Meeting Indiana's Environmental
Protection Needs: Organizational
and Staffing Requirements
Region V
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, Illinois
November 1972
Contract No. 68-01-0723 I
-------
MEETING INDIANA'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NEEDS: ORGANIZATIONAL AND STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
by
Ralph T. Jones - Project Director
for
Region V
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Contract #68-01-0723
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommen-
dation for use.
ii
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
1 NORTH WACKER DRIVE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6O6O6
m
HI
O
r
<1> rO
PRO^ฐ
November 22, 1972
Honorable Edgar D. Whitocmb
Governor of the State of Indiana
State Capitol
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Dear Governor Whitccmb:
As a result of your concern with the adequacy of Indiana's capability to
meet its enviromental protection obligations to its citizenry, your
Steering Committee has reviewed the attached report, "Meeting Indiana's
Envirormenta 1 Protection Needs: Organizational and Staffing Requirements.
The study was performed by Abt Associates, Inc. under the guidance and
coordinated advice of the Steering Ccrrmittee which you had appointed - in
order to assure the successful and timely completion of this vitally needed
study.
Members of my staff and I along with national EPA staff have reviewed the
conclusions and recaimendations which have evolved fran the study. We
agree with Abt generally, and concur with regard to the reocrmendations
relative to staffing, subject to the conditions which are noted in the
report.
I urge you to give the report and its resultant reconraendations ycur roost
sincere attention, and endorsement. I believe that together we have suc-
ceeded in obtaining a credible appraisal of Indiana's env iromenta 1 pro-
tection needs.
I hope that your interest and concerns for meaningful response fcy govern
ment, industry, and the public to the State's environmental pollution
problems will continue in 1973 and until cur mutual goals are realized.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the staff from the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency who provided many hours of advice and assistance to this project.
The study was supported by the Region V Office, the Manpower Develop-
ment Staff of the Office of Water Programs, and the Control Agency Proce-
dures Branch of the Office of Air Programs. James A. Marth, Director of
the Office of State Program, Region V, was Project Officer for the study.
We also would like to express our sincere thanks to the administrators
and staff of the Indiana State Board of Health and Department of Natural
Resources who participated in this study. Their many hours of coopera-
tion and assistance particularly their candor in answering our ques-
tions were essential in the production of this Filial Report which
we feel is responsive to the environmental protection needs of Indiana.
Special thanks are due the Indiana Steering Committee which provided
advice and direction for the study through a series of regular meetings.
The members of this Committee were:
Perry E. Miller, Assistant Commissioner for Environmental
Health, Chairman
Andrew C. Offutt, M. D., State Health Commissioner
William J. Andrews, Deputy Director, Department of
Natural Resources
W. Calvert Brand, State Budget Director
Senator Lawrence M. Borst
Senator Frank L. O'Bannon
I
Representative Thomas W. Hall
Representative Donald c. Pratt
William Lloyd, Administrative Assistant to the Governor
Roland Mross, Special Assistant to the Governor
The project was conducted by Abt Associates Inc. under the direction of
Ralph T. Jones, assisted by Maria Eigerman. Technical direction and
review were provided by Robert H. Rea and Martin S. Gordon. Other staff
included: Holly J. Kinley, Frederick R. Levy, Ulrich Ernst, and Marian
T. Henneman. Consultants to the project included: Peter Silbermann of
Anderson-Nichols and Company, Inc.; Edward I. Selig of the Harvard Law
School; and Paul Morgenstern of Walden Research Corporation. Mr. Selig
was principally responsible for Appendix C, the evaluation of the adequacy
of Indiana's legislative authority for environmental protection.
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY 9
3.0 STAFFING REQUIREMENTS 17
4.0 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 29
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION 61
APPENDIX A - MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 67
APPENDIX B - COSTS OF MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 85
APPENDIX C - REVIEW OF ADEQUACY OF
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION 99
TABLES
table 1 - Comparison of Current Staffing
Levels and Staffing Needs
Table ? - Costs of Recommended Increases
in Environmental Protection
Manpower for the State of
Indiana
CHARTS
Chart 1 - Format Of Time-Bud^fet SurV&y
Instrument
Chart 2 - Current Structure, Bureau of
Engineering
Chart 3 - Proposed Organization Structure
for Indiana Environmental
Protection Activities
vii
-------
CHAPTER 1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Background of the Study
In January, 1972, Governor Edgar Whitcomb of Indiana and Francis Mayo,
Regional Administrator for Region V of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, agreed that a study of Indiana'a environmental protection programs
should be undertaken. The objectives of the study were:
determine the manpower staffing requirements for the
State of Indiana's environmental protection functions
determine the most efficient and effective organizational
structure for the state's environmental protection programs
ฆ review and comment on the adequacy of Indiana's current
legislative authority for comprehensive environmental pro-
tection
develop a plan for the implementation of recommendations
resulting from the study.
The study was jointly funded by the Region V Office of EPA? the Man-
power Development staff of the office of Water Programs, EPA; and the
Control Agency Procedures Branch of the Office of Air Programs# EPA.
Governor Whitcomb also announced the formation of a bipartisan Steering
Committee composed of state legislators and representatives from state
agencies which would be instrumental in implementing the results of the
study. The Steering Committee was to provide advice and direction
during the course of the study.
On June 16, 1972, a contract to conduct the study was awarded to Abt
Associates Inc. of Cambridge, Massachusetts. As the contractor began
work, three important features of the study became evident:
There were strict time constraints on the period of
performance of the study. In order that it be com-
pleted in time for consideration by members of the
Indiana Legislature before the 1973 legislative session,
the study was to be completed in sixteen weeks.
Because of these time constraints, it was necessary to
confine the scope of the study to water pollution con-
trol, air pollution control, solid waste management, and
the protection of public water supplies.
1
-------
Although the study would be of value to other states
in the examination of their own capabilities to meet
environmental protection needs, the focus of the study
was on the specific needs of the State of Indiana.
This was reflected in the approach and methodology of the
contractor, both of which were designed to produce recom-
mendations which would be most relevant to Indiana.
1.2 Methodology
In meeting the objectives of the study, the contractor utilized the
following approach. First, there was a thorough review of relevant
state and federal statutes and administrative regulations. In addition
to providing the basis for a review of the adequacy of Indiana's legis-
lative authority, this task also provided a basic understanding of the
nature and scope of Indiana's environmental programs. Second, the con-
tractor developed and implemented a methodology for determining the man-
power needs of Indiana; this methodology consisted of a task review of
the functions involved in Indiana's environmental protection programs.
Data were collected from interviews with employees currently responsible
for those functions in Indiana, and these data were reviewed by Indiana
supervisory employees and technical staff in the Region V Office of the
EPA. Third, the contractor conducted extensive interviews with administra'
tive officials, legislators, and client and interest groups in order to
gather data for the analysis of the organizational structure of Indiana's
environmental protection programs.
1.3 Summary of Findings and Recommendations
1.3.1 Manpower
Findings:
1. We found that current staffing levels were inadequate to
perform the work required by Indiana's environmental protection
statutes and administrative regulations. The most significant
manpower needs derived from the passage of the Environmental
Management Act which provided for a permit program for the
operation of pollution control facilities. The activities in-
volved in reviewing applications for permits, issuing permits,
inspecting control facilities and reviewing operations reports
to assure that these facilities are in conformity with the permit
requirements, will require substantial increases in manpower.
2. We found that certain staff functions notably planning
and evaluation, provision of legal services to program staff,
technical information systems, public information, and man-
power planning and development were being performed inade-
quately because of staff shortages. In a related finding, we
found a serious shortage of various types of professionals who
2
-------
are needed for effective implementation of environmental pro-
grams, particularly lawyers and planners.
Recommendations:
1. Increase staff responsible for water pollution control,
air pollution control, solid waste management, protection of
public water supplies, and related staff services, from 93 to
289.
2. In order to attract capable and qualified personnel, imple-
ment the proposed salary and grade recommendations proposed by
the Board of Health.
Implementation of these recommendations will bring the estimated
annual cost of these environmental protection programs to $4.8
million. Of this total, approximately $1.9 million is attribu-
table to the costs of operation of the new permit system for the
construction and operation of pollution control facilities; the
Environmental Management Act provides that these costs can be
covered by permit fees. Also, the state can expect more than
$1.3 million in federal assistance in FY 1973.
Note that the salary levels used in estimating these costs were
levels which have been proposed by the State Board of Health, but
not yet adopted by the State Personnel Division or the Legislature.
Note also that the cost estimates include overhead and travel, but
that overhead rates were calculated on the basis of overhead rates
from previous years. Such rates may not be sufficient to cover the
costs (in terras of equipment or building space) of significantly
expanded programs. Indeed, the State Board of Health has requested,
for 1973, the construction of an additional 46,000 square feet of
space to house anticipated personnel increases. The total capital
cost for the construction of this space is $1,845,000, and estimated
annual operating expenses will amount to $51,122. Increases in the
environmental protection area will account for approximately one-
third of this space.
1.3.2 Organizational Structure
Findings
1. Under the current structure, there are three policy-making
boards (the Stream Pollution Control Board, Air Pollution Con-
trol Board, and the Environmental Management Board). In carrying
out their powers and duties, these boards rely on personnel and
services of the State Board of Health, particularly the Bureau of
Engineering. The Bureau of Engineering reports to an Assistant
Commissioner for Environmental Health who also has responsibility
for the Bureau of Food and Drugs.
3
-------
2. Environmental protection is the fastest-growing function in
the State Board of Health, its concerns and operations have
become increasingly differentiated from the traditional public
health operations of the Board of Health.
3. The expected increase in environmental protection staff will
create serious management problems for the Assistant Commissioner
of Environmental Health if he continues to be responsible for
both environmental programs and also the Bureau of Food and Drugs,
one of the largest Bureaus in the Board of Health.
4. The current structure of the Bureau of Engineering is around
program Divisions. There is no provision for staff organizations.
This inhibits the development of certain functions which are not
part of the routine operations of these program Divisions, or
which cut across Divisions. These functions include: planning
and evaluation, the provision of legal services to program staff,
technical information systems, standards development, public in-
formation, and manpower planning and development.
5. There are certain related environmental functions located in
the Department of Natural Resources. These support, but do not
overlap, the environmental functions of the Board of Health. Co-
operation between the two agencies is satisfactory.
6. There is some ambiguity in the Environmental Management Act
regarding the division of powers and duties between the three
Boards responsible for environmental protection policy. This
ambiguity is a serious potential problem.
7. Local health and pollution control agencies play an important
role in protecting the state's environment. The Board of Health
currently cooperates with these agencies, but there has been
little systematic division of responsibilities between the state
and local government's.
Short-Range Recommendations;
1. The Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Health should
be retitled Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Protection.
2. The radiological health, industrial hygiene and food and drug
programs should be removed from his jurisdiction.
3. The new Assistant Commissioner should have the following
organizational units reporting to him:
.three Bureaus, for Air Pollution Control, Water
Pollution Control and Water Supply, and Sanitary
Engineering.
4
-------
an office of Special Services to perform required staff
functions.
We recognize that there are potential difficulties inherent in the
combination of water pollution control and water supply functions.
We believe that these difficulties can be overcome, but recommend
further study of this question during implementation of these re-
commendations .
Long-Range Recommendations:
1. A separate environmental protection organization should be
established outside the Board of Health.
2. The powers and duties of the Stream Pollution Control Board
and Air Pollution Control Board should be transferred to the
Environmental Management Board. The EMB should be empowered to
hire its own staff, and purchase supplies and services, apart
from the budget of the Board of Health. When these changes are
made, the EMB will constitute the separate environmental protec-
tion organization recommended above. It will have a Board and
Commissioner and be similar in form to the current Board of Health.
3. An environmental protection regional field office should be
established in northwest Indiana. Consideration should be given
to the possible creation of a larger regional field office structure.
1.3.3. Implementation
Short-Range Recommendations;
1. A Special Committee on Manpower staffing should be created.
The most pressing concern in the short-range is the implementation
of the recommended manpower increases. These involve a tripling
of the number of environmental protection staff, and therefore
must be carefully planned and executed.
2. The Director of the proposed Office of Special Services should
be hired immediately, and should be designated as Secretary of
the Special Committee.
3. Operating procedures, establishing reporting requirements
and lines of communication, should be developed for the new organ-
izational structure.
Loner-Range Recommendations;
1. Legislation should be introduced to amend the Environmental
Management Act, transferring to the Environmental Management
Board all powers and duties vested in the Stream Pollution Control
Board and Air Pollution Control Board, and authorizing the EMB to
5
-------
hire staff, purchase supplies and services separate from the
Board of Health appropriations.
2. A committee should be appointed by the Governor to plan and
supervise the separation of environmental protection functions
from the Board of Health. This committee should also consider
the timing of the implementation of all long-range recommendations.
3. After the environmental protection functions have been located
in a separate agencv, the executive of that agency should appoint
a committee to study the questions of regional field offices and
further internal reorganization.
1.3.4 Adequacy of Legislation
Findings:
1. We found that there is generally sufficient authority to exer-
cise the following powers necessary for a comprehensive and ef-
fective environmental protection programs
Power to establish and enforce environmental quality
standards.
Power to prescribe and regulate the use of pollution
control facilities.
Power to secure detailed information on sources and
effects of pollution.
Power to enforce regulations against violators, through
administrative orders and judicial remedies.
Power to meet requirements of, and to secure benefits
available under, federal low.
2. The following powers are not as fully realized as they should
be in existing statutes:
Power to override failures of local governments to
exercise their responsibilities.
Power to secure joint or regional action for environmental
protection.
Power to coordinate strategies for all media.
Recommendations:
Legislation should be introduced to provide additional authority
to the Environmental Management Board to meet these needs.
6
-------
CHAPTER 2.0
BACKGROUND & METHODOLOGY
2. l Background of the Study
In December 1971, Francis Mayo, Regional Administrator for Region V
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, wrote a letter to Governor
Edgar Whitcomb of Indiana, suggesting a meeting. The meeting was to dis-
cuss a proposal of Mayo's for a study of Indiana's environ-
mental protection problems and the resources needed to resolve them
successfully. In January 1972, that meeting was held in Indianapolis.
