 35.208-2(a). a certification docu-
ment submitted by the State planning
agency designated pursuant to $ 130 12
of this Chapter, which document shall
include a statement that the State has
reviewed the application and finds that:
(1) The proposed work complies or
does not comply with all State require-
ments. including any applicable plan(s)
prepared pursuant to Part 131 of this
Chapter:
(2) The proposed planning work pro-
gram is or is not adequate and necessary
to accomplish the development of a plan
pursuant to Part 131 of this Chapter ;
(3) Insofar as Is known, the planning
will or will not duplicate any work which
has been done or is being done to meet
the facilities planning requirements of
9 35.917-35.917-9 of this Part and other
water quality management planning re-
quirements of Part 131 of this Chapter;
and
(4) That the State either recommends
or does not recommend that the grant
application should be approved by EPA.
proval of grant application.
§ 35.210-1 Stale review and certifiea*
tion of erant application* from area-
wide planning acencie* designated
by tlie Governor(s).
(a) The State planning agency desig-
nated pursuant to § 130.12 of this Chap-
ter shall, within 45 days after receipt of
a grant application review the applica-
tion and either certify or refuse to cer-
tify the application and proposed work
plan outline.
(b) Upon completion of the review re-
quired by } 35 2l0-l. the State plan-
ning agency shall either:
(1) Return the grant application. In-
cluding the certification document, to the
applicant for forwarding of two copies
to the appropriate Regional Admlnlstra-
tor. or
(2) Forward two copies of the appli-
cation. including certification documents,
to the appropriate Regional Adminis-
trator.
Selection of alternatives (b> (1) or (2)
of this section shall be based on the
applicant's preference.
(c) If the application is not certified,
the State planning agency shall, in addi-
tion to Its actions pursuant to {35.210-1
(b). notify both the appropriate Regional
Administrator and the applicant as to
the specific reasons for non-certification
and specify the changes which are
needed for State certification of the
application.
Generally within 45 days after re-
ceiving the application, and in accord-
ance with the provisions of (35.212
herein, the Regional Administrator shall:
(1) Award a grant to the applicant In
the amount determined to meet the re-
quirements of 9 35.214: or
(2) Notify the applicant that the grant
application Is deficient In one or more
respects and specify in which ways the
application must be modified to receive
EPA approval: copies of such notifica-
tions will be forwarded to all concerned
States at the time the applicant is noti-
fied of EPA action.
§35.212 Grant award and adjustment.
(a) Grant award. Grants win be
awarded in an amount which the Re-
gional Administrator determines is ap-
propriate for the program outlined In the
grant application submitted pursuant to
5 35.208-2.
(b> Grant adjustments. Such grants
shall be subject to adjustment by the Re-
gional Administrator, after his review
and approval of the work plan submitted
pursuant to S 35.220, and after consul-
tation with the appropriate State and the
applicants, to reflect his determination
of actual approved financial needs.
(c) Limitation on grant amount. The
grant amount, after adjustment pur-
suant to { 35.212(b). if any, shall consti-
tute the grantee's final maximum grant
amount for a Section 208 grant. In the
event of grantee noncompliance, the Re-
gional Administrator may reduce tbe
grant amount or terminate the grant
pursuant to I 30.913 and J 30.920 of thi>
Chapter.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 230—fRIDAY, NOVEMBER It, 1973
-------
55324
RULES AND REGULATIONS
§33.212—1 Bale of Federal assistance.
The rate of Federal assistance fur-
nished to a grantee shall be in accord-
ance with the provisions of the Act.
§ 35.212-2 Matching.
Pursuant to § 30.720 of this Chapter,
contributions required to match Federal
funds may be reflected in contributions
to either direct or indirect costs: in-kind
contributions are permitted. Contribu-
tions to matching are allowable only If
they are verifiable from the grantee's
records; not Included is cost sharing or
matching contributions for any other
Federally-assisted program: otherwise
properly allocable to the project; and are
expended for allowable project costs.
§35.212—3 Period of grant.
Federal assistance shall be for one or
more consecutive budget periods, the
total grant period beginning on the date
of execution of the gTant agreement and
ending on the date on which the plan is
approved by the appropriate Regional
Administrator pursuant to § 35.228.
§35.214 Grail! conditions and limita-
tions.
Each grant awarded an area wide plan-
ning agency pursuant to these provisions
Is conditioned upon the subsequent sub-
mission of an approvable work plan pur-
suant to 3 35.220-3.
§ 35.216 Allowable and unallowable
costs.
Grant funds shall be expended by the
grantee solely for the reasonable and
allowable costs of the approved project in
accordance with the terms of the grant
agreement pursuant to the requirements
of this Subpart and § 30.700 of this Chap-
ter.
Allowable and unallowable costs shall
be determined in accordance with 5 30.-
705 of this Chapter and by demonstration
that the costs are reasonable for carry-
ing out an approved grant project. While
costs incurred as a result of following an
approved work program would generally
be allowable, provided that they are not
prohibited elsewhere by Federal, State or
local law or regulations, the costs In-
curred by activity related to the follow-
ing shall be unallowable;
(a) Costs incurred in development of a
grant application for an areawide plan-
ning grant ;
(b) Costs incurred in sewer evaluation
surveys as required under 5 35.927-2 of
this Part;
Costs of activities which are pri-
marily of a research nature.
§ 35.218 Payments.
§ 35.218—1 Payment method.
The Regional Administrator will
determine the payment method author-
ized for each grant award pursuant to
§ 30.615 of this Chapter. Ordinarily, the
advance payment method will be author-
ized. However, when the Regional Ad-
ministrator determines it is in _ the
Agency's interest, the reimbursement
method may be required.
§ 35.218—2 Adwmcc payment*—letter of
credit.
(a) When the Regional Administrator
determines that a grant award will be
financed through advance payments, the
Regional financial management officer
will apply Treasury Department regula-
tions to determine whether payment will
be by letter of credit or Treasury check.
Generally letter of credit will be used
when annual payments under awards
providing for advance financing ag-
gregate to $250,000 or more. When the
letter of credit method is selected, it will
be stipulated in the grant agreement. The
grant agreement will require:
(1) That cash drawdowns be made
only when actually needed for payment
of the Federal share of liabilities relat-
ing to project costs,
(2) Timely reporting as required by
5 35.232,
(3) Imposition of the same Treasury
Department standards on secondary
recipients, and
(4) Obligation of funds in accordance
with the grant agreement.
(b) The letter of credit may be Issued
for the entire award or any part there-
of, with subsequent amendments for the
balance as the Regional Administrator
determines. An initial fund letter of
credit, will be Issued to State and area-
wide planning agencies to the extent that
the grantees demonstrate the need for
For areawide agencies, this initial fund
will generally not exceed five percent
(5%) of the total grant award and will
be earmarked for work plan develop-
ment such funds. Subsequent amend-
ments for the balance of the grant
amount will be approved only after ap-
proval of the work plan by the Regional
Administrator. Withdrawal of cash
through the letter of credit will be moni-
tored by EPA through the payment
vouchers and quarterly financial reports
submitted pursuant to § 35.232-2.
§35.218—3 Advance, paynirnta—Tmi..
ury clieek.
If a grant award for which advance
financing is authorized does not meet the
criteria for letter of credit, payment may
be made by Treasury check. In this In-
stance. the Regional Administrator will
negotiate an initial cash advance. For
areawide agencies, this initial advance
will generally not exceed five percent
(5%) of the total grant award and will
be earmarked for work plan develop-
ment. If the grantee does not expect to
use the advance immediately, payment
must be scheduled for a later date when
need becomes immediate. Once the
initial advance is made, the grantee may
request replenishment of funds ex-
pended by submitting the Request for
Advance or Reimbursement form. This
form may be submitted quarterly but no
less frequently than annually. It Is the
policy of EPA that large amounts of
cash advances not remain unused In the
hands of grantees Therefore. EPA will
monitor use of cash advances through
the required financial reports and will
request reduction of the outstanding ad-
vance where lack of use is indicated.
§ 35.218—4 Reimbursable payment#.
Where advance financing is not au-
thorized. payment will be made upon
the grantee's submission of a Request
for Advance or Reimbursement form.
Through this form, the grantee will re-
quest reimbursement of the Federal
share of expenditures related to the
grant agreement for the period since the
previous request for reimbursement.
Submission of reimbursement requests
may be made as often as necessary.
§ 35.218—5 Compliance.
Where the Regional Administrator de-
termines that the grantee has failed to
comply with the requirements for letter
of credit, as stated in $ 35.218-2, or with
reasonable cash management practices
with cash advances by Treasury check,
or is not in compliance with provisions
of the grant agreement, he may convert
either payment procedure to the reim-
bursement method.
§35.218—6 Withholding of funds.
In accordance with the provisions of
5 30.615-3 of this Chapter, an amount
not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the
grant award amount may be withheld
for noncompliance with a program ob-
jective, grant condition, or reporting
requirement.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 330—FRIDAY. NOVEMBER 28. 1975
-------
§ 35.220 Work plan development.
5 3S.220-1 Applicability.
The specific requirements of this sec-
Lion are applicable only to work plans re-
lated to grants awarded alter June 30,
1975.
§ 35.220—2 Contest.
(a> Planning In State planning areas.
State planning agencies must submit a
work plan based on the approved con-
tinuing planning process, including the
State/EPA agreement, prepared pursu-
ant to i 130.10 of this Chapter, and
which is consistent with the require-
ments herein and the requirements of
5 130.11 of this Chapter. The work plan
shall be included as an element of the
State program plan submitted pursuant
to section 106 of the Act which will set
forth a work schedule, cost and resource
budget and disbursement schedule.
(b) Planning in areawide planning
areas. Designated areawide planning
agencies must submit a work plan which
con tarns:
(1) A description of all work per-
formed to date which will be used in the
plan development:
(2) A description of the proposed
planning process developed pursuant to
5 130.10 of this Chapter which will be
utilized to (i) identify and evaluate
feasible measures to control point and
nonpoint pollution sources, which meas-
ures may take into account all source lo-
cation and review measures necessary to
meet State implementation plan require-
ments in the area, (ii) develop an inte-
grated areawide plan to control these
sources, and (ni> establish an areawide
management program (including financ-
ing) for plan implementation;
<3> A description of any necessary ac-
tion in the planning to be taken by agen-
cies other than the applicant and pro-
cedures to be used in coordination of such
activities: documentation of the accept-
ance by the affected responsible agency
of such required work or action shall be
included and presented with the work
plan:
< 4 * A schedule showing required In-
terrelationships of work to be accom-
plished and anticipated dates of com-
pletion:
(5> A cost and resource budget, in-
cluding work to be done under contract
or by interagency agreement, and
<6> A proposed disbursement schedule
with specific progress milestones related
to disbursements.
§ 35.220—3 Submission.
As expeditiously as possible, grantees
conducting State and areawide planning
must submit to the Regional Administra-
tor a written work plan meeting the re-
quirements of § 35.220-2. For areawide
planning agencies, the work plan shall be
submitted not later than twelve months
from the date of the Administrator's ap-
proval of the designation. A copy of the
areawide planning agency's work plan
and future significant modifications
thereto shall be provided to the State
planning agency designated pursuant to
RULES AND REGULATIONS
3 130.12 of this Chapter for review and
comment Pursuant to ( 35.220-3, tub-
mission and approval of the work plan Is
a precondition to release of grant funds
for further areawide planning pursuant
to Part 131 of this Chapter.
§ 35.220—4 Funding for work plan devel-
opment.
Where the grant agreement, subject to
provisions of i 35.212, provides for work
plan development, the grantee will obli-
gate generally not to exceed five percent
(5%) of the total award for that purpose.
Further additional obligation is not au-
thorized until approval of the work plan
is granted by the Regional Administrator.
Where work plan development is set as a
milestone in the grant agreement, the de-
cision on size of the initial advance will
take into account this five percent (5%)
limitation.
§ 35.222 l'l.-in development.
§ 35.222—1 Plan development periitd—
areawide planning agencies.
(a> For each areawide grantee, the
Regional Administrator shall establish a
date (not more than one year from the
date of the Administrator's approval of
the designation of the grantee agency)
on which he determines that the grant-
ee's planning process becomes opera-
tional. The grant agreement shall be
amended to include this date. The
grantee's areawide plan must be sub-
mitted through the Governor to the Re-
gional Administrator for approval no
later than two years from the date so
established pursuant to 3 131.20(i). For
zrants awarded after June 30. 1975. the
date so established will generally be the
date of approval of the grantee's work
plan submitted pursuant to $ 35.220
herein. For grants awarded prior to July
1, 1975. the Regional Administrator shall
select the date upon which the planning
process becomes operational based on the
following four elements:
(1) The hiring of sufficient personnel
by the grantee to perform the work as
outlined in the work plan required under
5 35.220:
(2) The establishment of a policy ad-
visory or other appropriate committee
by the grantee;
(3> The initiation of major work ele-
ments tor date of award of contracts for
one or more such elements) by the
grantee; and
(4) Such other work plan require-
ment is) the Regional Administrator
shall determine as a requirement for the
planning process to become operational.
(b> Pursuant to $ 130.13(f) of this
Chapter, the Governor of each State
may make subsequent designations of
appropriate areawide planning agencies.
Where such a designation occurs after
the State has already received a grant
for section 208 planning, the plan devel-
opment period for the areawide planning
agency so designated shall end on the
earlier of two dates: (1) Two years from
the date the planning process of the
newly designated areawide planning
agencv is determined by the Regional
"n-l-
Administrator to be operational pur-
suant to S 35.22-1 (a); or (2) November 1.
1978.
J 35.222-2 Plan development period—
State planning agenciea.
Pursuant to S 131.20(1) of this Chap-
ter. State planning agencies must submit
section 208 plans to the Regional Ad-
ministrator for approval no later than
November 1. 1978.
I
§ 35.224 Content of plan.
Each State and areawide planning
agency shall develop and submit to the
Regional Administrator for approval a
plan consistent with these provisions and
which meets the requirements of Part
131 of this Chapter.
§ 35.226 Submission of the plan.
Submission of plans prepared pursu-
ant to these provisions shall be In ac-
cordance with J 131.20 of this Chapter.
§ 35.228 Plan approval.
EPA approval of plans prepared pur-
suant to these provisions shall be in ac-
cordance with S 131.21 of this Chapter.
§ 35.230 Antlioritv of States for non-
point source planning in areawide
planning areas.
Whenever the Governor of any State
determines (and notifies the Regional
Administrator) that consistency with a
Statewide regulatory program under
section 303 of the Act so requires, the
requirements of $ 131.11(}) through (1>
of this Chapter shall be developed by
the State and submitted by the Governor
to the Regional Administrator for ap-
plication to all regions within such State.
All requirements of such State programs
shall be Incorporated into each affected
areawide plan. The plan shall set forth
such additional local actions and pro-
grams as may be necessary for imple-
mentation of the plan developed by the
State.
§ 35.232 Reports.
During the grant period, grantees will
be required to submit interim progress
reports and financial status reports at
intervals set forth below. Failure to com-
ply with established reporting require-
ments in a timely manner will result in
appropriate action pursuant to } 30.430
of this Chapter. _
§ 35.232—1 Inloi im prcipre«» rrporl5.