Subsequently, Governor Whitcomb wrote to Mr. Mayo agreeing to such a
study, to be undertaken jointly by the State of Indiana and Region V,
EPA, and to be financed by the EPA. Governor Whitcomb also announced
the creation of a bi-partisan Steering Committee to provide advice and
direction for the study. The Committee would be composed of Indiana leg-
islators and representatives from those agencies which would be instru-
mental in implementing the results of such a study.
In February 1972, EPA issued a Request for Proposal which detailed the
items of work to be performed on such a contract and sought a consultant
to undertake the study for EPA and the State of Indiana. In June 1972,
after technical review of proposals by a joint EPA-Indiana committee, a
contract was negotiated with Abt Associates Inc. of Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts. The contract was funded jointly by EPA, Region Vj the Manpower
Development Staff, Office of Water Programs, EPA; and the Control Agency
Procedures Branch of the Office of Air Programs, EPA. The State Programs
Officer of the Region V Office of EPA was assigned responsibility for
supervision of the study.
It was in this context that Abt Associates began work on June 16, 1972.
The contract had, as its main objectives, four specific tasks:
determine the manpower staffing requirements for the State
of Indiana's environmental protection functions
determine the most efficient and effective organizational
structure for the state's environmental protection programs
review and comment on the adequacy of Indiana's current
legislative authority for comprehensive environmental pro-
tection
develop a plan for implementation of recommendations resulting
from the study.
7
-------
These tasks were to be performed within severe time constraints.
The Statement of Work emphasized the importance of recommendations
implementable "in the shortest timeframe possible." The Governor of
Indiana added his concern that the study be completed by early October
so that members of the Legislature could consider the findings and recom
mendations before the 1973 legislative session. The contract established
an October 6 deadline for submission of the draft report, allowing a
short 16 weeks for all work up to and including the draft report.
Realizing these time constraints, the Steering Committee, at its
second meeting, on August 3, 1972, discussed the scope of the contract.
Noting that the contract referred to water pollution, air pollution, solid
waste management and water supply, the Committee decided not to make
any demands on the contractor for investigations of topics outside this
scope of work. Although the contractor was not to be oblivious of such
concerns as noise control, non-medical radiation hazards, pesticide
regulation and control, and the like, they were excluded from the cen-
tral focus of the study.
2.2 Methodology
The following sections discuss the methodology used to accomplish the man-
power and organizational tasks specified in our contract.
2.2.1 Manpower and Cost Estimates
Manpower Estimates
There are a number of different methods for determining manpower
staffing requirements. We limited our consideration to two alternative
approaches. The first was to use a predictive model similar to that
developed by the Office of Air Programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Such a model selects a limited number of basic functions which
must be performed by any air pollution control program, and then it assumes
that the work-load (needed man-years of effort) in a particular function
is dependent upon (is a linear function of) seme known "predictor" (e.g.,
number of manufacturing establishments, population, capital expenditure
on new plans, etc.). There are two basic advantages to using such a
model:
The amount of data required is minimal, and usually
readily available (e.g., from Census)
It solves one of the most difficult problems of man-
power needs determination predicting needs for
activities never performed before. This model, by
drawing on the experience of several different juris-
diction, can pass that collective experience on to
other jurisdictions that are just starting programs.
8
-------
An alternative method for manpower needs estimation is to do a
task review of the functions to be performed. In this method,
the basic functions of an environmental protection agency are
divided into a limited number of activities which in turn, are
sub-divided into tasks. A study is made of the amount ,of time it
takes to perform each task which contributes to the output of the
agency. The manpower need for each task (or activity, depending
upon the level of detail required), is assumed to be a simple pro-
duct of the desired level of output and the time required to
produce one unit of output. Total manpower need for the agency
is the sum of the manpower needs for each task. The strengths of
this method are the following:
It is directly relevant to the needs .of the parti-
cular jurisdiction for which it is developed.
Unlike the EPA-OAP air pollution model, it does
not use data from other jurisdictions. The basic
data inputs are task reviews from that particular
jurisdiction.
The task reviews, in addition to being sources of
data for the model, also provide information about
the specific types of staffing needs (e.g., pro-
fessions, skills, grade levels). Also, by looking
at units as small as tasks, one can learn about
potential changes in task structure which might
result in better utilization of staff resources.
There are two deficiencies in the task review approach. First
extensive data collection is required by the task review step
of the process. Second, any inaccuracies in task review are passed
through as inaccurate manpower estimates.
In spite of these possible problems, we chose the task review approach
because we wanted our manpower estimates to be as relevant as possible
to the unique problems and needs of the State of Indiana. We also
took certain steps to correct for any problems that might result
from this approach.
We were able to obtain the results of the EPA-OAP
model for air pollution control programs and use
their total estimates as a check on ours.
We enlisted the professional judgments of staff
in the Indiana State Board of Health and the Region
V Office of EPA to identify any calculations that
appeared to be seriously out of line with their
experience. Any estimate so identified was then re
evaluated.
9
-------
Chart 1: Format of Time-Budget Survey Instrument
Activity 1.
Total hrs./mo.
Activity 2.
Total hrs./mo.
Activity 3.
Total hrs./mo.
Task la_
Task lb_
Task lc
Task ld_
Task le
hrs./mo.
_hrs./mo.
hrs./mo.
_hrs./mo.
hrs./mo.
total
Task 2a_
Task 2b_
Task 2c_
Task 2d
_hr s. /mo.
_hrs./mo.
_hrs./mo.
hrs./mo.
total
Task 3a_
Task 3b_
Task 3c
_hrs. /mo.
hrs./mo.
hrs./mo.
Total
Total hours
-------
Application of the methodology involved the following tasks:
1. We interviewed supervisory personnel in the state Board of
Health to assist In the development of a comprehensive list
of activities and tasks performed by environmental protection per-
sonnel in Indiana. We then checked these definitions of activi-
ties and tasks with EPA Region V personnel.
2. On the basis of this definition of activities and tasks,
we developed a questionnaire for all Board of Health employees
who are engaged in activities directly contributing to water
pollution control, air pollution control, protection of domestic
water supplies, or solid waste management. The purpose of these
questionnaires was to obtain a time-budget from the employees,
i.e., to learn how much time it took each employee to perform
a given activity or task. An example of the basic format for
the time-budget appears in Chart 1.
3. We administered these questionnaires. Employees first were
asked to start with the total number of hours they worked in the
last 4-week period (excluding holidays and vacations). If they
worked over-time, they were asked to include those hours in the
total so that we could get an accurate picture of actual hours
needed for various activities. Second, they were asked to allo-
cate this total number of hours to activities. Third, they were
asked to allocate the hours per activity to several different
tasks which were necessary in the performance of that activity.
The questionnaire was not a rigid document. Space was pro-
vided so that employees could add tasks that we had not considered
in preparing the questionnaire. In cases where work was ex-
tremely seasonal (so that an estimate from the last four working
weeks would be unrepresentative of the year's activities), the
process was repeated for the other "season" of the year. We
also provided separate questionnaires to obtain data on time
spent on non-routine tasks and activities, i.e., activities which
occurred infrequently and without any particular pattern through-
out the year.
4. The data collected with these questionnaires were then
analysed. In order to obtain the number of man-hours neces-
sary for production of a given level of output, the following
calculations were mades
man-hours per activity were summed across all
employees in a given work group
measures of output per activity (obtained from
the questionnaires and checked against employee work
reports) were sunned across all employees.
hours per unit of output were determined by dividing
the total level of output by total hours devoted
to each activity.
11
-------
5. Desired levels of output were determined through inter-
views with supervisory staff at the State Board of Health#
These levels were those which we determined would meet Indiana's
environmental protection needs as of June 30, 1973.
6. Total man-years necessary to produce that level of output
were determined by using the following formula:
U = unit of output (e.g., one inspection)
N = number of sources (e.g., point sources of air
pollution which must be inspected)
F - frequency (e.g., certain point sources must be in-
spected twice a year; thus, F = 2)
H = hours per unit of output
UxNxFxH= manpower need (in hours)
The total man-hours were converted into man-years by dividing by 1800,
the number of hours in an average work year. The method used to arrive
at this figure of 1800 was the following: theoretically, a work year
should consist of 52 five-day weeks, or 260 days; but this would not
account for days not worked because of vacations holidays, and sick leave;
in the Indiana State Board of Health, these absences amount to 35 days a
year for the average employee. If we subtract these 35 days of absences
from the theoretical work year of 260 days, we arrive at an actual work
year of 225 days for the average employee. Multiplying this by 8 (the
number of hours in a day) yields 1800, the number of hours in an average
work year.
The results of these calculations appear in Appendix A. Each of these
tables presents data in a format which follows the basic methodology out-
lined above. For example, in the first line of Table A-2, there are 96
stations for stream monitoring. Each of these stations is visited every
two weeks, and samples are collected. It takes 0.93 hours to collect
samples from a single station. Thus, the manpower need for this activi-
ty is 96 times 26 times .93, and this number divided by 1800 equals
1.29 man-years.
Before continuing this discussion of methodology, we would like to
answer a few questions commonly raised about these data and the methodo-
logy which produced them.
Question; In an activity like inspections, there is usually a
lot of travel time. How did you account for that in your
estimates?
Answer; Travel time was one of the tasks included in any
activity which necessitated travel. Employees were aware, when
completing the questionnaires, that their total hours for a
given activity like inspections should include the travel time
associated with that activity. Thus, for any activity which re-
quired travel, travel time is built into the total hours per unit
of output.
12
-------
Question: What about activities without output levels?
Answer: There are several different types of these. For ex-
ample, many of the Sections in the Bureau of Engineering performed
an activity we called "technical information," i.e., they responded
to inquiries from the public, usually engineers or operators of
pollution control devices seeking technical advice or information.
We could not obtain output measures for this. In lieu of output
measures, we used current man-years devoted to this task, and
assumed that the volume of inquiries would not change radically
in the coming year.
For some other activities, like administration, we used a
simple formula, widely accepted by manpower specialists :
one administrator for every five employees. For clerical
manpower estimates, we used another widely accepted formula :
one clerical for every five professionals; one clerical
for every three administrators.
Question: What did you do for activities which are going to be
performed in the coming year, but which have not yet been per-
formed? How did you get hours per unit of output?
Answer t There were some cases stack testing is a good
example where the activity was so new that we could not apply
our methodology. In such cases, we simply interviewed both em-
ployees and their supervisors and arrived at a generally-accepted
estimate of the hours per unit of output.
Cost and Revenue Estimation
The cost of those activities associated with the implementation of the
permit program of the Environmental Management Act may be supported by
revenues from fee collection under the permit program; therefore, we
derived two categories of activities: those which might be supported by
permit program revenues and those which must be supported by general re-
venues and federal assistance.
The method for computing costs for both groups of activities was the
same, and it consisted of the following procedures:
For each activity, there is an estimate of manpower needed
to perform that activity.
These manpower estimates, however, were aggregate numbers
i.e., professional and clerical. Thus, it was necessary to
disaggregate these totals into specific employee types, with
associated grade levels. The specific job titles and grades for
each activity were determined through an analysis of the skill
13
-------
and experience requirements of the activity, and an analysis of
the State Division of Personnel's position descriptions for
each position. Also, the aggregate manpower estimates
(which often included fractions of man-years) were converted
into the number of full-time employees necessary to accomplish
a given activity by rounding off fractions of man-years.
The next step involv ed determining appropriate salary levels
for each employee type required to perform environmental protec-
tion activities. For this we used the revised salary structure
proposed by the Board of Health. Each employee*grade level has
a salary range (including several step-increases which depend on
longevity in grade). Since we needed a single salary number
for purposes of calculating costs, we used the mid-point of the
salary range as an average figure for each employee type and
grade level.
Finally, we determined total costs by multiplying the num-
ber of employees tines their salary costs.
2.2.2 Organizational Analysis
Our analysis of the Bureau of Engineering's current organizational
structure was designed to answer the following two questions:
Is the current structure of environmental protection programs
in Indiana adequate to carry out the requirements of federal
and state law?
Is that structure capable of meeting the organizational needs
of a greatly expanded environmental protection program?
To answer the first question, we had to inquire as to the ability of the
organization to lend support to the major activities required of the
state's environmental protection program, such activities as surveillance,
enforcement, plan review, standards-setting, laboratory analysis, planning,
legal services, and the like (the tables in Appendix A list these acti-
vities in detail) . To answer the second question we analyzed the capabi-
lity of the present supervisory and administrative structure to monitor
the work of an agency which will become approximately three times its
present size. This analysis included an examination of the present duties
of the chief administrator of the agency, as well as the supervisory
systems and procedures which supplement the manager.
To answer these questions, our analysis encompassed the following
procedures:
Examination of present and past organization charts.
14
-------
9 Examination of the present administrative and supervisory
functions which are performed in the agency.
Examination of the required activities of the agency. (This
was accomplished during the development of the task analysis
questionnaire.)
Interviews with all of the key actors in Indiana'a environ-
mental protection organizations, as well as with officials
in other state offices, in EPA, and with representatives of
many of the public groups which are concerned about the
. quality of environmental protection in Indiana.
While a study of the relevant documents (legislation, organization charts,
position descriptions, and the like) formed the basis for the organiza-
tion study, the major part of this study involved interviewing concerned
individuals. During these interviews, we encouraged participation of the
agencies involved in the proposed organizational restructuring. Conse-
quently, we interviewed:
at the State Board of Health
- Commissioner of Health
- Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Health
- Director, Personnel and Training
- Director, Division of ,Systems and Computer Services
- all employees and supervisors in the Bureau of Engineering
responsible for water pollution, air pollution, solid waste
management, and water supply. Many of these individuals,
particularly supervisors, were interviewed more than once.
in the Department of Natural Resources, the Deputy Director
for Hater and Mineral Resources, and supervisory personnel
from:
- Hater Division
- Oil and Gas Division
- Geologic Survey Division
- State Hater Plan Section
- Soil and Water Conservation Committee
- Law Enforcement Division
- Forestry Division
In addition, in order to gain some perspective on organization problems
in environmental protection in Indiana, we interviewed the following:
Special and Administrative Assistants to the Governor
Representatives of interest groups concerned with
environmental protection
15
-------
- State of Indiana League of Women Voters
- Indiana State Chamber of Commerce
- Izaak Walton League (Porter County Chapter and
State President)
- Consulting Engineers of Indiana, Inc.