Grantees shall monitor the perform-
ance under grant-supported activities to
assure that time schedules are being met.
projected work units by time periods are
being accomplished, and other perform-
ance goals and milestones are being
achieved. Within 30 days following the
end of each quarterly period after the
effective date of the grant, the grantee
shall prepare and submit to EPA for
review a brief Interim progress report
addressing the milestones In the ap-
proved work plan. A copy of this report
shall also be submitted to the State plan-
ning agency, designated pursuant to
9 130.12 of this Chapter, which shall
expeditiously review the report and sub-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOl. *0. NO 230—FRIDAY. NOVEMBER 78, 1975
-------
55326
RULES AND REGULATIONS
mit its comments to EPA. The Regional
Administrator may. at his discretion, de-
termine that semi-annual reporting is
adequate. The report of progress shall
include, but should not be limited to,
narrative presenting:
(a) A comparison of actual accom-
plishments to the goals established lor
the period:
(b) Any problems, delays, or adverse
conditions which have (or will) affect the
ability of the grantee to attain work plan
objectives:
Favorable developments or events
which enable the grantee to meet time
schedules or milestones sooner than
anticipated;
(d) Any major changes in the overall
program, work plan, budget, organiza-
tion or staffing (or the period: and
(e) Other pertinent information in-
cluding. where appropriate, analysis and
explanation of cost overruns or high unit
costs.
§ 35.232—2 Financial stains report*.
(a) Grantees shall be required to sub-
mit the financial status report at the end
of each quarter. The report shall be on
an accrual basis. However. If a grantee
cannot report on this basis, a request for
waiver may be submitted to the Regional
Administrator. The Regional Adminis-
trator may approve reporting on a cash
basis. The original and one copy shall
be submitted 30 days after the end of
each reporting period. In addition, final
reports shall be submitted 90 days after
the end of the project period.
(b) Grantees financed under a letter
of credit or advances by Treasury check
will also submit the Federal cash trans-
actions report within 15 days following
the end of each quarter. The grantee
shall forecast Federal cash requirements
for the next quarter in the Remarks sec-
tion of this report.
§ 35.234 Su»pen?ion and termination.
In accordance with the provisions of
§§ 30.915 and 30 920 of this Chapter, the
Regional Administrator may suspend or
terminate any grant awarded pursuant
to these provisions. Areawide planning
areas whose grants are terminated pur-
suant to this section shall became part
of the State water quality management
planning area for which the State plan-
ning agency shall conduct planning pur-
suant to section 208(a) (6) of the Act:
grant funds for which costs have not
been incurred by areawide planning
agencies prior to termination may be
transferred to the State planning agency
in accordance with the provisions of
5 30 900-3 of this Chapter.
§ 35.236 Disputes.
Final determinations by the Regional
Administrator concerning applicant in-
eligibility and final determinations by
the Regional Administrator concerning
disputes arising under a grant pursuant
to these provisions shall be final and con-
clusive unless appealed by the applicant
or grantee within 30 days from the date
of receipt of such final determination In
accordance with the "Disputes" article
of the General Grant Conditions (Article
7 of Appendix A to this Subchapter).
[FR Doc.75-32014 Filed 11-26-75.8:45 ami
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
|FRL 459-2|
PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGA-
TION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Public Availability of Emission Data
On May 31. 1972 (37 FR 10842). pur-
suant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act and 40 CFR Part 51. EPA approved
with specific exceptions. State imple-
mentation plans (SIPs) for attainment
of the national ambient air quality
standards. Included in these approvals
were provisions required by § 110(a)(2)
(F) of the Act which provided that emis-
sion data reported must be available to
the public in a reasonable manner. Many
of the plans did provide the public with
access to emission data, but some plans
also contained confidentiality clauses
which by treating information (includ-
ing emission data) capable of divulging
production, manufacturing or processing
secrets as being proprietary and, there-
fore. confidential, could have caused
emission data to be withheld from pub-
lic scrutiny.
Three circuit courts 1 have held that
the presence of a confidentiality clause
of the variety described above so beclouds
the public's right to emission data that
any emission disclosure provision which
is compromised by such a confidentiality
provision must be disapproved. There-
fore. on September 26, 1974, the Admin-
istrator disapproved all appropriate sec-
tions of SIPs which contained such con-
fidentiality clauses and proposed for pub-
lic comment a replacement regulation
for those States.
The only comments received dealt with
the applicability of the action for specific
States. No general comments were re-
ceived on the replacement regulation.
The States of Georgia. Indiana, New
Hampshire. Oregon, South Carolina and
Virginia have, in response to the Sep-
tember 26. 1974, disapproval action, sub-
mitted statutory and/or regulatory re-
visions which were designed to cure all
deficiencies in their SIP emission dis-
closure provisions. Receipt of the Indiana
changes was announced in the February
26, 1975, Federal Register at 40 FR 8225.
No adverse comments having been re-
ceived in response to this notice, the In-
diana plan revision announced on Feb-
ruary 26. 1975, is being approved and the
disapproval of the State's legal author-
ity for public access to emission data is
being revoked in the regulatory section
of this rulemaking.
Receipt of the New Hampshire changes
was announced in the October 20, 1975,
Federal Recistef Should EPA's analysis
of the comments submitted in response
to the notice confirm EPA's preliminary
' NRDC et al. v. EPA. 478 FJ2d 875 (CA 1.
1973): NRDC et al. v. EPA. EPA. 494 F.2d 519
(CA a. 1974): and NRDC et al. v. EPA. 489
F.2d 390 (CA 5. 1974).
assessment that the New Hampshire re-
vision is approvabls. final approval will
be published. Furthermore, as to New
Hampshire, the suspended disapproval
published on September 26. 1974. msy
be regarded as revoked since the defec-
tive plan provision which necessitated
such disapproval no longer exists as State
law. Since the revised statutory lan-
guage is already in effect at the State
level. It is assumed that, until final EPA
approval of the new State provisions,
the dissemination of emission data within
the State will be conducted pursuant to
such new provisions. Accordingly, the
Administrator has determined that an
Interim Federal regulation for New
Hampshire, along the lines of today's
rulemaking is unnecessary.
Although the new Georgia, Oregon.
South Carolina, and Virginia changes
have not yet been proposed for com-
ment. EPA intends to propose such
changes as SIP revisions in the near fu-
ture. Accordingly. EPA believes that the
treatment accorded the New Hampshire
revision should also apply to Georgia.
Virginia. South Carolina, and Oregon.
Thus, as to these four States. EPA's dis-
approval action of September 26. 1974,
may be regarded as revoked. Similarly,
rather than publish an Interim regula-
tion for these four States along the lines
of today's rulemaking. EPA will take no
action. It will be assumed that the State's
new emission disclosure provisions will
be operative while the approval process
is taking place at the Federal level.
One State. Kentucky, has advised the
Agency that It has enacted similar
changes which will cure the emission
disclosure defects in Its implementation
plan. EPA has reviewed the statutory
change and Is in agreement with the
State. However, the statutory change
has not yet been formally submitted to
the Agency as a plan revision, and the
Agency is. therefore, not now in a posi-
tion to propose it for approval. Never-
theless. on the assumption that the Stite
will, in the very near future, submit the
new statutory provision to the Agency as
a plan revision. EPA deems it appropri-
ate to treat the Kentucky statutory
change as the practical equivalent of the
submitted Georgia, Virginia. South
Carolina, and Oregon plan revisions. Ac-
cordingly, as was_the case with Georgia.
Virginia, South Carolira. and Oregon, no
interim regulations will be promulgated
for Kentuckv and the applicable Sep-
tember 26. 1974. disarproval action may
be regarded as withdrawn.