- Eco-Coalition
- save the Dunes Council
- Environmental Quality Control, Inc.
- Clean Air Coordinating Committee (Chicago Metro-
politan Area and Northern Indiana)
- Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc.
- Lake Michigan Federation
- Indiana State Employees Association, Executive
Secretary
Selected staff from the Region V and Headquarters
offices of EPA.
16
-------
CHAPTER 3.0
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
One of the most important aspects of this study has been the determi-
nation of manpower staffing requirements for certain environmental
protection functions performed by the State of Indiana namely, water
pollution control, air pollution control, protection of public water
supplies, and solid waste management. In Chapter 2.0 we described the
methodology used to obtain these manpower projections, and we presented
a summary of projected staffing needs. This chapter will discuss in
more detail the following subjects:
Section 3.1 analyzes the program requirements of
state and federal legislation, administrative
regulations, and their implications for sstaffing
needs.
Section 3.2 presents our detailed manpower staffing
projections. For each major activity performed in
the areas of water pollution control, air pollution
control, protection of public water supplies and solid
waste management, we will present the level of output
required by legislation and regulations and the level
of manpower necessary to achieve that level of output.
Section 3.3 presents cost estimates for the man-
power projections developed in Section 3.2. Also
in this section, we present our conclusions regarding
possible sources of revenue to support these manpower
increases.
3.1 Program Requirements for Environmental Protection in Indiana
Indiana's existing environmental protection programs and the statutes
and regulations authorizing these programs, if fully implemented,
should meet the state's environmental protection needs. Our study
also indicates that these programs, if fully implemented, should meet
federal environmental protection standards and administrative guide-
lines. To the extent that Indiana is not now meeting its needs,
the fault generally is not in the law. Rather, the fault is in the
state's inability to fully implement existing statutes and regulations;
and one of the most important reasons for incomplete implementation
is the lack of sufficient manpower to do the job.
17
-------
3.1.1 New and Developing Programs
The single most important new environmental protection program in
Indiana is the comprehensive permit program authorized by Indiana's
new Environmental Management Act. This program derives from a pro-
vision in the Act which prohibits all persons from constructing,
installing, operating or modifying any pollution control facility
except with a permit to do so from the appropriate board. While Indiana
had required permits for construction prior to the enactment of the
Environmental Management Act, the provision for operating permits
represents a significant new program. The size of the new program
can be estimated by considering the number of operating permits which
will likely be required when the Board (or Boards) adopts the permit
regulations:
Approximately 1000 industries discharge wastes into
Indiana waterways and operate pollution control
facilities.
An estimated 1000 confined animal feed lots discharge
wastes into waterways and will need permits.
There are approximately 300 municipal sewage treat-
ment plants.
Over 2500 point sources of air pollution require
emission control facilities.
There are approximately 200 sanitary landfills.
These represent a total of 5000 permits, and for each permit the following
activities must be performed:
A permit application must be received, evaluated
and processed. A decision on the permit applica-
tion must be communicated to the applicant. Tfce
applicant's fee must be collected and processed.
In order to properly evaluate the permit applica-
tions, pollution control facilities must be
inspected to assure that they qualify for an
operating permit.
Since the permit attaches certain conditions on
the operation of a pollution control facility,
there must be an inspection system to assure com-
pliance.
Another example of a program which requires substantial staff increases
is the mandatory reporting on effluent analysis by industrial commer-
cial and agricultural operations. The Stream Pollution Control Board's
regulation SPC 11 requires that all such operations submit monthly
reports to the Board. To date, this regulation has not been fully imple-
mented because of shortages in staff. Since the new Environmental
18
-------
Management Act empowers the EMB to establish any reporting requirements
it deems necessary to carry out its own powers or those of the APCB or
SPCB, reporting programs like that required by SPC 11 will become in-
creasingly significant.
As a final example, the Division of Air Pollution Control is now develop-
ing procedures for its surveillance program. As part of the control
strategy developed in its Implementation Plan, the Division outlined an
extensive program of scheduled inspections of emitters. Fully imple-
menting such a program and supporting the inspections with sufficient
technical and laboratory personnel will require significant increases
in staff.
3.1.2 Adequate Performance Levels
If Indiana's statutes and administrative regulations are to be fully im-
plemented, there must be sufficient manpower to fulfill their requirements
i.e., to meet certain standards of performance that assure the protection
of the environment. Thus, when developing our manpower determinations,
we were careful to provide adequate staff for meeting these performance
levels.
One instance where standards of performance are not being fully met is
the protection of public water supplies. Indiana's statutory authority
here is not a new or developing program area. Nevertheless, substantial
increases in staff are required to conform to existing legislation and
assure that performance meets reasonable standards. At the present time.,
according to Board of Health 6taff, manpower shortages prevent sufficient
attention to applications for permits for the construction or alteration
of public water supply facilities.
Clearly, it was impossible within the limits of this study to fully
evaluate the adequacy of all activities performed by the State Board of
Health. We started with the assumption that the state was performing
activities adequately unless we had evidence to the contrary. Thus, most
of our manpower determinations are based on quantitative increases in
workload, rather than increases in the quality of output. To arrive at
these estimates, we used the data obtained through our task review and
time budget interviews with SBH employees. These data were also analyzed
by supervisory personnel in the Indiana State Board of Health and by
technical personnel in the Region V Office of the Environmental Protection
Agency. When either of these sources suggested that manpower increases
were necessary to improve the quality of output, we re-examined our data
and sometimes made the suggested changes. Occasionally, however, re-
commendations made by the EPA Region V staff diverged sharply from our
task review data/ and we did not make the suggested changes but rather
noted the EPA position in a footnote.
The manpower determinations presented here should be considered as mini-
mum levels. We recommend that where EPA Region officials have suggested
increases they be given serious consideration and that further analysis
19
-------
be undertaken to assure that these manpower levels do, indeed, provide
adequate levels of service.
3 J..3 Management Requirements
In the final analysis, an agency's performance will be determined not
only by its staffing levels for major program activities, but also by
the care taken in organizing and managing the work. After examining the
organization of existing agencies responsible for environmental protection
in Indiana (primarily the Board of Health), Abt Associates has reached
several conclusions regarding the organization and management of those
employees directly responsible for control of air and water pollution,
protection of public water supplies, and solid waste management. These
conclusions, developed more fully in Chapter 4.0, contain reconmendations
for the creation of several new staff functions to provide various special
services currently receiving insufficient attention (if performed at all).
We feel that staffing these functions will improve the overall efficiency
and effectiveness of the agency. Specifically, we are referring tot
planning and evaluation, legal services, standards development, technical
information services, public affairs, and manpower planning and develop-
ment.
3.2 Manpower Determinations
In the page that follows, we present our detailed manpower determinations.
Table 1 is a summary table, indicating current staffing levels, staffing
needs, and the net increase in staff, for each of several functions. The
detailed manpower calculations by which these summary data were derived
are found in Appendix A. it should be clear, after studying these data,
that the largest manpower increases occur in response to the factors dis-
cussed in Section 3.1 above.
The greatest increases (indicated in Table 1
right-hand column) occur in those areas which
are chiefly responsible for the new permit pro-
gram. The industrial waste control function is
an excellent example. The total man-year increase
for that function is 24.01 Most of this increase
represents the manpower necessary to issue opera-
ting permits for pollution control facilities in
industries and confined feed lots, to inspect these
facilities ,and to read and follow-up the reports
required from these facilities.
e There are some significant increases in areas
which are not immediately initiating new programs
(e.g., water supply) but which nevertheless need
qualitative improvements in program operations.
Other substantial increases were made in the
"special services", in order to staff functions
which are currently being performed at very low
levels of effort (if at all).
20
-------
Table X
Cpsparlson of Current Staffing
Levels and Staffing Hecda
Current Staffing Lewis Staffing Metdi in-
Pro-
pro-
crease
Function
fessional
Clerical
Total
fessional
Clerical
Total
Total
Main i strati cm
l.S
1
2.5
6.0
5.00
11.00
8.5
Mater Pollution Control and water Supply
Surveys
13.0
1.0
14.0
19.5
4.5
24.0
10.0
Sewage Treatment
9.0
3.0
12.0
13.0
3.0
16.0
4.0
e Industrial Waste
9.0
1.0
10.0
28.0
6.0
34.0
24.0
e Hater Supply
5.5
0.5
6.0
20.0
4.5
24.5
18.5
Laboratory
12.0
2.0
14.0
31.0
6.00
37.0
23.0
Air Pollution Control
Surveillance
9.0
2.0
11.0
2S.0
5.5
30.5
19.5
e Technical/Peraits
8.0
1.0
9.0
9.5
2.0
11.5
2.5
Laboratory
5.0
1.0
6.0
14.5
3.0
17.5
11.5
e Local Assistance
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
1.5
8.5
8.5
Solid Haste Manftgeaent
4.0
0.5
4.5
13.5
3.0
16.5
12ซ0
Special Services
e Standards Development and Technical Information
Systems
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.0
3.5
20.5
20.5
Legal Services
e.o
0.0
0.0
11.0
2.5
13.5
13.5
e Planning and Evaluation
4.0
0.5
4.5
15.5
3.5
19.0
14.5
e Public Affairs
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
.5
2.5
2.5
e Manpower Planning and Development
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
ฃ
2.5
2.5
Total
eo.o
13.5
93.5
234.5
54.5
289.0
195.5
-------
3.3
Personnel Policy
Table 1 indicates the substantial increases in manpower required in the
near future to meet Indiana's environmental protection needs. It is
important to point out here our general findings that the State of
Indiana will have difficulty finding qualified personnel for all these
positions given current pay scales and personnel policies of the State.
At the present time, the Bureau of Engineering is operating with a staff
that is below authorized levels. Public Health Sanitarians are filling
slots authorized for Engineers because qualified engineers cannot be
found. This is an indication of the severity of the problem facing
the Board of Health as it prepares to meet new staffing requirements.
The most important problems in this regard are the following:
Pay scales are reported to be competitive at some
lower grades, but seriously non-competitive in all
upper grades. This squares with a fundamental fact
of life at the State Board of Health: some employ-
ees use it as a training school to learn about en-
vironmental protection and gain valuable experience;
they then leave for other, better paying jobs in. the
private sector or federal government. Thus, the
state makes substantial investments in human capital,
but loses these investments because of inadequate
pay-scales.
Low salary levels in the upper grades also mean that
the state has difficulty recruiting and keeping
supervisory and managerial personnel. This is a
serious problem, particularly for em agency facing
rapid expansion which requires increases in managers
and supervisors. The Board of Health's recently
proposed salary increases and creation of some new
grade levels may help to alleviate these problems,
if the proposals are implemented.
Present personnel policies in the Bureau of Engi-
neering favor engineers for all administrative posi-
tions. This curtails career opportunities in en-
vironmental protection for biologists, chemists,
public health sanitarians, planners, etc.
In addition to creating difficulties for the Board of Health as it faces
the prospects of a rapid expansion of staff, these personnel policies
also produce serious employee morale problems. These problems are
particularly acute among non-engineering employees, who foresee no pos-
sibility of advancement within the agency.
22
-------
On September 11, 1972, the State Health Commissioner transmitted
"State Salary Plan Revision Recommendations" to the Director
of the State Personnel Division. These proposed changes would
help to alleviate some of the problems discussed above, and we
recommend that they be adopted. If adopted, these changes would
have the following impacts:
Salaries would be increased to make them more competitive
with business, industry, and other government agencies.
New salary levels would be established for supervisory
employees. With particular reference to problems in
the area of environmental protection, these new levels
will help to close the salary gap that now exists between
the Assistant Coinnissioner for Environmental Health and
supervisory employees in the Bureau of Engineering.
Further changes, however, could be made.
The state should build on the task review presented in
this report and focus on the question of functional
job requirements for all environmental protection
activities. Such a study might lead to a redefinition
of prerequisites for all environmental protection positions.
Further consideration should be given to the problem
of career opportunities for non-engineering employees
in the area of environmental protection.
The state should, as a matter of general personnel policy/
make sufficient provision for the employment of lawyers
in agencies other than the Office of the Attorney General.
Our study indicates the need for increased legal services
to support environmental protection activities. This
matter however, involves broader questions of personnel
policy, and it should receive further study.
The Director of the State Board of Health's office of Personnel and
Training has given thought to many of these problems, and his advice
and recommendations on these questions should be considered when decisions
are made.
23
-------
3.4 Costs and Revenues
As shown in the previous section, substantial increases in manpower
will be required to implement the state of Indiana's environmental
protection programs. The number of employees needed is over three
times the current level, and we can anticipate comparable increases in
support staff, overhead and travel expenditures. To support the large
costs of these programs, the state of Indiana should consider revenue
sources other than general revenues, e.g. those available through the
permit program and Federal assistance.
3.4.1 The Permit Program
The Environmental Management Act which created the Environmental Man-
agement Board also authorizes the state to issue permits for the con-
struction, installation, or modification of facilities, equipment or
devices for any public water supply or garbage disposal and refuse
disposal; and for the issuance of permits for the operation of facili-
ties, equipment or devices to control garbage disposal and refuse
disposal wherever the operation of any facilities, equipment or devices
involve the emission^of any contaminant into the atmosphere or into the
water or upon land." Chapter 16, Section 6 of this same Act authorizes
the state to collect fees for these permits and stipulate^ that the
fees established shall take into account the "cost of issuance of the
permit or license, the performance of all services in connection with
the si$>ervision, review and other necessary activities related to the
area and the surveillance of the activity or property covered by the
license or permit." It further requires that no fees will exceed the
cost of these services. The additional work required by the permit
program and the opportunity afforded by its potential revenue? thus
became an important factor in the cost and revenue analysis.
3.4.2 Method of Cost and Revenue Estimation
In estimating the costs and potential revenues of an expanded program
of environmental protection, we paid particular attention to these
activities associated with the implementation of the permit program of
the Environmental Management Act. The costs of these activities,
according to the Act, are costs which may be supported by revenues from
fee collection under the permit program. Thus, we derived two cate-
gories of activitest those which might be supported by permit program
revenues and those which must be supported by general revenues and
federal assistance. A summary of these costs appears in Table 2. For
complete documentation supporting these summary data, see Appendix B.
*
Environmental Management Board, Regulation EMB 1, Permit Regulation
(Draft), p. 1.
24
-------
Table 2
Costs of Recommended Increases In
Environmental Protection Manpower For
The State of Indiana
Function
Total Costs
il
Permit Program
Costs
Administration
Water Pollution Control and Water Supply
Surveys
Sewage Treatment
Industrial Waste
Water Supply
Laboratory
Air Pollution Control
Surveillance
Technical/Permits
Laboratory
Local Assistance
Solid Waste Management
Special Services
$ 188,266
261,009
192,829
414,840
256,666
393,939
365,361
159,861
224,601
170,999
203,964
734.854
118,827
345,878
127,101
233,643
232,368
126,013
137,936
72,309
Total Labor Costs
Overhead
Travel
3,567,189
1,105,829
142.688
1,394,075
432,163
55.763
Total
$4.815.706
$1.882,001
lj "Total labor costs" include direct salaries, vacation, holidays,
and sick leave, but exclude other fringe benefits, overhead and
travel. Overhead is estimated at 31.9% of total labor. Trave]
is estimated at 4.4% of total labor.
Please note that overhead rates were calculated on the basis of
overhead estimates from previous years. These rates may not be
sufficient to cover the costs (in terms of field and laboratory
equipment, for example) of significantly expanded programs.
25
-------
We believe that the estimated annual costs of expanded environmental
protection programs, presented in Table 2, are one indicator
of what the actual costs will be. As such, they are useful data.
On the other hand, in order that they not be misinterpreted, we
offer two important caveats about the methods used to derive them:
1. The salary levels used in estimating labor costs are
the levels which have been proposed by the State
Board of Health, but which have not yet been adopted
by the State Personnel Division. We believe these
proposed salary levels should be adopted, as we
recommend in Section 3.3.
2. The estimates of overhead.and travel were calculated,
as fixed percentages of total labor costs. These
fixed percentages, however, were derived on the basis
of overhead and travel rates from previous years. Such
rates may not be sufficient to cover the costs (in
terms of travel supplies, laboratory equipment, building
space, etc.) of significantly expanded programs.
Indeed, the State Board of Health has requested, for
1973, the construction of an additional 46,000 square
feet of space to house anticipated personnel increases.
Hie total capital cost for the construction of this space
is $1,845,000, and the estimated annual operating
expenditures will amount to $51,122. According to the
Assistant Commissioner for Administration, increases in
the environmental protection area will account for
approximately one-third of this space.
3.4.3 Summary of Costs and Revenues
As shown in Table 2, the estimated cost of the expanded environmental
protection programs is $3,567,189. The largest percentage of this
amount (42%) is for water programswater pollution control, public
water supplies, and the laboratory functions which serve both. One-
quarter is estimated for the operation of air pollution control programs,
and an even smaller fraction will be used by the other environmental
programs. The remainder (20%) has been estimated for special services,
including planning and evaluation, legal services, standards develop-
ment, technical information services, public affairs, and manpower
planning and development.
Our projections indicate that the greatly expanded environmental pro-
tection programs can be developed without extraordinary increases in
appropriations from general revenues. The logic behind this conclusion
is the following:
Total program cost is $4,815,706.
26
-------
A significant portion of this total is attri-
butable to the operating costs of the new
permit system, which, as Table 2 indicates,
amount to $1,882,001.
Projected federal assistance (in the form of
water and air. pollution program grants)
amounts to $1,332,176 for FY 1973. (This
amount does not include other grant monies
for which Indiana is eligible, e.g., solid
waste management demonstration grants. The
state has not applied for such grants in
the past year, but it may do so in the future.)
If permit program costs are covered by permit
fees and if the projections for federal assis-
tance are accurate, the total program costs
coming from general revenues amount to
$1,601,529. Thus, staffing levels can be
tripled with a modest increase in appropri-
ations from general revenues.
Admittedly, this will not be feasible in the short run. There will be
significant start-up costs, and the permit program revenues will lag
behind costs incurred. Thus, in the short run, these increased costs
must be borne by general revenues. It seems reasonable to assume, how-
ever, that the legislature could establish sone form of pay-back proce-
dures to correct for this lag; even though the initial outlay from
general revenues would be high, it could be reimbursed when permit
revenues have been generated.
Since these estimates of permit program revenues are quite substantial,
it is worthwhile to examine briefly the impact of these revenues on
pollution sources which will be required to pay fees. There are approxi-
mately 5,000 pollution sources which could be required to obtain permits
and to pay a permit fee. Two issues should be considered here:
These pollution sources clearly differ in the
capacity to pay permit fees; e.g., a large
industry is better able to pay than a small
confined feed lot operation.
Municipalities are pollution sources. While
there is no legal reason why they could not
be required to pay fees, it may be desirable
on other grounds to exempt them from fees.
As the exact fee structure is yet to be determined, we cannot say with
assurance that these permit revenues will be generated; but it is
clearly within the state's legal authority to collect fees to cover
costs.
27
-------
Our only other source of information on probable results of the permit
fee system is the experience of other states. The State of Michigan
recently enacted a surveillance fee system for water pollution control,
which applies only to industrial dischargers and covers the costs of
surveillance. The fee schedule, established by the legislature,
ranges from $50 to $8,000 per industry. In 1971-72, 1137 industrial
dischargers were billed $729,292 in fees. Of these, only four have
not paid. This high rate of return on billings is an encouraging sign
for the development of a permit fee system in Indiana.
28
-------
CHAPTER 4.0
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
In the previous chapter we presented Indiana's environmental protection
manpower staffing needs for meeting the requirements of its laws and
regulations. These increases in manpower, however, will not be fully
productive in contributing to environmental protection unless they are
effectively organized. In this chapter we present our findings and rec-
ommendations with regard to questions of organizational structure. Our
analysis of the problem has identified these questions as most important!
1. How will a substantially enlarged environmental
protection program be organized?
2. Should there be a single state agency for
environmental protection?
3. Should the three separate Boards for environmental
protection policy be consolidated into one, the
Environmental Management Board?
4. How should field work be organized? Should there
be field offices for environmental protection?
4.1 Findings
4.1.1 Organization of Environmental Activities
There are two basic ways to organize units performing environmental
protection activities! by programs and by functions. By "program", we
refer to work units which perform all environmental protection
activities for a particular pollution source or medium (e.g., air
pollution, water pollution, and the like). By "function", we refer to
work units which group related activities across all programs (e.g.,
enforcement, surveillance, technical services, and the like). The cur-
rent structure of the agency chiefly responsible for environmental
protection activities in Indiana, the Bureau of Engineering in the Board
of Health, is by program, as indicated on the organization chart on the
following page. As such, it has the strengths and weaknesses associated
with a program-oriented structure. Specifically, we found the following
conditions to exist.
1. The traditional activities which comprise the
core of each of the existing programs (e.g.,
review of plans for construction of pollution
control facilities, inspection of the opera-
tions of these facilities, monitoring of streams
29
-------
Chart 2: Current Structure, Bureau of Engineering
-------
and air quality, etc.) are thoroughly routinized
and are performed adequately given the con-
straints of manpower shortages.
2. On the other hand, many of the newer activities
associated with rapidly developing pollution
control laws tend to be performed less rputinely,
if at all. Planning, standards development,
inter-governmental relations, manpower planning
and development important functions
for program development and implementation are
given insufficient emphasis.
3. The present structure of the Bureau of Engineering
is not designed to effectively absorb both new
staff and new functions. This is particularly true
with regard to personnel required to perform certain
staff functions such as legal services, manpower
planning, and public information. If these functions
are to be expanded as we recommend, the present
structure does not provide a location for them which
will give them the necessary organizational recognition.
4.1.2 The Question of a Single Agency
There are three parts to this question.
if environmental protection remains within the
Board of Health, should all these activities
be consolidated into a single-purpose, high-
level, organizational unit directed by an
Assistant Conmissioner responsible only for environ-
mental protection.
Should a separate agency for environmental
protection be established by removing environ-
mental activities from the Board of Health?
If such a separate agency were to be created,
should it include the environmental functions
of the Department of Natural Resources?
With regard to the first question, our study indicates that the executive
responsible for environmental protection, the Assistant Commissioner for
Environmental Health, also is responsible for other functions not directly
related to environmental protection. The two bureaus reporting to the
Assistant Conmissioner , the Bureau of Engineering and the Bureau of
Food and Drugs, represent two difficult missions and functions.
31
-------
Moreover, the Bureau of Engineering, although charged with primary
responsibility for environmental protection, also includes other
functions: industrial hygiene and radiological health. In any organ-
ization, one of the scarcest resources is the time of the executive,
and the present combination of responsibilities limits the time that
the Assistant Commissioner can devote to environmental protection.
This problem will be exacerbated by the increases in environmental pro-
tection staff which are necessary to implement Indiana's statutes and
regulations. The Bureau of Food and Drugs and the Bureau of Engineering
are currently two of the largest Bureaus of the Board of Health. To-
gether, they account for nearly half of all the personnel contained in
the Board of Health's six bureaus. Tripling the size of the environ-
mental protection staff, as recommended in Chapter 3.0, will constitute
a serious burden on the capacity of the Assistant Commissioner for En-
vironmental Health to provide effective supervision and program direction.
Even if changes were made to relieve some of the administrative burden
on the Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Health (e.g., the crea-
tion of an Assistant Commissioner position with responsibility only for
environmental protection programs), the question of whether there should
be a separate agency for environmental protection activities will still
remain. Several arguments have been advanced in favor of such a separate
agency. These are:
1. The concerns and operations of environmental protection
functions have become increasingly differentiated from
traditional public health operations. Environmental
protection activities require new types of skills; they
have attracted new client groups. Same persons we inter-
viewed argued that environmental protection functions
should not have to compete for funds with traditional
public health programs. These persons also argued that
environmental protection programs have suffered from
such competition within the State Board of Health in
Indiana.
2. A separate agency could be more accountable for its
actions to the Governor, the Legislature, and the
citizens.
32
-------
3. A separate agency could have increased public
visibility as compared to a unit located
within the Board of Health. This increased
visibility could increase the public's aware-
ness of environmental problems and emphasize
the State of Indiana's commitment to environ-
mental protection.
4. If environmental protection functions in
Indiana are expanded in accordance with our
recommendations, the functions will be large
enough to justify a separate agency. If
present trends continue, environmental pro-
grams may, by force of their numbers alone,
change the character of the SBH.
On the other side of the argument, there are those who argue that envir-
onmental protection should remain in the Board of Health. Their argu-
ments include the following>
1. Environmental protection is a public health
function. As such, it should remain with
other related public health functions and
continue to be a part of a total state program
in this area.
2. With specific reference to Indiana, some
individuals we interviewed argued that environ-
mental protection programs have profited from
their location in the State Board of Health
because that agency has a long tradition of
professionalism and an experienced, respected
Commissioner.
These are the proper arguments which must be taken into account when
deciding this question of a separate state agency. Unfortunately, the
conflict between the two sides cannot be resolved by empirical investi-
gation. For example, with regard to the question of whether environ-
mental programs have suffered or profited from their inclusion in the
Board of Health, there is no scientific method which will answer this
question. Our study shows that environmental protection programs are
understaffed, but it is the result of many factors. There is no way that
we, as management consultants, can determine whether the lack of a
separate agency for environmental protection is one of these factors;
and if so, whether it is a major factor.
Our findings on this question, therefore, do not relate directly to
program performance. We cannot say, for example, whether a separate
state agency for environmental protection will result in improved
33
-------
inspection of pollution control facilities or improved monitoring of
environmental quality. What we can say is the following:
Environmental protection activities, over the
last decade, have become increasingly differentiated
from the traditional public health concerns, and
this trend is likely to continue in the future,
Environmental protection is the fastest-growing
program in the Board of Health, and these growth
trends are likely to continue in the future.
There are administrative advantages to be de-
rived from a separate agency. These include
improved program accountability and visibility.
The final part of this question is whether environmental functions from
the Department of Natural Resources should be removed from that Depart-
ment and located in some other agency (e.g., a separate agency for
environmental protection or management). At the present time, there
are a number of organizations within the Department of Natural
Resources which directly contribute to (or support) the state's
environmental protection efforts. Some of the most important of these
are the following:
# Division of Water. This Division is charged with
developing, managing and conserving the state's
water resources. Activities performed pursuant to
these responsibilities which require some coordination
with the State Board of Health are: water resources
planning, river basin planning, and permits for con-
struction on floodways. Staff members of the Planning
Branch of the Division of Water maintain close liaison
with the Special Projects Section of the Division of
Water Pollution Control at the Board of Health as they
develop water resource plans and river basin plans for
the state. The regulation Branch, which issues per-
mits for construction on floodplains, maintains liaison
with all sections of the Board of Health which must also
issue permits for construction.
# State Water Plan Section. This Section is a
small unit in the Department of Natural Resources
charged with developing a State Water Plan for
Indiana. In performing their responsibilities,
staff members of this Section must maintain
liaison with the members of the Special Projects
Section of the Division of Water Pollution Control
in the Board of Health.
34
-------
Geologic Survey Division. The main area of inter-
action between this Division and the Board of
Health results from requests from the Board of
Health's Division of Sanitary Engineering for infor-
mation relating to a proposed sanitary landfill
e.g., if there are questions about soil conditions.
Oil and Gas Division. Among other things, this
Division is responsible for the disposal of oil
and salt water that is produced as a by-product
of oil production. Whatever the method of dis-
posal, it poses a potential pollution hazard, and
methods must be developed in cooperation with the
Board of Health.
Law Enforcement Division. This Division maintains
141 uniformed officers in the field to enforce
the regulations of the Department of Natural
Resources. One of their responsibilities is to
report fish kills to the Water Pollution Control
Division of the Board of Health for immediate
action. Close cooperation between this Division
and the Board of Health is essential for quick
response to water pollution incidents.