In addition to the seven States noted
?bove, four other States have committed
to take all necessary action to cure (by
June 30. 1976) lepal authority defects in
their plans regarding public access to
emission data. These States are Arkan-
sas. Louisiana, New Mexico, and Okla-
homa. Although the Administrator is
pleased with the initiative indicated by
these commitments, he also recognizes
that, unlike Kentucky where statutory
changes have already taken place. It
would be premature to assume that the
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40. NO. 230—FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1975
-------
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1976
PART IV:
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
PROGRAM GRANTS
State and Local Assistance
-------
17G94
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of the Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL 518-31
PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
Program Grants
Section 106 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, as amended (Pub. L.
92-500; 86 Stat. 816; 33 U.S.C. 1256
(1972)), authorizes the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency to
make annual allotments from sums ap-
propriated by Congress in each fiscal
year on the basis of the extent of the
pollution problem in the several States.
The Act requires that the Administrator
promulgate regulations governing such
allotments.
Interim regulations, which provide
minimum guidelines for Federal grant
assitance to the State and interstate
agencies to assist them in administering
their water pollution control programs,
were published in the Federal Register
on June 29. 1973 (38 FR 17219>. The in-
terim regulations supplement the En-
vironmental Protection Agency general
grant regulations (40 CFR Part 30). Also,
on August 28, 1974, notice was published
in the Federal Register (39 FR 31500)
that the Environmental Protection
Agency was proposing regulations re-
lating to water quality and pollutant
source monitoring in State water pollu-
tion control programs.
Written comments on the interim
State water pollution control program
grant regulations and the proposed water
quality and pollutant source monitoring
regulations were invited and received
from numerous interested parties. EPA
has carefully considered all comments
submitted, as well as comments made by
EPA and State and interstate agency per-
sonnel on the basis of their experience
under the interim regulations. Written
comments received from interested
parties are on file with the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. Many of these
comments have been adopted or substan-
tially satisfied by editorial changes, dele-
tions from, or additions to the regula-
tions.
These regulations, as amended, de-
scribe the annual State program for the
control and abatement of water pollu-
tion and for the allocation of Federal
grant assistance to support these State
programs. The requirements and proce-
dures should be viewed as one part of an
overall management system to be used
by the States, Interstate agencies, and
EPA in carrying out the requirements of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. The system begins
with the establishment of the State con-
tinuing planning process described in
Part 130 of this chapter. The process Is
to provide States with the basis for de-
veloping a "State Strategy" which con-
tains an assessment of their pollution
problems, a means for developing their
control strategies, and for assessing re-
sults. The State strategy, which will be
based upon Statewide water quality man-
agement plans where they are completed.
and upon available information where
the plans are not completed, together
with other associated outputs, provides
the basis for developing each State's an-
nual program plan.
The annual program plan is a man-
agement device which the State uses to
identify its expected accomplishments
during the year, allocate Us resources,
and assess its progress toward those ac-
complishments. At the same time, the
State program provides EPA the basis for
providing Federal grants to supplement
State funds.
Major changes and the majority of
substantive comments centered around
the issues discussed below:
(1 > The Allocation Formula for Deter-
mining State and Interstate Allotments.
Comments were received from several
State water pollution control agencies
regarding the allocation formula used to
determine State and interstate allot-
ments (see § 35.553). Suggestions were
offered regarding potential changes to
the allocation formula. For example, it
was suggested that the formula take into
consideration the volume of waste water
processed by treatment plants. This fac-
tor was among the twenty-two variables
considered when the formula was de-
vised. However, it was judged to be
less satisfactory in reflecting the "extent
of the pollution problem" than the
variables which are currently considered
in the formula. Also It was pointed out
that the formula does not factor in non-
point sources of pollution. This factor re-
mains unquantifiable on a national basis
due to a lack of data, and for this rea-
son. it has been decided that the present
allocation formula remains the best sur-
rogate measure of the extent of pollu-
tion which has been suggested to date.
Consequently, this formula is retained
as the means of allocating grant funds
to the State and interstate agencies. Be-
cause of the expressed concerns, how-
ever. the Agency intends to consider
other alternative allocation formulas
over the next year. Criteria which will
be considered as additional factors for
the formula will be pollution from toxic
and hazardous materials and non-point
sources.
The State and Interstate allotment
ratios, to be applied against the total
sums available nationally to determine
individual State and interstate agency
allotments, are based on the previous
formula. The allotment ratios contained
in the regulation are presented in a dif-
ferent format (i.e.. State and Interstate
agency allotment ratios are separated
into two distinct categories). For this
reason the Individual allotment ratios
appear to differ, but they are in effect
unchanged from the interim regulation.
The future role of Interstate agencies
in the national water pollution control
program was the subject of a compre-
hensive study recently completed by EPA.
As a result of that study the agency has
determined that section 106 Interstate
agency program grant funds should be
made available only for coordinating ac-
tivities and activities which support the
operational responsibilities of the State
agencies. For this reason the future fund-,
ing for interstate agencies will be speci-
fied in EPA's annual operating guidance
(2) Incentive Grants. The practice of
providing Incentive grants to State agen-
cies has been used for the past three
years to focus State management atten-
tion and resources on those program ele-
ments which are essential to the national
program in each fiscal year. The practice
has had limited success since its initia-
tion. At the outset, incentives served to
gear up State resources to undertake
NPDES activities, Federal construction
grarit activities and other EPA respon-
sibilities. Now. however, most States have
become involved in these programs and
incentives appear to have outlived their
usefulness.
Comment on this issue from the States
was unanimous in favor of eliminating
mcentive grants. EPA agrees with this
comment and has deleted the incentive
grant concept from the regulation. This
action is consistent with Agency policy
to decentralize decision-making to the
Regional Office and State level, wherever
appropriate.
In the future. Regional Administrators
are expected to adopt national guidance
regarding program priorities to the par-
ticular circumstances and needs of each
State. The Regional Administrator has
the authority and responsibility under
5 35.405 and 3 35.565 to require State pro-
grams which contain an appropriate pro-
gram emphasis, but the determination of
this emphasis is to be made primarily
as a result of a consultation process with
the States.
(3) Timing of Public Participation and
Program Submission to EPA. A number
of State agencies objected to the time
frame for public participation contained
in the interim regulation. Rather than
requiring the completion of public par-
ticipation prior to an arbitrary date, it
was suggested that the public participa-
tion requirement be made more flexible.
This proposal was judged appropriate
and public participation no longer has
a time constraint built into the regula-
tion. Instead, an agreement between the
Regional Administrator and State agency
reached prior to development of the State
strategy and program will dictate ade-
quate public participation.
Other changes from the interim reg-
ulation Include the date changes for
preparation and submission of State
strategies and program plans to corre-
spond to Agency changes in procedures
as a result of the shift to the new Fed-
eral fiscal year (October through Sep-
tember) required pursuant to the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1974 (Pub. L.
93-344).
(4) Monitoring Requirements—Ap-
pendix A. Comments were expressly in-
vited on Appendix A as to whether these
provisions should be promulgated as reg-
ulations or guidelines. An overwhelming
majority of comments indicated a prefer-
ence for guidelines on the grounds that
EPA should not attempt to define tech-
nical specifics of monitoring activities
(such as monitoring survey design and'
operation) which may be dictated by
local conditions. Other letters of corri-
FEDERAt REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 82—TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1976
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
17VS95
meat, while not addressing specifically
• question, ol regulations vs. guidelines,
ressed timiinr concerns regarding
tlcular paragraphs of tbe proposed
regulation. Therefore, tbe provisions
>«ntointng regulation of monitoring
specifics have been deleted from this
regulation and the subjects addressed
are only those common to all water
monitoring programs. Rather than pub-
lishing the details of monitor-
ing as regulations, EPA will issue guid-
ance documents detailing recommended
montoring practices.
This subpart is promulgated as a final
regulation and will replace tbe interim
regulation previously promulgated.