Our interviews in the Department of Natural Resources, supplemented by
interviews in the State Board of Health, lead us to the following con-
clusion: the location of these functions in the Department of Natural
Resources has not caused any serious problems of coordination or dupli-
cation of functions. The Board of Health and the Department of Natural
Resources have established a harmonious working relationship. They have
divided and allocated the various functions which are potentially over-
lapping. They communicate and coordinate their activities with each
other. This coordination and cooperation is facilitated by the fact
that the Technical Secretary of the Stream Pollution Control Board sits on
the Natural Resources Commission, and the Director of the Department of
Natural Resources is on the Stream Pollution Control Board.
Any problems in coordination which do exist are attributable to two
conditions:
The general understaffing of the Bureau of
Engineering in the Board of Health. There are
several matters where coordination between the
Department of Natural Resources and the Board
of Health is desirable and inqportant (e.g.,
water resources planning). When such coordi-
nation is slow, staff in both the Board and
the Department cite staff shortages in the
Board of Health's Bureau of Engineering as the
cause.
35
-------
There are no established procedures for coordina-
tion of activities between the two agencies.
Good relations between the two agencies in the
past have made unnecessary the establishment of
formal procedures to mandate and guide coordina-
tion. With the absence of sufficient manpower
in the Board of Health, those activities which
are not specifically mandated are necessarily
neglected. This is an unfortunate development,
since closer and directed cooperation between
the two agencies would be productive for the
overall environmental protection effort.
4.1.3 Should the Three Boards be Consolidated?
At the present time there are three Boards which discharge certain
policy-making functions with regard to environmental protection in
Indiana: the Stream Pollution Control Board (SPCB), the Air Pollution
Control Board (APCB), and the newly-created Environmental Management
Board (EMB). All three Boards have no staff of their own, but rather
rely on staff provided byfhe Board of Health's Bureau of Engineering.
As we will demonstrate below, the legislative authority for the EMB
contains many aratoiguitiee and potential conflicts between this new
Board and the existing Boards. Thus, it is unlikely that the EMB as
presently constituted will be able to realize the full potential for
coordination of environmental protection activities, for giving new
visibility to environmental protection programs, and for serving as a
forum for greater public participation in fashioning environmental
policy.
The EMB reflects a compromise between those who wanted an independent,
environmental super-board and those who believed that the task of
pollution control should remain firmly within the domain of public
health. As established, the EMB gives new visibility to the theme of
environmental protection and serves as a forum for greater public par-
ticipation in that enterprise. But the Board was superimposed upon an
existing control structure that remains essentially unaltered, and it
is not yet clear how the EMB will fit into the pre-existing structure.
On its face, the Act gives it wide-ranging powers, many of which appear
to overlap those of the SPCB and APCB under their own separate legi slation.
At the same time, the Act provides that the EMB may transfer any of its
duties or powers or delegate the performance of particular
36
-------
functions to one of the other two BoardsEvidently, the Act contem-
plates the possibility of numerous such transfers or delegations, since
it vests many powers alternatively in "the board or an agency". This
flexibility may be especially useful for supplementing inadequacies in
the pre-existing authorities of the SPCB and APCB by letting them draw
upon the EMB's rich storehouse of powers. For example, it may be
doubted whether, under their own statutes, the SPCB can require submis-
sion of monthly operating reports from industrial*dischargers, or the
APCB prescribe emission standards, or either the APCB or SPCB establish
a full-fledged permit system for construction and operation of control
facilities. But such doubts can easily be circumvented by transfers of
the necessary authorities from the EMB.
On the other hand, there are certain powers which EMB must retain if it
is not to abdicate its essential functions of program coordination,
planning and review, and other powers which it may wish to retain. The
question then arises how the EMB, in the exefcise of these powers, will
relate to the Air and Water Boards.
On this point, unfortunately, the Act is obscure. It states that,
"[n]otwithstanding any provision of this article [the EMA], wherever
a duty was imposed upon or power granted to one of the agencies [SPCB
or APCBl under the provisions of laws existing prior to this article,
then such duty or power shall be exercised by such agency." 3 This sup-
plements a statement that "[t]he powers and duties of said boards
. . . shall not be affected except as specifically altered or changed
in this article or pursuant to this article," and a statement that
these boards "shall continue to exercise all powers and perform all
duties now imposed upon them in the same manner as prior to the enact-
ment of this artigle, except as their powers and duties are modified
by this article." Does the first of these statements negate the
references to alteration and modification in the second and third? If
the EMB, in the exercise of its duty to review a proposed regulation
of the SPCB or APCB, refuses to approve it, would such refusal encroach
impermissibly upon powers hitherto vested in the latter Board? May the
EMB adopt regulations governing issuance of permits for construction
of wastewater treatment facilities, when the function of approving
113-7-6-4, 13-7-6-5
2
As used in the EMA, "agencies" mean the SPCB and APCB. 13-7-1-2(2)
313-7-6-7
413-7-2-9
513-7-6-3
37
-------
plans and specifications for such facilities a component feature of
the proposed permit system was previously performed by the SPCB? Or
may two sets of approvals, one from SPCB and one from EMB, hereafter be
required?
The EMA furnishes no clear answers to these and similar questions. The
possibility of future battles between the Boards, however, remains. And
regardless of the understandings reached among them, polluters may have
a field day challenging Board actions in court on the ground that they
lack statutory authorization. Perhaps the greatest defect in the
environmental legislation of Indiana is this failure to articulate the
allocation of powers and functions between the EMB and the other two
environmental Boards.
4.1.4 The Question of Field Work
Environmental protection, like many other state responsibilities, is
concerned with problems that are not concentrated in the state capital,
but rather are found throughout the state. In order to meet its
responsibilities, then, the state agency concerned with environmental
protection must: (1) utilize the resources of other governmental
agencies which have personnel located in other parts of the state;
and/or (2) locate or send its personnel into the field. In all likeli-
hood, both strategies will be used, and each raises questions for
organization of the state agency concerned with environmental pro-
tection. These questions are:
1. If the resources of other governmental agencies are
utilized for field work, what is the most effective
division of responsibilities between various govern-
mental units?
2. If personnel from the state agency concerned with
environmental protection are sent into the field,
should they be dispatched from the central office
in Indianapolis, or should there be regional field
offices?
With regard to the first question, there are a number of governmental
agencies which have field personnel who could be utilized to assist
in environmental protection efforts. For example, the federal govern-
ment has personnel who perform surveillance activities in Indiana. The
Department of Natural Resources has field personnel who observe and
report pollution incidents. The most important type of government unit
for environmental protection, however, is local governments. A
thorough treatment of the relationship between the state government
and local governments in the area of environmental protection would
require extensive analysis of the operations of local governmental
efforts a task which was beyond the scope of this study. Neverthe-
less, our study did yield several findings with regard to local govern-
mental relations.
38
-------
Local government efforts in environmental protec-
tion constitute an important part of the total
state effort to control pollution.
In air pollution control, for example, ten
local governmental units have enacted air
pollution control ordinances and established
programs to implement these ordinances.
These local activities vary in their scope
and level of effort, but several are compre-
hensive and even include laboratory capa-
bilities. Estimates presented in the State
of Indiana Air Pollution Control Implementa-
tion Flan indicate that, if fully staffed,
local air pollution control agencies could
account for approximately half of all air
pollution control personnel working in the
state.
Local health departments have responsibilities
in the areas of water pollution control,
solid waste management, and the protection
of public water supplies. There are 105
such local boards at the present time
one in each county and additional boards
in several municipalities. While the
activities of these boards vary considerably,
many do implement local pollution control
ordinances.
State environmental protection officials cooperate with
local governmental officials in pollution control
activities, and there is an effort to coordinate
activities between the two levels of government.
Staff from the Division of Water Pollution
Control and the Division of Sanitary Engi-
neering notify local health department
officials when they are visiting local areas
on surveillance or enforcement activities.
State personnel make a practice of sending
copies of correspondence with operators of
pollution control facilities to the local
health departments where those facilities
are located.
Personnel from the Air Pollution Control Division
make regular visits to local agencies operating
air pollution control programs and also pro-
vide technical assistance to those agencies.
39
-------
3. To date, however, the state government has not
conducted a systematic survey of the local
resources available for pollution control, and
has not established a plan for maximum utiliza-
tion of these local resources.
In air pollution control, for example,
the resources available at the local
level are quite significant. It is
important, however, for the state to
define which functions are best per-
formed by the state and which by local
agencies. Although some consideration
has been given to these questions by
personnel in the Division of Air Pollu-
tion Control, the relationship between
the state and local agencies has not
been defined; indeed, the state does
not have a conqplete inventory and
evaluation of available local resources.
In water pollution control, solid waste
management and the protection of public
water supplies, consideration has been
given to the expansion of local pollu-
tion control efforts, but these have
not yet resulted in local program
development.
The second organizational question regarding field work, mentioned
at the beginning of this section, is whether there should be regional
field offices.
Until 1968, the Board of Health had several District Offices in various
regions of the state. When they were created in 1947, these field
offices were to be miniature Boards of Health in each region and were
supposed to encourage the development of county boards of health which
might assume some of the state's public health functions. They never
fulfilled this original objective, largely because of the inability of
the District Offices to attract medical personnel. As a consequence,
instead of becoming miniature Boards of Health, they became field
offices for some of the functions of the State Board of Health, par-
ticularly environmental protection.
The arguments in favor of field offices are the following:
Strategically located field offices could insure
that increased attention is devoted to specific
geographical areas with concentrated environ-
ment problems.
40
-------
Field offices could assist in the important
functions of monitoring and providing techni-
cal assistance to environmental protection
activities undertaken by local governments.
Field offices enable citizens in distant
reaches of the state to have easier access
to environmental programs. By providing
greater visibility for environmental pro-
grains in all parts of the state, they
encourage citizen awareness and participation .
in such programs.
Field offices could reduce the amount of
travel time spent in field activities.
The chief disadvantages which must be considered are the overhead costs
involved in the maintenance of field offices and the potential loss of
effective managment and direction of these field offices. A decision
was made in 1968 by policy-makers in the Board of Health to eliminate
the District Offices on the grounds that both of these disadvantages
associated with the District Office structure were serious enough to
warrant their dissolution.
Since there were no field offices in operation at the tine of this study,
much of our evaluation of these arguments mist rely on opinions, rather
than direct observation. Our discussions with the menfeers of the Board
of Health staff, however, have yielded the following findings. Many
staff members, particularly field personnel who live elsewhere than
Indianapolis, favor the return of a field office structure. They be-
lieve that field offices would enable them to provide better services
to areas far away from the center of the state. These employees spend
most of their tine in the field, and regard weekly trips to the office
in Indianapolis as detracting from their field services. This is not
to say, however, that all staff favor a field office structure. Several*
particularly those in policy-making and administrative positions, ex-
pressed reservations about problems of overhead costs and direction and
monitoring of field personnel.
In addition these staff opinions, one final finding from our
analysis relates to the spatial distribution of pollution problems
in the state. Two major determinants of pollution problems
population and industrial concentration. A demographic analysis
of the state indicates that there #rซ two areas of the state where
these concentrations are so significant as to warrant permanent
location of field staff: Marion County and northwest Indiana
(the Lake and Porter County area). Clearly, Marion County's
problems can be treated by staff from the central office of the state
agency responsible for environmental protection. Northwest Indiana,
however, is a different problem, and is one case where a regional
field office structure is warranted.
41
-------
4.2 Short-Ranqe versus Long-Range Recommendations
In the preceding analysis of the organization of Indiana's environ-
mental protection activities, it was clear that there are two levels
at which one might discuss problems of organization. The first level
concerns those organizational issues relating to the internal structure
and functioning of the State's environmental activites: issues such
as the structure of the State Board of Health at the level of the
Assistant Commissioners, the internal restructuring of the Bureau of
Engineering, and the relations between environmental protection func-
tions and other functions performed within the Board of Health. These
are issues which must be dealt with immediately to ensure that the
proposed staff increases can be implemented effectively. Staff in-
creases of the size we recommend must be carefully planned, and organi-
zatonal implications must be considered. Supervisors will find that
their administrative jobs have increased drastically in scope and com-
plexity f new functions will be performed which may be unfamiliar ones
to present staff, and which may introduce new supervisory issues.
With an increase in size, an increase in specialization of staff re-
sponsibilities is likely, and this increased specialization may limit
the organization's flexibility unless corrective steps are taken. To
solve the problems presented by the increased size of the organization,
we have prepared a number of short-range recommendations, which appear
in Section 4.3.
In addition to these short-range issues, there are a number of other or-
ganization issues which are of less immediate concern because they do
not affect the implementation of manpower increases. Such longrange
issues include: whether to remove environmental protection functions
from the Board of Health; whether to transfer the powers of the APCB
and SPCB to the EMB; whether there should be a regional field office
structure; and whether consideration should be given to further inter-
nal reorganization. We will discuss these issues in more detail in
Section 4.4.
4.3 Short-Range Recommendations
On the basis of the findings presented in Section 4.1, we make the fol-
lowing recommendations.
1. We recommend that environmental protection functions in In-
diana be consolidated under a single Assistant Commi ssion-
er for Environmental Protection, and that he be responsible
for these functions only.
In Section 4.1, we presented the following findings:
The present Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Health
has the responsibility for several programs not related to
42
-------
environmental protection. These programs, particularly
those in the Bureau of Food and Drugs, make demands on his
time for administration and supervision, and necessarily
detract from his attention to environmental protection ac-
tivities.
Expanded programs in the environmental protection area will
require even more attention from this Assistant Commission-
er if they are to be properly supervised and directed.
Environmental protection programs are currently not given
high-level organizational recognition. Expanded programs
in this area warrant such recognition.