However, because of the numerous
rhanpiK which have been made through-
out this subpart, public comment is
again invited. Interested parties are en-
couraged to submit written comments,
suggestions, views, ort data concerning
the final regulation promulgated hereby
to: Director, Grants Administration Di-
vision. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy, Washington, D.C. 20460. All such
submissions received on or before
October 1, 1976 will be considered with
respect to tbe need for amendment of
this subpart.
Effective date. The final water pro-
gram grant regulations promulgated
hereby shall become effective upon pub-
lication. It is necessary that these regu-
lations take effect prior to a thirty day
period following promulgation to Insure
their implementation without delay and
to permit States to submit applications
lor program grants from funds avall-
>le in accordance with the new pro-
lures established pursuant to these
^ulations. These regulations shall gov-
ern actions, including grant amendment
actions and other actions such as State
and interstate agency program planning
and evaluation and allocation of Fed-
eral funds, which are related to En-
vironmental Protection Agency water
program grants to be awarded after the
effective date. Prior regulations (38 FR
17219) governing-water program grants
shall remain applicable to grants
awarded prior to the effective date. Prior
regulations <39 FR 7785) governing air
program grants and 41 FR 2912 govern-
ing public water supply system super-
vision grants remain in effect.
Dated: April 16. 1976.
Russell E. Train.
Administrator.
40 CFR §5 35.400 through 35.425 and
53 35.551 through 35.570 are hereby re-
vlsed and adopted as final regulations.
40 CFR 55 35.500—35.550 and 35.600—
35.630 remain in effect as previously
published.
1. The relevant portions of the table
of contents to 40 CFR Part 35 are re-
vised as follows:
Subpart B-—Program Grants
Sec.
80.400 Purpose.
^36.400-1 Air pollution control agency _£Tant
awards.
33.400-3 Welter pollution control program
grant awards.
35,400-3 public water «y*te«». awervlalon
|rwigrr*i gnat awards.
36.403 Authority.
36.404 guidance.
39.405 Criteria for evaluation at program
objectives.
85.410 Evaluation of agency performance.
35.416 Beport of project expenditure*.
35.430 Payment.
35.435 Federal and gTantee program sup-
port.
• « • • •
Wtm Poixtmoir Comioi Stat* ani> Iirm-
8TATS Pioauai OaAMTS
35.551 Scope and purpose.
35.653 Definitions.
35.553 State and Interstate allotments.
35.554 Regional allowances.
35.555 Determination of grant amount by
Regional Administrator.
35.556 Seduction of grant amount.
35.557 Grant amount limitation and
duration.
35.358 Eligibility.
35.650 Limitations on award.
35.560 State strategy formulation and
program development.
35.561 Major program elements and out-
puts.
35.562 State program submission.
35.563 State project priority list submis-
sion.
35.564 Public participation.
35.565 Program approval.
35.566 State project priority list approval.
35.567 Qrant conditions.
35.568 Adherence to budget estimates.
35.568 Program changes.
35.570 Program evaluation and reporting.
Appeiidu A—Witn Quality and Pollutant
Soubcb MoNTToamo
2. Section 35.400 through 35.425 are
revised as follows:
§ 35.400 Purpose.
This subpart establishes and codifies
policy and procedures for air pollution,
water pollution, and public water system
supervision program assistance grants
and supplements tbe EPA general grant
regulations and procedures (Part 30 of
this Chapter). These grants are intended
to aid programs for air pollution control,
water pollution control and public water
system supervision at the State, inter-
state, or local level.
§ 35.400—1 Air pollution control ugenry
grant awards.
Grants may be awarded to air pollution
control agencies for the planning, de-
velopment. establishment, improvement,
and maintenance of programs for the
prevention and control of air pollution
or Implementation of national primary
and secondary ambient air quality stand-
ards in accordance with the applicable
implementation plan.
§ 35.400—2 Water pollution control pro-
gram grunt awards.
Grants may be awarded to State and
interstate water pollution control agen-
cies to assist them in developing or ad-
ministering programs for the prevention,
reduction, and elimination of water pol-
lution, including enforcement directly or
through appropriate State law enforce-
ment officers or agencies.
§ 35.440—3 Public water system supervi-
sion * grant awards.
Grants may be awarded to State agen-
cies to assist them in developing or ad-
ministering public water system super-
vision programs.
S 35.403 Authority.
This subpart is Issued under sections
105 and 301(b) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 UjS.C. 1857(c) and 1857
(g)); sections 109 and 501 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Amendments of
1972 (33 TX.S.C. 1256 and 1361); and sec-
tions 1443(a) and 1450 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (42 TJ.S.C. 300J-2)
§ 35.404 Annual guidance.
The Environmental Protection Agency
will develop and disseminate annual
guidance to be used by the grantee to
structure air pollution, water pollution,
and public water system supervision pro-
grams for the coming Federal fiscal year
The guidance will contain a statement
of the national strategy Including na-
tional objectives and national priorities
for the year together with planning fig-
ures for Federal program grant assist-
ance based on the EPA budget approved
by the President. The annual guidance
will be disseminated each year as soon as
practicable during the month of Feb-
ruary.
§ 35.405 Criteria for evaluation of pro-
gram objectives.
(a) Programs set out In the applica-
tion and submitted in accordance with
these regulations shall be evaluated In
writing by the Regional Administrator to
determine:
(1) Consistency and compatibility of
objectives and expected results with EPA
national and regional priorities in im-
plementing purposes and policies of the
Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, or the Safe Drinking
Water Act
(2) Feasibility of achieving objectives
and expected results in relation to exist-
ing problems, past performance, pro-
gram authority, organization, resources
and procedures.
. . (b) Approval of the program devel-
oped pursuant to { 35.926 (air) or g 35.565
(water pollution) or { 35.626 (public wa-
ter system supervision) shall be based on
the extent to which the applicant's pro-
gram satisfies the above criteria.
§ 35.410 Evaluation of agem-y perform-
ance.
(a) A performance evaluation shall be
conducted at least annually by the Re-
gional Administrator and the grantee to
provide 'a basis for measuring progress
toward achievement of the approved ob-
jectives and outputs described in the
program. The evaluation shall be con-
sistent with the requirements of 5 35.538
for air pollution control agencies.
5 35.570 for water pollution control agen-
cies and J 35.626(d) for public water sys-
tem supervision agencies.
(b) The Regional Administrator shall
prepare a written report of the annual
evaluation. The grantee shall be allowed
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 41. NO. 82—TUESDAY, APRIL J7, 1976
-------
176%
RULES AND REGULATIONS
15 working days from the date of receipt
to concur with or comment on the find-
ings.
§35.415 Report of project expenditures.
Within 90 days after the end of each
budget period, the grantee must submit
to the Regional Administrator an annual
report of all expenditures (Federal and
non-Federal) which accrued during the
budget period. Beginning in the second
quarter of any succeeding budget period,
grant payments may be withheld pur-
suant to S 30.615-3 of this Chapter until
this report Is received. -
§ 35.420 Payment.
Grant payments will be made in ac-
cordance with 5 30.615 of this Chapter.
Notwithstanding the provisions of
S 30.345 of this Chapter, the first grant
payment subsequent to grant award may
Include reimbursement of all allowable
costs Incurred from the beginning of the
approved budget period, provided that
monthly-costs incurred from the begin-
ning of the budget period to the date of
grant award do not exceed the level of
costs incurred in the last month of the
prior budget period.
§ 35.425 Federal and grantee program
support.
(a) For purposes of establishing the
amount of resources which will be com-
mitted by the agency to particular budget
categories or program elements under
S3 35.527 (air), 35.561(a) (water) and
} 35.626-1 (public water system supervi-
sion) , federal and grantee financial con-
tribution shall be considered as com-
bined sums, and shall not be separately
identified for each budget category or
program element. Eot_purposes of this
subpart, and pursuant to Section 30.700
(a) of this Chapter, all project expendi-
tures by the grantee shall be deemed to
include the Federal share.
(b) A grantee may not unilaterally
reduce the non-Federal share of project
costs. In the event of a significant pro-
posed or actual reduction in the non-
Federal contribution, the Regional Ad-
ministrator must consider a reduction in
the Federal share or an increase to the
Federal percentage.
3. Sections 35.551 through 35.570 are
revised as follows:
Water Pollution Control Stats and
Interstate Program Grants
§ 35.551 Scope and purpose.
This subpart establishes regulations
containing policies and procedures by
which program grant funds may be pro-
vided to State said interstate agencies as
authorized by Section 106 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (PL 92-500; 36 Stat. 816:
33 UJ3.C. 1256). These regulations are
Intended to foster development of effec-
tive State programs which Implement PL
92-500.
§ 35.552 Definitions.
As used herein, the following words
and terms shall have the meaning set
forth below:
(a) The term "allotment" means the
sum reserved for each State or Interstate
agency from funds appropriated by Con-
gress. The allotment Is determined by
formula based on the extent of the water
pollution problem in the several States.
It represents the maximum amount of
money potentially available to the State
or interstate agency for its program
grant.
(b) The term "State program grant"
means the amount of Federal assistance
awarded to a State or interstate agency
to assist in administering approved pro-
grams for the prevention, reduction and
elimination of water pollution.
(c) The term "State program" means
the annual submission, including revi-
sions. which describe the State or inter-
state agencies' planned activities to con-
trol water pollution in conformance with
$ 35.562.
(d) The term "number of pollution
sources" means a count of the sources
of discharge associated with any:
(1) One of the twenty-seven Stand-
ard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes
listed in section 306(b)(1)(A) of the
Act (the number of establishments are
reported In the 1967 edition of "Census
of Manufacturers," U.S. Department of
Commerce);
(2) Municipality (as reported in the
EPA Municipal Waste Facilities Direc-
tory, dated April 6,1972);
(3) Power plant (Nuclear, oil, coal or
gas) (as reported In "STEAMELECTRIC
PLANT FACTORS," NATIONAL COAL
ASSOCIATION, 1971 edition):
(4) Feedlot (of more than 1000 head
capacity) (as reported in "CATTLE ON
FEED." D.S. Department of Agriculture,
January. 1972).
(e) The term "Act" means the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act -Amend-
ments of 1972 (33 VJB.C. 1256 and 1361).
(f) The term "State agency" means
that agency designated by the Governor
to apply for and receive the State's pro-
gram grant and responsible for coordi-
nating the water quality control program
or primarily responsible for coordinat-
ing implementation of the State water
quality laws.
(g) The term "interstate agency"
means that agency defined in section
502(2) of the Act which is determined
eligible for receipt of a grant under these
regulations by the Administrator.
(h) The term "reasonablecost" means
the allowable costs (See { 30.705 of this
chapter) up to a level of the annual
allocation as determined by the Admin-
istrator, of developing and administer-
ing a water pollution control program by
a State or interstate agency consistent
with the intent and purposes of the Act.
(i) The term "recurrent expendi-
tures" means those expenditures neces-
sary for normal operations of the entity
in the dally conduct of operations which
would not be classed as unusual or ex-
traordinary and would be expected to
recur on a periodic basis. Recurrent ex-
penditures would not Include Items such
as procurement of real property, extraor-
dinary equipment purchases, nor one
time management studies.
S 35.553 State and interstate allotments.
(a) Funds appropriated for each fiscal
year will be allocated to State and inter-
state agencies on the basis of the ex-
tent of the pollution problem. State al-
lotment ratios are based on a count of
pollution sources for each State com-
pared to a count of pollution sources in
the Nation. Interstate allotment ratios
are based on the level of funding received
in fiscal year 1973. The table below lists
the allotment ratios for each State and
interstate agency, which will be applied
against the total sums available nation-
ally to determine individual State and
interstate agency allotments:
State Allotment Ratios
Alabama
0.02733
New York..
0. 05653
Alaska
.00311
North Car-
Arizona
.00836
olina
. 03768
Arkansas
.01617
North Da-
California .
.06044
kota
.00444
Colorado
.00063
Ohio
.03914
Connecti-
Oklahoma .
.01136
cut
.01572
Oregon
.01681
Delaware
.00867
Pennsyl-
District of
vania
.04593
Columbia.
.00856
Rhode Is-
Florida
.02644
land
.01071
Oeorgla —
.03198
South Car-
Hawaii
.00737
olina
.03043
Idaho
.00799
South Da-
~linola
.03837
kota
.00481
Indiana
.03150
Tennessee -
.01866
low* ......
.01493
Texas
.03791
ffwrnsn
.01083
Utah
.00681
Kentucky
.01609
Vermont
.00610
Louisiana -.
.01730
Virginia
.03681
Mftlno .....
.01131
Washing-
Maryland
.01731
ton
.03197
Massachu-
West Vir-
setts
.03441
ginia
.01308
Michigan ..
. 03673
Wisconsin _
. 03909
Minnesota .
. 01923
Wyoming ..
.0039
Mississippi .
.01537
Am. Samoa.
.0016
Missouri
.01809
Virgin Is-
Montana ..
.00704
lands
.00763
Nebraska
.01180
Guam
.00760
Nevada
.00359
Puerto
New Hamp-
Rico
.01670
shire
. 00697
Trust Terri-
New Jersey.
.02810
tory
.00346
New Mex-
ico
.00593
Interstate Allotment Ratios
ORSANCO . 0.26331 INCOPOT - 0.11141
DRBC 17357 NEIWPCC - . 17668
ISC 21348 SRBC 06878
(b) The amount of funds set aside for
Interstate commissions in a given fiscal
year will be specified in EPA's annual Op-
erating Guidance. The minimum level of
funding for these commissions will be the
level of fiscal year 1973 ($1,022,400) un-
less the annual S106 appropriation is
less than the fiscal year 1973 level ($40
million), in which case the total amount
of funding for the commissions will be
reduced by the proportional amount that
the annual appropriation is reduced be-
low $40 million.
§ 35.554 Regional allowances.
(a) Tentative Regional allocations or
final Regional allowances will be the sum
of the tentative or final State and inter-
state allotments within each EPA Re-,
glon, calculated by applying the individ-
ual State and interstate agency allotment
FEDEKAl REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 82—TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1974
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
17697
ratios against the total sums available
^nationally.
(b) The Administrator will Issue to
Kacta Regional Administrator, as a part
of the EPA annual guidance, tentative
Regional allocations and State and Inter-
state agency allotments for the next fiscal
year. These tentative allocations (plan-
ning targets) will be based on the amount
of the appropriation requested by the
president for the next fiscal year. The
Regional Administrator shall notify each
State and interstate agency of its ten-
tative allotment for the next fiscal year
as soon as practicable after receipt.
(c) As soon as practicable after funds
are appropriated, the Administrator will
Issue to each Regional Administrator
final Regional allowances for allotment
from the fluids appropriated for each
fiscal year.
g 35.555 Determination of grant
amount by Regional Administrator.
(a) Each State and Interstate agency
ftHftii receive a grant from its final allot-
ment in an amount not to exceed the
reasonable cost of carrying out its ap-
proved program.
(b) Should the Regional Administra-
tor's evaluation of the State program
submission reveal that the output com-
mitment is not consistent with the level
of funding requested and/or the national
priorities contained in the EPA annual
guidance, he shall negotiate with the
agency to change the output commit-
ment or to reduce the grant amount.
However, should a State or Interstate
agency propose a different set of outputs
han suggested in the EPA annual guid-
ice due to unique regional or Statewide
.pollution problems, the Regional Admin-
istrator may approve the State program
provided he determines the outputs can
and should be produced and the proposed
funding is appropriate.