To solve these problems, we recommend that the Assistant
Commissioner for Environmental Health be retitled "Assistant
Commissioner for Environmental Protection" and that he be given
responsibility for these programs only. Unrelated programs (food and
drugs, industrial hygiene, radiological health) will be moved to some
other part of the State Board of Health. Of these three programs, radiolo
gical health is the most closely related to environmental protection, and
we should explain briefly why we sure recommending its removal. At the
present time, this program is concerned with the radiological effects of
medical operations (X-ray equipment and the like). These problems are
different from radiological problems associated with atomic-powered en-
ergy generation, and we feel that they are more properly located with
medical or health programs. A program oriented toward environmental
radiation hazards, when it is developed in Indiana, would properly be
located under the Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Protection.
It is beyond the scope of this study to make recommendations about where
these other programs not related to environmental protection whould be
located. It is obvious, however, that decisions about where to relocate
programs as large as those under the Bureau of Food and Drugs will re-
quire careful analysis.
2. We recommend that the offices reporting to the Assistant
Commissioner for Environmental Protection be organized in
accordance with the following organization chart.
43
-------
Chart 3; Proposed Organization Structure for Indiana Environmental Protection Activities
~Possible Divisions for
future consideration
-------
There are two key elements to this proposed organization structure:
the establishment of three new units at the Bureau level, which will
have many of the same functions as the present Divisions of Water
Pollution Control, Air Pollution Control, and Sanitary Engineering;
and the establishment of an Office of Special Services to perform
many of the staff functions which are presently being performed either
minimally or not at all.
The first part of this recommendation involves raising some of the
Divisions to Bureau level and some of their Sections to the Division
level. This is clearly consistent with the recommendation to consol-
idate environmental protection activities under an Assistant Commision-
er for Environmental Protection. It also is warranted by the increased
size of these organizational units. These new Bureaus will be as large
as other units in the Board of Health which have Bureau status. The
functions and internal structure of these new bureaus will be as
follows:
Bureau of Water Pollution Control and Water Supply.
This Bureau will contain Divisions of Surveys, Sewage
Treatment, and Industrial Waste, which will perform
essentially the same functions as the existing Sections
of the same name. We also propose the addition of two
new units which, unlike Surveys, Sewage Treatment,
and Industrial Waste, are not part of the existing
Division of Water Pollution Control. These are:
a Laboratory Division. This simply represents a
transfer of the Water and Sewage Division from
the Bureau of Laboratories into the new Bureau
of Water Pollution Control and Water Supply. Its
functions will be unchanged.
a Water Supply Division. This represents a
transfer of the Water Supply Section from its
current location in the Division of Sanitary
Engineering and the elevation of this unit to
Division status. Its functions will remain the
same.
Bureau of Air Pollution Control. The Sections of the ex-
isting Division will be raised to the level of Divisions.
In addition, we propose the addition of a new Division of
Local Assistance to perform the key task of assisting, mon-
itoring, and reviewing local fir pollution control activi-
ties. As we indicated in Section 3*lซAr"local air pollu-
tion control programs constitute an essential part of the
total state effort in air pollutibn control. At present,
the Division of Air Pollutioh Control is paying insuffi-
cient attention to the function of effective utilization of
these local resources. The recognition of this function in
a separate division should contribute to its performance.
45
-------
* Bureau of Sanitary Engineering. The proposed Bureau of Sani-
tary Engineering represents essentially the elevation of the
Division of Sanitary Engineering to Bureau status with two
significant changes in internal structure. The Water Supply
Section will be removed and transferred to the new Bureau of
Water Pollution Control and Water Supply; and the solid
waste management function, currently a part of the General
Sanitation Section, will be elevated to Division Status.
Thus, in addition to Solid Waste Management, the other proposed
Divisions will be: General Sanitation,and Housing and Schools,
each performing essentially the same functions as under the
present structure {except that solid waste management will be
removed from General Sanitation).
We make these recommendations regarding the General Sanitation
and Housing and Schools Divisions with some reservations. The
limited scope of our study prevented us from studying their
functions. It is possible that these functions ought to be
located elsewhere. We recommend that this question be given
further study.
In the event that new environmental protection functions are
developed in Indiana (e.g., noise pollution control, control
of atomic energy radiation hazards), these new functions
could become Divisions in the proposed Bureau of Canitary
Engineering.
One controversial organizational decision with regard to the proposed
bureaus is the transfer of the Water Supply Section to the proposed
Bureau of Water Pollution Control and Water Supply. The arguments in
favor of maintaining the water supply function separate from water
pollution control are the following:
According to water supply specialists, the function
of protecting public water supplies has tradi-
tionally been a health concern and not a pollu-
tion control concern.
According to some staff members in the Bureau of
Engineering, other water supply specialists in
midwestern states have evaluated the experience
of combining water supply functions with water
pollution control functions in their member
states, and have come to the conclusion that such
a combination has worked to the detriment of the
water supply function. In such situations, water
supply functions are given low priority and are
given insufficient manpower and budgets.
46
-------
Staff members in the Division of Sanitary Engineer-
ing and the Hater Supply Section argue that
since water supply has been separate from water
pollution control for a number of years with no
apparent problems resulting from this arrange-
ment, the burden of proof is on those who propose
changing the situation.
In reply, we would offer the following findings which led to our conclu-
sion to include water supply with water pollution control.
A number of activities performed in water supply
are also performed in water pollution control ~
e.g., review of applications for construction
permits; supervision and inspection of construc-
tion; review and approval of operating reports;
inspection of operations and operator certifi-
cation. Even though the type of facility is
different, the similarity of functions and the
similarity of skills required in performing
these functions suggests that cooperation along
functional lines is possible. It may be possible,
for example, to achieve costs savings by utilizing
field personnel from both water pollution and
water supply to provide more comprehensive field
services.
0 Much of the paperwork for both water supply
and water pollution control is the same (A-95
Clearinghouse reviews, permit programs, and
the like). Better coordination in the process-
ing of this paperwork could be achieved by placing
both functions in the same bureau.
Water is a single resource, no matter what its
quality, quantity or location. Some argue that
the only difference between water pollution con-
trol and the protection of public water supplies
is a difference in water quality standards. Drink-
ing water standards are the highest water quality
standards, but the question is one of degree rather
than one of fundamentally different functions in
achieving those standards.
Water supply and water pollution are inter-
related.For example, ground disposal of
wastewater (by spray irrigation or sand filtra-
tion) is receiving more attention as a con-
cern for groundwater quality. Migration and
location of groundwater is of major significance
to these forms of wastewater disposal.
47
-------
While it is true that there is always a danger of
a small Division being ignored by a large Bureau,
such a situation is not inevitable. There are or-
ganizational devices to limit tendencies in this
direction; note, for example, that water supply is
given organizational recognition as a Division in our
proposed structure; note also that we have specifical-
ly added Water Supply to the name of the Bureau,
thereby indicating that water supply is a separate,
recognized function.
While we believe that these findings effectively counter the arguments
presented in favor of retaining water supply as a separate function, we
do share the concern of the water supply personnel that they may have
difficulty competing for funds and manpower within a Bureau which is
primarily concerned with pollution control activities. Therefore, we
believe that this potential problem should be duly recognized by the
Director of. the Bureau of Water Pollution Control and Water Supply,
and by the Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Protection.
We also realize that if there is an environmental protection agency
separate from the Board of Health (as we recommend under our long-range
recommendations), the Board of Health still may retain some residual
authority to protect the public from health hazards associated with
water supply. The exact nature of this authority, however, is a matter
which will require further study- We therefore recommend a thorough
investigation of this question during implementation of these recom-
mendations .
Office of Special Services
The second part of our recommended new organization is the creation of
an Office of Special Services, whose Director will report directly to
the Assistant Commissioner. It was clear from our study that certain
staff functions were receiving only minimal recognition in Indiana.
Among these were planning, standards development, legal services,
technical information systems, manpower planning and development, and
public information. They were either located within program offices
(for example, planning), or were performed by personnel who had other
duties which claimed the bulk of their time and attention (for example,
standards development). Still other of these staff functions are not
being performed because of the lack of certain types of professional
staff, for example, manpower planning and legal services. Therefore,
we propose that the Office of Special Services have the following
functions: Planning and Evaluation, Legal Services, Standards and
Regulation Development, Technical Information Systems, Manpower Planning
and Development, and Public Information.
48
-------
The specific nature of the activities which constitute these functions
will be as follows:
Planning and Evaluation;
prepare river basin plans
review or prepare metropolitan/regional water pollution
and water resources plans
prepare and coordinate program plans for air pollution
and water pollution (in cooperation with the program
bureaus)
prepare grant applications for other Federal assistance
(e.g., water quality management planning, solid waste
management planning, etc.)
act as central liaison between the EPA Regional Office
and the state
initiate, with the assistance of other relevant state
agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources,
comprehensive land-use planning for the State of
Indiana; participate in basin and inter-state planning
efforts, e.g., GLBC, ORSANCO, ORBC.
propose special studies
review and approve statewide environmental impact
assessments
review local environmental impact assessments
monitor and evaluate programs
Legal Services;
receive data from all program offices, on a regular
basis, indicating all potential enforcement actions
generated by surveillance and monitoring activities
of the program bureaus; analyze these data and
prepare an immediate action report for the
Assistant Commissioner on all proposed enforce-
ment actions.
prepare a monthly report on all enforcement actions
(proposed and on-going), indicating the status of
each.
review surveillance data
49
-------
act as in-house legal advisor to the Assistant Commissioner
and work with the Attorney General*
provide legal advice and direction to the program bureaus and
their staffs; advise staff of the legal and data requirements
of effective enforcement actions
ซ keep records of hearings and orders
act as liaison with EPA on permit and enforcement work
m review legal aspects of all proposed standards and regulations
review local grant agreements and agency sub-agreements
Standards and Regulation Development * *
prepare standards and regulations for consideration by the
SPCB, APCB, and EMB
review existing standards and regulations
9 conduct special studies into new technologies and new
abatement methods
facilitate technology transfer to pollution control facilities
conduct such special studies as shall be requested by the Assis-
tant Commissioner or the program bureavjs through the Assistant
Commissioner
evaluate the economic, social, and environmental impact
of proposed standards and regulations
provide evidence on economic, social and environmental impact
of proposed plans and abatement methods at hearings and other
enforcement actions
*The exact relationship between the environmental protection legal services
personnel and the staff in the Office of the Attorney General is a matter
to be worked out by these two organizations. We assume that the Attorney
General's Office would have the responsibility for handling all cases going
to court, but that the legal staff in the Board of Health could hai.dle the
initiation of enforcement actions and hearings before any of the three envi
onmental boards. Whatever the precise division of labor, one fact is clear
the Attorney General must be kept informed of all regulations, hearings and
potential enforcement actions.
**One result of the passage of the Federal Water Quality Act Amendment;, of
1972 is that the emphasis on water quality standards will be replaced by a
discharge permit program, and there will be a corresponding decline in man-
power allocated to standards development. Many of the activities of this
office, however, such as regulation development, special studies, and the
like, will be unaffected by this change.
50
-------
provide advice to the Assistant Commissioner and program bureaus
on questions of economic, social, and environmental impact of
pollution control
Technical Information Systems
develop and maintain, in cooperation with the program
bureaus and the Division of Systems and Computer Services,
a comprehensive environmental data handling system
Public Affairs
ซ facilitate public participation in environmental
protection program
initiate a public information and education program
operate a central public information system, routing
public complaints and requests for information to the
program bureaus
prepare press releases for the Assistant Commissioner
and the program bureaus
undertake, in cooperation with the Division for Health
Education, such activities as may be important to
publicize environmental protection activities
Manpower Planning and Development
plan and conduct (or arrange to have conducted) in-house
manpower development and training programs
coordinate education and vocational training programs
for employees and plant operating personnel throughout
the state
provide advice to the Office of Personnel and Training
on personnel problems in the area of environmental
protection
a administer operator certification program
forecast environmental protection manpower needs
for the State of Indiana (both private and public
sectors, and all levels of government) and com-
municate the results of these forecasts to state
education institutions and other interested federal,
intra-state and local organizations.
51
-------
Many of the activities to be performed by the Office of Special Services
have not been performed in the past. Others, however, are activities
which are currently the responsibility of the program Divisions of the
current Bureau of Engineering. In order to understand the impact of
this new Office of Special Services, it is worthwhile to consider
briefly some of the activities transferred to the Office of Special
Services and the implications of this transfer for the performance
of these activities. The following are the most important:
Many planning activities (e.g., river basin plans,
metropolitan/regional, water pollution and water resources
plans) are currently located in the Special Projects
Section of the Divison of Water Pollution Control. With
the creation of the Office of Special Services, all of
these activities are transferred to the new Office, and
the Special Projects Section is abolished.
The preparation of program plans, preparation of grant appli-
cations, and liaison with the EPA Region V Office are activities
currently performed by the program Divisions. These activities
will be transferred to the new Office of Special Services to
assure a coordinated and comprehensive approach to these acti-
vities. At the same time, the Office will necessarily rely on
staff from the new program Bureaus in the performance of
these activities.
Review and approval of environmental impact statements is
currently being performed in the program Divisions. It will
be transferred to the Office of Special Services which may call
on the program Bureaus for technical advice.
All enforcement work, including the legal aspects, is currently
performed by the program Divisions, with some assistance from
the Board of Health's Hearing Commissioner. Most of this work
will be transferred to the Office of Special Services, though
the technical aspects of surveillance and preparation of data
will remain in the new program Bureaus. Thus, enforcement
will be a shared function, with the legal staff of the Office
of Special Services providing advice and direction to program
personnel and also handling the strictly legal aspects. The
Office of Special Services will also provide a comprehensive
review of all potential and pending enforcement actions.
Such a review, prepared for the Assistant Commissioner, will
also be available to the program personnel to inform them of
the status of enforcement actions,
Standards and regulation development and the conduct of
special studies are currently being performed by personnel
in the program Division, particularly by Division Directors
and selected staff. These activities will be transferred to
52
-------
the new Office of Special Services, and they will be ex-
panded through the addition of new professionals such as
economists and planners. Liaison will be maintained with
the new program Bureaus to assure effective and coordinated
performance of this function.
Technical information systems are being developed
on an ad hoc basis by various personnel in the current
program Divisions. This activity will be transferred
to the new Office of Special Services where it will
receive more comprehensive treatment.
Public affairs activities are currently performed
by the program Divisions. These activities include
response to complaints and requests for technical
information, and a limited program of public
education. Within the new Office of Special Services,
a public affairs team will enlarge the public inform-
ation and education program and encourage public
participation in environmental program planning. This
team will also operate a central complaint and public
information system, routing these complaints and
requests to the proper program specialists. Because
they must respond to complaints and requests routed
to them, the Program Bureaus will retain the function
of "Technical Information".
by the curr
-------
action that would include an assessment of their economic and social
consequences. Such a task could best be performed by an interdiscip-
linary task force composed of legal, technical information, and
planning specialists. Such an interdisciplinary approach to environmental
problems will result not only in a more comprehensive product, but
will also broaden the outlook and concerns of the individuals working
on such task teams. This is less likely to occur if strict organiza-
tional lines separate the functions of the Office.
We recognize, of course, that certain functions of the Office of Special
Services will be more routinized (for example, technical information
services and public information), and these functions will be performed
by more permanent work units. A single office will not inhibit the
performance of these functions, however, so long as their importance
is recognized and appropriate work units are established to perform
them.
Ultimately, the question of the detailed internal organization of the
Office of Special Services is of secondary concern; it will, and should,
reflect the administrative style of the Assistant Commissioner it serves.
What is essential is that the need to perform these functions be recog-
nized, that adequate staff both in numbers and in skills be hired
to perform them, and that the staff functions be given organizational
recognition. These objectives are met by the creation of an Office of
Special Services
Summary
In summary, we have made two recommendations to deal with the immediate
problems arising from the rapid expansion of Indiana's environmental
protection activities. First, we recommend that all environmental
protection activities be consolidated under a single Assistant
Commissioner for Environmental Protection, and that this be his sole
responsibility. Second, we recommend an internal reorganization of
environmental protection functions which raises some of the Divisions
to Bureau level, and which establishes an Office of Special Services
to perform certain staff functions.
The key features of these recommendations are:
They give significant organizational recognition to the
environmental program through the appointment of an Assistant
Commissioner for Environmental Protection, in the long-run,
if a separate agency for environmental protection is desired,
the organization under the Assistant Commissioner can, in
effect, be transferred intact to create a separate agency.
They provide for minimal disruption of present activities, and
therefore, present few barriers to the absorption of new staff.
54
-------
4.4 Long-Range Recommendations
The short-range recommendations presented iซ fh
directed at problems which are of irunediate 6 preceding section are
tection programs in Indiana. They are npr concern for environmental pro-
ficiencies in the existing organizational structure Cฐ"eCt certain de"
ly, they are necessary for the effective ut'V f ' an ' more unportant-
in environmental protection staff. 1 lzat-lon expected increases
Once these immediate problems have been solvpri
to the other questions posed at the. vea' conS1'deration can be given
these question c.nnot be Sฐป* ฐf
tion of whether to establish a regional field ff" time. The ques-
depends on a detailed analysis of the field- ฐv 106 stfucture' ^or example,
environmental programs. Thus, some of th Wor operations of the expanded
not provide answers, but rather explain the *ecommendations do
must be considered when the necessary informsMo * ?tors which
these caveats in mind, we turn to the fn]inu' " iS available- with
the following questions:
1* Should there be a ซ.
environmental protection? ** aqencY fnr
This is a question which has been widel
years. As we indicated in our findings*- tef in Indiana in recent
tions on our ability to answer this quest" SeCtion 3,:L' there are limita-
no way to empirically test whether the lo1Ct" There is' for example,
functions in the Board of Health helps or^1011 ฐf env^ronmental protection
the other hand, we did indicate that there ln^ers Pro9raป performance. On
such a separation a reasonable course to t J*6*0 certain facts which make
tal protection functions and their incr 6" ^rowth environmen-
public health concerns make location in hhS1^ divergence from traditional
in the future. Also, there are certain adva ฐar<* Health less desirable
some increase in accountability and visibility^68 t0 Separation' e-9-
On the basis of these findings, we recommend th* c
mental protection functions from the Board of H paratlon of environ-
this means that the environmental protection eal**1. Specifically,
Section 4.3 (an Assistant Commissioner for recommended in
the three Bureaus and one Office reportinq tr> ^ฐ"a6ntAl Protection and
Board of Health and established as a separate t' ^ removed fran the
Commissioner would become the Commissioner of The Assistant
Farther details on this proposed organization will h!" orga"i^atio"-
parts of this Section which consider questions of Prฐvided in later
ternal organization, and regional field offices. ฐ3r structure' in_
Because of the importance of this issue, however ^
our position on t^ reco-,edatio U "
derstood. First, as indicated above, this rcr.,. j
any judgments about the relationship between location T enliToLTnlTl "
55
-------
protection functions and improvement in program performance. There is
no empirical evidence for such judgments. Thus, our recommendation is
not a negative reflection on the past performance of environmental pro-
tection activities under the Board of Health.
Second, to the extent that the recommendation is based on our conclusion
that some increase in accountability and visibility will accrue from
such a change in location, we are making certain judgments about the value
of these results. In the final analysis, this question will be decided
by Indiana's citizens and their elected representatives, who may place a
different value on these results. Or, alternatively, they may decide that
the same results can be achieved by other means.
Third, we are also basing this recommendation on our finding that environ-
mental protection programs are becoming so large and so different from
traditional public health concerns as to warrant separate recognition.
Reasonable men may disagree on the extent to which this is the case.
Indiana has a tradition of public health professionals who have distin-
guished themselves in the field of pollution control. During the last
several years, however, environmental protection has assumed directions
of its own which are increasingly diverging from traditional health con-
cerns. Consider for example, the capabilities required of Indiana's new
Commissioner of Health if environmental protection is to remain a major
responsibility of the Board of Health. He must be an individual with an
extraordinary range of interests and expertise. He must be concerned
not only with both clinical practice and public health affairs, but also
with the rapidly changing and expanding field of environmental protection.
This means involvement in questions of land-use planning, civil engineer-
ing, new abatement technologies, traffic engineering, surveillance sys-
tems, and the like. The former Commissioner of Health was a man whose
background and breadth of interests enabled him to involve himself effec-
tively in environmental protection issues. Such individuals are very
rare, however; and the job will require even greater breadth of interests
and expertise in the future.
Finally, we are not suggesting that the health aspects of environmental
protection are not important. Indeed, we recommend careful attention to
the problem of coordination and cooperation between the proposed envir-
onmental protection organization and related activities remaining in the
Board of Health. It is unlikely, however, that this will be a problem.
The historical relationship between the Board of Health and the Department
of Natural Resources is instructive. There is no reason why the relation-
ship between the proposed organization and the Board of Health cannot be
equally cordial and productive, particularly if the DNR experience is
followed and provision is made for overlapping memberships on the Boards
which provide policy direction to each of these agencies.
2. Should the present structure of three separate
Boards for environmental protection policy be
changed?
56
-------
Our findings on this question, presented in Section 4.1.3, indicate that
some change is necessary. The Environmental Management Act, which added
a third Board (the Environmental Management Board) to the previously ex-
isting Stream Pollution Control and Air Pollution Control Boards, con-
tains a number of ambiguities with regard to the allocation of powers
and duties among the three Boards. These ambiguities, in the long-run,
are serious enough to cause significant problems in the administration of
environmental programs; indeed, they may even invite legal challenges to
the state's authority to implement environmental programs.
The important question, however, is which direction this change should
take. Several options are available:
One could attempt to clarify the allocation of
powers and duties among the three Boards. This
involves deciding which powers must be transferred
frcni the EMB to one of the other Boards, and how
these Boards will thereafter relate to the EMB
and its reserved powersa complex problem. Having
done so, moreover, one is still faced with the ques-
tion of why there must be three separate Boards.
Although the formation of the EMB did serve to bring
more attention to environmental protection activities,
we see no compelling rationale for continuing the
division of the responsibility for environmental
protection into three areas; indeed, such a division
would inhibit the development of a comprehensive
approach to environmental policy.
One could abolish the Boards altogether, and vest
their powers and duties in some other governmental
unit, e.g. a new Department of Environmental
Protection. Boards, however, have certain
virtues: they bring the views of diverse
groups of citizens to bear on important policy
matters; they provide a check on the program
administrator. These advantages would be lost
if the Boards were eliminated altogether.
0 One could abolish the SPCB and APCB and transfer
their powers and duties to the EMB. This altern-
ative solves the problem of ambiguity, and would
be relatively simple to implement. Virtually
all powers of the SPCB and APCB are alternatively
vested in the EMB by the Environmental Management
Act. Were it not for the provisions of the Act
continuing the pre-existing jurisdictions of the
Air and Stream Boards, the EMB would have almost
the full range of currently available powers to
57
-------
make and implement environmental policy. More-
over, wherever powers spelled out in the EMA
overlap with those in earlier statutes, the for-
mer are more impressive in scope and superior in
their formulation.
Therefore, we recommend the third option, the abolition of the SPCB and
APCB and transfer of their powers and duties to the EMB.
Several other questions arirhowever, about the operation of an Envir-
onmental Management Board with such increased responsibilities. For
example, should it continue to have a part-time Board, or should there
be a full-time, salaried Board? We believe that a part-time Board could
fulfill its responsibilities if it makes sufficient use of its authority
to delegate matters to the Board's Technical Secretary. In the final
analysis, of course, this is a question which only the EMB can decide
after the nature of its work load becomes clear. In the meantime, we rec-
ommend retaining a part-time Board.
Another question about an EMB with expanded responsibilities is whether it
will have its own budget. Under the Environmental Management Act, the
EMB has the power to "[e]mploy or contract for such legal, professional and
other personnel and assistance as may be necessary for efficient perform-
ance" of its "duties."1 On the other hand, all monies for purposes of
the Act must be provided through the appropriations of the State Board of
Health.^
The question of a separate budget brings us back to the question of
whether there ought to be a separate agency for environmental protec-
tion apart from the Board of Health. We have already recommended that
such a separate agency be created. At the time this takes place, we
recommend that the Environmental Management Act be amended to make clear
that the EMB can supply itself with staff and supplies separate from the
State Board of Health.
3. Should there be regional offices?
In the findings presented earlier in this chapter, we indicated that there
were both advantages and disadvantages to a regional field office struc-
ture. The question of establishing such a field office structure turns
on three central issues:
Can the state be sure that there is a need for
such offices; will such offices provide better
service? will they facilitate performance of
environmental protection activities; and will
there be any cost savings?
113-7-5-l(k).
2
13-7-17. Also, it is not clear whether the Board's "powers" are included
within its "duties", for which it may employ or contract for personnel and
assistance. Cf. the "duties" under 13-7-3 with the "powers" under 13-7-5.
58
-------
Can the central office make adaquate provision
for monitoring and direction of such field of-
fices; and what organizational unit will be
responsible for coordinating the activities of
these units?
Are there specific geographical areas of the
state where concentrations of environmental
Problems are of such magnitude as to require
full-time, on-site field personnel?
The answers to the first two questions must be derived from empirical
analysis of program operations after environmental protection authorities
have implemented the manpower recommendations presented in Chapter 3.0.
We therefore recommend that these questions be considered, and that a
regional field office structure be established if the answer to both
questions is in the affirmative.
With regard to the third question, we indicated in our findings that
Marion County and the Lake and Porter Counties area both had geographical
concentrations of such magnitude as to require full-time, on-site staff.
Marion County, of course, can be served by the central office directly,
but the Lake and Porter Counties area will require a field office and
we therefore recommend that one be established. '
4- What long-range chanops in the internal oraamzaUnn
of the agency are required? " ' ~
The organization structure proposed for the short-range is a mixture of
both program and functional orientations. In the future, it may be
desirable to make further internal reorganizations, e.g., along the lines
of a more functionally-oriented organization. We cannot make specific
recommendations on this matter, however,ฆsince any further reorganization
will depend on unforeseeable future developments. Nevertheless, it is
important to point out some of the strengths and weaknesses of both the
program and functional orientations, since these arguments will be cen-
tral to any future study of this question.
The following are the primary advantages of a functional organization:
A functional organization will better promote a
coordinated environmental protection program.
Planning can be done on a comprehensive basis
to solve complex environmental problems, for ex-
ample, the inter-media problems that arise when the
effluent from stack scrubbing becomes a water
pollution problem and the disposal of sludge
becomes either an air pollution or a solid waste
disposal problem.
59
-------
As priorities shift among various media, a
functional organization can respond more quickly
since it is not tied organizationally to the
specific media.
If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency moves
toward a functional organization, a similar organi-
zation at the state level would promote easier
communication between federal and state environ-
mental protection efforts.
On the other hand, there are certain disadvantages to a functional
organization:
It will be very difficult to staff a functional organiza-
tion, since most environmental protection professionals
are trained in a specific medium; there are few environ-
mental "generalists" at this time.
The technological and economic differences between
various media and programs,mean that sane program
specialists are likely to remain in the future.
A functional organization will require more substan-
tial organizational changes for an organization which
has traditionally organized by program.
In favor of the program, or media, approach to the organization of
Indiana's environmental protection program, the following advantages can
be cited:
Much of the technical education for environmental
protection personnel is still program oriented.
Even if the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency moves toward a functional organization,
most of the federal environmental protection
legislation is still oriented toward specific
media.
The disadvantages of a program organization involve the difficulty in
achieving the advantages of the functional organization. Specifically,
it may inhibit the development of comprehensive and coordinated
environmental protection programs; it may inhibit the ability of control
programs to solve complex inter-media problems; and it may limit the
flexibility of the organization's response to shifting priorities among
different programs.
60
-------
CHAPTER 5.0
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
In Chapters 3 and 4, recommendations were made to enable the State of
Indiana to better meet its environmental protection objectives. These
recommendations involved organizational and staffing changes and
were to be implemented in two phases. The recommendations are summarized
below:
Short-range Recommendations:
1. Increase manpower levels to those indicated in Chapter 3.
2. Change the title of the Assistant Commissioner for
Environmental Health to Assistant Commissioner for
Environmental Protection , with responsibilities only
for environmental protection programs. This means that
the Bureau of Food and Drugs and the radiological
health and industrial hygiene functions of the Bureau
of Engineering must be located elsewhere in the Board
of Health.