(c) At the end of each program year,
unobligated funds will be reissued as
carryover funds to the same Region and
will in effect remain with that Region
for reallocation to State and Interstate
agencies within that Region as deter-
mined by the Regional Administrator.
§ 35.556 Reduction of grant amount.
(a) In the event a State or interstate
agency fails to submit its final program
on or before the dates specified in
i 35.562(b), the grant amount may be re-
duced by one-twelfth of the agency's
available allotment for each full month's
delay.
(b) If the Regional Administrator's
Program evaluation reveals that the
grantee will not achieve or has not
achieved the outputs specified In the ap-
proved program, an effort should be
made to resolve the situation through
mutual agreement by amending the ap-
proved program. If mutual agreement is
>s not feasible the Regional Administra-
tor may reduce the grant amount In pro-
portion to the estimated program cost to
Produce such outputs pursuant to
! 30.920 of this chapter.
-------
17698
RULES AND REGULATIONS
or contracts and other sources of fund-
ing) shall be identified.
(3> Changes in the State continuing
planning process made pursuant to
£ 130.40 of this Chapter.
(4) Changes in the State priority sys-
tem. described in 9 35.915(a) of this
Chapter, including the criteria used by
the State in determining priority for con-
struction grant projects pursuant to
9 35.915(c) (1).
Note: The State priority system may be
amended by a State, as necessary at any
time, provided the Regional Administrator
approves each revision.
(5) A preliminary State project pri-
ority list pursuant to 3 35.563(a).
(b> A final program (grant applica-
tion) by September 1 for each fiscal year
consisting ol the initial program (not
including the final State project priority
list to be submitted pursuant to 9 35.563
(b)) described in 9 35.562(a)-, modified as
appropriate to reflect the results of public
participation, and comments of the Re-
gional Administrator. In addition, pur-
suant to the requirements of 9 30.305
of this Chapter, the final program shall
Incorporate commenta received through
the State office with clearinghouse
responsibilities.
§ 3S.563 Stale project priority list sub-
mission.
(a) Each State shall submit to the Re-
gional Administrator a preliminary 8tate
project priority list described in 9 35.915
(c) by May 1 of each year as part of the
initial program submission (See 9 35.562
(a) >.
(b) £ach State shall submit to the Re-
gional Administrator a final State proj-
ect priority list by July-15 for his ap-
proval which reflects the results of public
participation and comments of the Re-
gional Administrator.
Note: Tbe State project priority list may
be amended by a State, as necessary, at any
time pursuant to I 35.913(f).
§ 35.564 Public participation.
The final State program submission
described in 3 35.562 shall be the subject
of public participation pursuant to 40
CFR Part 105 and in accordance with
any time schedules and procedures
agreed upon by the Regional Adminis-
trator and the State or Interstate agency
prior to initiation of development of the
State strategy and program.
§ 35.565 Program approval.
(a) The Regional Administrator shall
review the initial program submission
and provide written comments to the
State within thirty calendar days of its
receipt.
(b) The Regional Administrator shall
approve, conditionally approve or disap-
prove a final State program submission
within thirty calendar days of its re-
ceipt. notwithstanding the provisions of
9 30.345 of this Chapter. Such program
shall be approved only if the program is
in compliance with the requirements set
forth in the Act and this Chapter.
(c> The Regional Administrator may
award a grant based on conditional apr-
proval of a State program which requires
minor changes to qualify for approval. In
the event conditional approval is granted,
the Regional Administrator shall provide
the State with an explicit statement re-
garding the deficiency found in the State
program submission and include, as a
part of the grant award, a statement of
the conditions which must be met to se-
cure final approval and the date by
which such conditions shall be met. Non-
compliance with such conditions may re-
sult in a reduction In the grant amount
as reflected in the grant agreement.
(d) Approval of the State program
submission shall be reflected by execu-
tion of the grant agreement.
§ 35.566 Stale project priority list ap-
proval.
(a) The Regional Administrator shall
review the preliminary project priority
list submission and provide written com-
ments to the State within thirty calendar
days of its receipt.
(b> The Regional Administrator shall
approve or disapprove a final project
priority list submission within thirty
calendar days of ite receipt. Such lists
shall be approved only if It is in com-
pliance with the requirements set forth
m the Act and with 9 35.915(c) of this
Chapter.
Note: Tbe State priority system described
In { 35.915(a) and the project list described
In f 35.915(c) may not be conditionally
approved.
(c) The Regional Administrator shall
approve or disapprove any amendment
to the State priority system and project
priority list within thirty calendar days
of the date of receipt. If either is dis-
approved. the Regional Administrator
shall detail to the State the specific rea-
sons for disapproval.
§ 35.567 Cr.mt conditions.
In addition to the requirements set
forth in Part 3C of this Chapter, each
grant for a State water pollution con-
trol program shall be subject to the fol-
lowing condition:
The Regional Administrator may uni-
laterally suspend or terminate this grant
pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 30 and 35 where
Federally assumed enforcement as defined
In section 309(a) (2) of the Act Is In effect.
§ 35.568 Adherence to budget estimates.
Orantee expenditures shall be consist-
ent with the resource estimates contained
in the approved State program. In the
event that rebudgeting of funds among
program elements becomes necessary,
the provisions of 9 30 610 of this Chapter
shall be applied.
§ 35.569 Program changes.
The grantee shall conduct its program
in a manner consistent with the approved
State program. In the event that changes
to the approved State program become
necessary, such changes shall be made in
accordance with 9 30.900 of this Chapter.
§ 35.570 Program evaluation and report-
ing.
Program evaluation Is primarily a
State and Interstate agency responsibility
and should be conducted periodically
throughout the program year. It is EPA
policy to limit evaluation to that which
is necessary for responsible manage-
ment of the national effort to control wa-
ter pollution. Therefore, joint Fed-
eral/State evaluations are decentralized
to the Regional level. Each Regional Ad-
ministrator shall review and evaluate
State and interstate programs at least
twice each year as follows:
(a) Mid-year evaluation. By May 1 of
each year, the Regional Administrator
shall conduct a joint on-site evaluation
meeting with the appropriate State and
interstate agency officials to review and
evaluate the program accomplishments
of the current budget period pursuant to
9 35.410.
(b) End-of-Year-Review. The Regional
Administrator should ocnduct an evalua-
tion meeting with appropriate State and
interstate agency officials to review the
accomplishments of the program year
and the accomplishments projected for
the coming year. This review Is essen-
tial to program approval pursuant to
9 35.565.
Atpendix A—Wat** Qtuixrr AND Pollutant
Soumc* MoNTroamo
A. PUBPOSB
This Appendix sets forth the description
of tbe minimum acceptable State monitor-
ing strategy and program required by i 35-
559(b)(1). pursuant to Section 106(e)(1)
of the Act.
B. OBJECTIVES AND GENEBAL EEQUIBElf ENTS
The objectives of the State monitoring
program required by the Act are provision
of the data, information, or reports neces-
sary to determine compliance with permit
terms and conditions, to develop and main-
tali an understanding of tbe quality (and
causes and effects of such quality) of the
waters in the State for the purpose of sup-
porting State water pollution control activi-
ties in relation to the achievement of Na-
tional goals according to the Act, to report
on such quality and Its causes and effects,
and to assess the effectiveness of the State's
pollution control program. To thu end each
State shall establish and maintain the ca-
pacity and competence to carry out a broad
range of monitoring activities both before
and after Implementing pollution controls,
including measurement of pollutant sources,
water quality (physical, chemical, and bi-
ological). the factors affecting water quality,
and the specific effects of such quality upon
beneficial uses of the State's waters. Conduct
of such monitoring programs and activities
shall be carried out according to normally
accepted practices consistent with prac-
tices promulgated or otherwise Issued by the
Administrator In the form of regulations,
guidelines, technical manuals and hand-
books, or other guidance which from time to
time may be published and revised or
amended.
c. DrriNmoNB
As used in this Appendix, the following
terms shall have the meaning set forth
below:
(1) The definitions of the following terms
contained in Section 503 of the Act shall be
applicable to such terms as used herein un-
less the context requires otherwise: "State
water pollution control agency." "State."
"interstate agency," "pollutant." "biological
monitoring," "discharge," and "pollution."
(3) -The term "parameter" means a quan-
titative or characteristic element which de-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. B3—TUESDAY, APRIL 37, 1976
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
17691)
scribes physical, chemical, or biological con-
ditions of water.
(3) The term "representative point"
means:
(a) A location in surface waters or ground
waters at which specific conditions or paltm>
eters may be measured In such a manner
as to characterize or approximate the quality
or condition of the water body; or
(b) A location In process or waste waters
at which specific conditions or parameters
are measured and will adequately reflect
the actual condition of those waters or-
waste waters for which analysis was made.
(4) The term "NPDES" means the Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem which Is the national permitting system
authorized under Section 403 of the Act, In-
cluding any State or Interstate permit pro-
gram approved by the Administrator pursu-
ant to Section 403 of the Act.
(8) The term "compliance monitoring"
wwiiw measuring and analyzing pollutant
sources, review of reports and Information
obtained from dischargers, and all other ac-
tivities conducted by the State to verify
compliance with effluent limits and compli-
ance schedules.
(6) The term "Intensive survey means the
frequent sampling or measurement of param-
eters at representative points for a rela-
tively short period of time to determine water
quality conditions, causes, effects, or cause
»nii effect relationships of such conditions.
(7) The term "fixed station monitoring"
the repeated, long-term sampling or
measurement of parameters at representative
points for the purpose of determining water
quality trends and characteristics.-
(8) The term "State continuing planning
process or planning process" means the con-
tinuing planning process required by Section
303(e) of the Act. as developed and approved
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 130.
(9) The term "monitoring activity" In-
cludes but Is not Ulmted to. the following:
the collection of samples, including preserva-
tion and transport, and the collection of In-
formation concerning the quality or condi-
tion of ambient waters. Including ground
waters, or aquatic biota: the collection of
samples. Including preservation and trans-
port, and the collection of Information con-
cerning the physical, chemical, or biological
character of waste discharges to ambient
waters. Including ground waters; the opera-
tion and maintenance of field and labora-
tory support facilities including approved
quality assurance practices; the processing,
analysis. Interpretation, and reporting of re-
sulting data and Information; and the man-
agement of such activities In terms of staff-
ing, funding, scheduling, and coordination
with other agents, including other State,
Interstate, Federal, local, and private entitles
or agencies.
(10) The term "monitoring program" In-
cludes, but Is not limited to the monitoring
activities described In (9) above applied In
support of the State's water pollution control
program.
D. MONITORING STBATXGT *
The State shall develop, maintain, and Im-
plement a Statewide monitoring strategy as
part of, and consistent with, the overall State
strategy for preventing and controlling water
pollution (described In I 130JO of
chapter). The monitoring strategy, or re-
visions. thereof, shall conform with the re-
quirements of this Appendix and be In-
cluded as a part of the State strategy re-
quired pursuant to I 36.663(a) (1), and shall;
(1) Describe the rationale by which the
data needs of the State's water pollution con-
trol program are Identified and pncntlne»1;
(3) Describe the present and projected
monitoring activities being carried out by the
State as well as those being carried out by
other entitles Insofar as the State relies or
Intends to rely upon them to satisfy the
monitoring needs of the State's water pollu-
tion control program; and
(3) Describe the plan to progress sys-
tematically toward development of the ca-
pacity and competencies necessary to satisfy
fully the monitoring needs of the State's
water pollution control program; set the
priorities for satisfaction of such monitoring
needs, and describe generally what will be
done In each of the monitoring activities for
the next fiscal year.
I. PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENT PLANNING AND
review
The States shall develop and Include as a
part of Its State program submission re-
quired pursuant to I 33£62(a):
(1) Estimates of expenditures In terms of
percentage of the total water monitoring
budget for each of the monitoring program
activities of field sampling, laboratory analy-
sis Including quality assurance, data han-
dling, Interpretation and reporting, and pro-
gram management.
(3) Estimates of expenditures in terms of
percentages of the total water monitoring
budget for each monitoring program com-,
ponent described in Paragraph O herein.
r. COORDINATION WITH OTHXE ENTRIES
Insofar as monitoring activities by other
agents. Including other State, Interstate. Fed-
eral. local, or private entitles or agencies,
meet the laboratory support and quality as-
surance requirements set forth In this Ap-
pendix. and where sampling frequency, pa-
rameter coverage, station locations, and data
availability meet pollution control program
requirements, such activities should be Inte-
grated Into the State's water monitoring pro-
gram and. when approved by the Regional
Administrator, -will aid in satisfying the mon-
itoring needs of the State's water pollution
control program.
C. COMPONENTS OP THE STATE'S WATDI
monitoring pbogbam
The water monitoring program of the State
shall Include, but Is not limited to, the fol-
lowing components:
(1) Compliance monitoring In accordance
with 40 CTO Part 134 Subpart O and 40 CFR
Part 123.37 of this Chapter.
(3) Intensive surveys of surface waters.
(3) Fixed station monitoring at represent-
ative points In surface waters.
H LABORATORY SUPPORT AND QUALITY
ASSURANCE
The State water monitoring program shall
produce valid data and Information. The
State shall ensure that the monitoring pro-
gram Is staffed, equipped, maintained, and
operated In a manner to support the activi-
ties of the State or Interstate pollution abate-
ment program.
Quality assurance procedures shall be
adopted as an Integral part of the monitor-
ing program and shall be described In the
monitoring strategy required In Paragraph D
of this Appendix.
Specific requirements for Held and labora-
tory procedures are:
(1) For the NPDES program and where
else appropriate, sample collection, preser-
vation, transportation and laboratory analy-
sis shall be in compliance with 40 CFR Part
136, promulgated pursuant to Section 304(g)
of the Act.
(3) Unless -otherwise specifically author-
Iced by the Iloglonal Administrator, physical.
biological, and microbiological
parameters not Identified-In 40 CFR Part 136
shall be analysed in accordance with those
generally aooepted methods cited in the latest
editions of -the following references:
(a) Standard Method* for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, American Public
Health Asm., American Water Well Assn..
Water Pollution Control Federation. Pub-
lished by APHA, 1940 Broadway, New York.
New York. 1973.
(b) Annual Book of Standard*, Part 23,
Water; Atmospheric Analysis, Published by
American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia. Pa., 1973.
(c) Method* for Chemical Analysis o/ Wa-
ter and Watte*, UJ. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Methods Development and
Quality Assurance Research Laboratory, and
National Environmental Research Laboratory.
Cincinnati, Ohio, July, 1973.
(d) Biological field and Laboratory Meth-
od* for Mearurtng the Quality of Surface
Waters and Effluents, Ufl Environmental
Protection Agency, Methods Development end
Quality Assuranoe Research Laboratory. Cin-
cinnati. Ohio. July, 1973.
-------
17700
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(9) The State shall make all field opera-
tions. mooltcrtng support laboratories. lab-
oratory data i cupula. and reeord» indicating
laboratory techniques and quality control
procedure* used open to EPA review pur-
suant to the access provisions of 40 CFR
Part 30.
Z. DATA HAKDLUre, STOtAGE, Am BXFOmmS *
Data and Information resulting' from the
State's water monitoring program shall be
made available to EPA In a form, volume, and
manner agTeed upon by the State and Re-
gional Administrator.
(FR Doc.76t11861 Filed 4-26-70;8:£5 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. C7—TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1976
------- |