3. Reorganize the Board of Health's environmental pro-
tection program to include three Bureaus for
Water Pollution Control and Water Supply, Air Pollution
Control, and Sanitary Engineering and an Office of Spe-
cial Services to perform certain specified staff functions.
Long-range Recommendations:
1. Create a separate environmental protection agency,
outside the Board of Health.
2. Introduce legislation to provide the Environmental
Management Board with its own staff and budget, and
to transfer the present powers and duties of the
SPCB and the APCB to that Board.
3. Establish a field office in northwest Indiana, and
consider the establishment of other field offices
if the need is identified and if they can be monitored
and supervised adequately.
4. Consider further reorganization, as operational and
legal requirements change.
The recommendations proposed for the short-range should be implemented in
1973 in order for the State of Indiana to meet its objectives
in the area of environmental protection.
61
-------
5.1
Implementation of Short-range Recommendations
5.1.1 Increase in Manpower Levels
The increase in manpower from the present level of about 93 to a pro-
jected level of 289 will require careful planning. Approximately one-
quarter of the increase in manpower will be for the newly organized
Office of Special Services and many of the personnel in this office
are new types of employees for the Board of Health i.e., planners,
economists, lawyers, and manpower specialists. It is our recommenda-
tion that a Special Committee on Manpower Staffing be organized to
conduct the hiring process. This Committee should include among its
members the Director of the Board of Health's Office of Personnel and
Training; the Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Protection; and
the Chiefs of the Bureaus of Water Supply and Water Pollution Control,
Air Pollution Control, and Sanitary Engineering. In addition, we recommen
that the Director of the proposed Office of Special Services be added
to the staff immediately and that he be initially assigned as Secretary
to the Special Committee.
Some of the issues which should be considered by this Special Committee
are the following:
The existing pay scales and career opportunities within
the Board of Health are insufficient to attract staff
to meet its manpower needs. There should be changes
in pay scales, job qualifications, structure for career ad-
vancement, and the like. The Board of Health's Office of
Personnel and Training can assist in the development of reco:
mendations to be presented to the state's Personnel Division
Of particular concern are middle management positions.
At present, the Bureau of Engineering is deficient
in managerial personnel. Tripling the size of the
organization is going to require an increase in
managerial and supervisory personnel. One of the
obstacles preventing the Board from attracting
managerial personnel at the present time is that
salaries available for any position below the Assistant
Commissioner are relatively low. The Board has made
proposals to rectify this situation, and they should be
adopted if the Board is to be able to solve this
problem of middle management personnel.
Hiring of new personnel should be an orderly process
so as to permit sufficient orientation and training
of new personnel. Such orientation is absent in
the existing organization, but this deficiency should
be rectified during the short-range implementation.
62
-------
Whatever the decisions made by the Special Committee on these issues, it
is essential that the Committee establish a firm timetable for staffing
up to the recommended levels as soon as funds are available for these
positions.
Another planning task which must be performed in order to effectively
absorb these increases in personnel is that there must be adequate
provision for overhead and support services for these new employees.
The proposed Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Protection should
delegate to the Director of the Office of Special Services the task
of appointing some member of that Office as special officer for
liaison with the Assistant Commissioner for Administration, In
cooperation with the Assistant Commissioner for Administration,
recommendations should be made to the Commissioner regarding provision
of these overhead services.
5.1.2 Organization of the Program Bureaus
The organization of the new Program Bureaus involve three types of organi-
zational changes.
First, most Divisions and Sections in the existing Bureau of Engineering
will be elevated to Bureau and Division status, respectively. This should
not be a difficult change to implement because, until manpower and space
requirements dictate, most of the new units will occupy the same physical
location as they did before elevation, and they also will remain unchanged
in terms of unit working relationships. The only exceptions to this are
the Special Projects Section which currently is part of the Division of
Water Pollution Control. After reorganization, the functions of this
Section will be transferred to the Office of Special Services. The other
exception is the Water Supply Section which currently is part of the
Division of Sanitary Engineering. In the proposed organization, this
Section will be moved to the new Bureau of Water Pollution Control and
Water Supply and elevated to Division status. This will require no im-
portant changes in functions, however, and should pose no special logistics
problems.
Second, the Water and Sewage Division of the Bureau of Laboratories will
be shifted from that Bureau into the proposed Bureau of Water Pollution
Control and Water Supply and renamed Division of Laboratories. This change
need not involve any physical relocation or change in functions; it con-
sists simply in a change in lines of authority. Our recommendation is that
the Director of this Division should report to the Director of the proposed
Bureau of Water Pollution Control and Water Supply rather than the Director
of the Bureau of Laboratories.
63
-------
Third, we are proposing two new organizational units in the Program
Bureaus, i.e., units which have no counterpart in the existing organiza-
tional structure. These are: the proposed Solid Waste Management Section
in the proposed Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, and the proposed Local
Assistance Division in the proposed Bureau of Air Pollution Control. Since
these are new organizational units, their development will require addi-
tional work in implementation: the Directors of these new Divisions should
be appointed; these Directors should define the missions and functions of
their unitK for approval by their respective Bureau Directors and the
Assistant Commissioner; they should work closely with the Special Committee
on Manpower Staffing to staff up to full Division strength.
S.1.3. Creation of the Office of Special Services
The creation of a new staff office, reporting directly to the Assistant
Commissioner for Environmental Protection, will permit many activities
which are now neglected or are being performed in an inadequate fashion
to be properly organized and staffed.
Since this office is entirely new to the environmental protection programs
in Indiana, its development should proceed in the following way;
1. The Director of the Office should be appointed first.
2. He should be given the responsibility of evaluating
the missions and functions proposed in this report
and developing detailed plans for the operations of
the Office. These plans should be evaluated by the
Assistant Commissioner.
3. The Director should then work with the Special Committee
on Manpower Staffing to assure that the needed personnel
sure obtained.
5.1.4 Development of Operating Procedures
While the organization of the new Bureaus is not substantially different
from their present organization, the increase in their size will require
significant changes in operating procedures. New management controls
will have to be developed and implemented at the Assistant Commissioner,
Bureau Director, and Division Director level, to ensure that the increased
staff can be supervised adequately and so that its work can be planned
properly.
Moreover, the new office of Special Services may face special communications
problems. It will have great need for the information and data generated
by the Bureaus. Because this Office is a new organizational unit, however,
procedures must be established to ensure such a result. Therefore, we urge
that the new Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Protection, the
Director of the Office of Special Services, and the new Bureau Directors
give high priority to the immediate development of the required operating
and supervisory procedures.
5.2 implementation of Long-Range Recommendations
Three of our long-range recommendations are such that they could be
implemented without extensive further study or analysis. These are:
64
-------
the creation of a separate agency for environmental protection; the trans-
fer of the powers and duties of the APCB and SPCB to the EMB and the
establishment of an EMB budget separate from that of the Board of Health;
and the establishment of a regional field office in northwest Indiana.
These long-range recommendations could (theoretically) be implemented
in the near future. They do not require further study, and they do
not depend necessarily upon the successful performance of some short-
range recommendations. On the other hand, there are several reasons
for postponing the implementation of long-range recommendations until
those from the short-range have been successfully accomplished.
Some of these reasons are:
Implementation of the short-range recommendations
is essential to meet the agency's most pressing
and immediate needs. Implementation of long-range
recommendations at the same time might detract
from the effort required to perform those short-range
tasks effectively.
Implementation of the short-range recommendations will
facilitate implementation, at a later date, of the
long-range recommendations.
As an example of the first reason, consider the problems involved in
establishing a regional field office in northwest Indiana. The
problems inherent in monitoring and supervising a distant field office
are substantial. To attempt to do this before implementation of the
short-range recommendations might exacerbate the management problems
involved in the rapid expansion of environmental protection programs.
This second reason is particularly appropriate for smother of the long-
range recommendations: creation of a separate state agency for
environmental protection. For example, when the environmental pro-
tection functions have been reorganized within the Board of Health along
the lines recommended in our short-range recommendations, these functions
will be consolidated into one organizational unit under the direction
of a single Assistant Commissioner. Such a unit could then be more
easily transferred out of the Board of Health and made into a separate
agency.
With regard to the creation of a single Environmental Management Board
with broadened powers, implementation would involve legislative changes
which would:
fc5
-------
Abolish the Stream Pollution Control Board and
Air Pollution Control Board
Transfer to the EMB all powers and duties
vested in the old SPCB and APCB
Permit the EMB to purchase staff, supplies and
services separate from Board of Health appropri-
ations
This means that all powers, duties and functions of the SPCB and APCB,
as well as all records, assets, supporting staff, personnel, and
unexpended balances and appropriations pertaining to the SPCB and APCB
would be transferred to the EMB. The EMB would not create its own
organization "from scratcW. To the contrary, it would build around
a nucleus consisting of staff currently employed by the State Board
of Health, and rights of transfer would be preserved for all SBH
employees who currently perform activities relating to environmental
protection.
At the same time that legislation is being prepared to create a single
Environmental Management Board, we recommend that consideration be
given to implementing the recommendations resulting from our analysis
of the adequacy of Indiana's legislative authority in the area of
environmental protection. These recommendations, found in summary form
at the end of Appendix C, are important tools which are necessary if
the new EMB is to be effective in accomplishing its missions.
Finally, there are some long-range recommendations which require
further study and information before they can be made in detail. These
include the question of establishing complete regional field office
structure (in addition to the office proposed for northwest Indiana)
and the question of additional changes in the internal organization
of environmental protection programs. We have recommended that these
issues be considered by the new Governor, the new Commissioner of
Health, and the new Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Protection.
Prior to such consideration, it would be inappropriate to attempt to
discuss their implementation, except to suggest that a committee should
be appointed by the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner to study
the important issues involved and to make recommendations on the timing
of pending and potential changes. Such a committee might be similar
in composition to the Steering Committee of this study. It should also
include the Bureau Directors and Office Director of the new environmental
protection organization. This committee should be required to report
back with recommendations to the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner
by November 1, 1973.
66
-------
APPENDIX A
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
67
-------
Table A-l
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Administration
Employee Title
Manpower Need
Assistant Commissioner
1.00
Administrative Assistant
1.00
Bureau Directors:
Water Pollution Control and Water Supply
1.00
Air Pollution Control
1.00
Engineering
1.00
Dffice Director:
Special Services
1.00
Professional 6.00
Clerical 5.on
Total
11.00
69
-------
Table A-2
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Water Pollution Control: Surveys
Activity
Output Unit
Number
96
Frequency/
Annum
Hours per
Unit
Manpower 1
Need
Stream Monitoring
Sample Collected
26
1.93*
2.68
Care of one Robot
Monitor
11
1
100**
0.61
Water Quality Surveys
24-Hour Survey
96
1
109.5
5.84
Other Surveys***
170
1
36.0
3.40 '
Fish Kills & Pollution
Accidents Investi-
gation
Investigation
80
1
48.0
2.13
Public Information
1.30
Special Reports
0.40
Administration
Administrative per
Employee
16
0.2 MY
3.20
Professional 19.56
Clerical 4.33
Total 23j89
* EPA Region V recommends that the hours per unit be increased from 1.93 to 2.88
** The hours per unit for robot monitor care represents a significant increase
over current hours per unit for this activity. Such an increase is required
for output of adequate quality. EDP Region V recommends that the hours per
unit be increased even moreto 327.
*** These include biological, limnological, grab, and treatment plant efficiency
surveys. The hours per unit also includes pre-surveys and planning.
70
-------
Table A-3
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Water Pollution Control: Sewage
Activity
Output Unit
Number
Frequency/
Annum
Hours per
Unit
Manpower
Meed
Review Flans
Review Treatment
Plan
Review Sewer Plan
130
195
1
1
18.0
8.0
2.16
Construction Grants
Review Application &
Process
Pre-application Con-
ference
146
146
1
1
23.67
4.0
1.92
0.32
Inspections:
Routine
Construction
Inspection
Inspection
302
55
4
4
5.4
5.4
3.62
0.66
Operating Permits
Review and Process
302
1
8.0
1.36*
Technical Information
0.93
Administration
Per Employee
11
0.2 MY
2.20
Professional 13.17
Clerical 2.92
Total
*EPA Region V officials suggest that a permit program meeting federal guidelines
to be provided pursuant to ^402 of the Federal Water Quality Act Amendments of
1972 may require more personnel.
Note:
It is recognized that there are approximately 3,100 semi-private sewage treatment
or disposal facilities located throughout the State which require technical review
and control. This work is presently performed in the General Sanitation Section
of the Division of Sanitary Engineering which was excluded from this study- Thus,
no manpower estimates are presented for programs relating to these facilities.
71
-------
Table A-4
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Water Pollution Control: Industrial Waste
Activity
Output Unit
I
Number
'requency/
Annum
Hours per
4.1*
6.0*
4.1
4.1
Manpower
^Hee^
2.28
2.00
2.28
1.10
Scheduled Inspections:
Industries
e Regular
e Problems
Confined Feed
Lots
Cyanide Isolation
Inspection
follow-up
Inspection
Inspection
1000
200
1000
240
1
3
1
2
Tax Exemption Review
Review
105
1
1.0
0.06
Operating Permits
Review & Process
2240
1
4.0
j.tfV
Review of Construction
Plans:
Industry
Confined Feed
Lot
Review Plan
Review Plan
65
400
1
1
5.0
3.0
0.18
0.67
Review of Monthly
Reports
Industry
Confined
Lot
Review & Follow-up
Review & Follow-up
1000
500
12
12
0.8
0.5
5.33
1.67
Investige Coal Mine
Drainage 6 Oil
Pollution
New Program
1.00
Technical Information
1.84
Administration
Per Employee
23
0.2 MY
4.60
Professional 27.99
Clerical 6.21
Total 34.20
* EPA recoomends an increase of hours per unit from 6.0 to 8.0 for follow-up.
** EPA Region V officials suggest that a permit program meeting federal guidelines
(to be provided pursuant to $402 of the Federal Water Quality Act Amendments
of 1972) may require more personnel.
72
-------
Table A-5
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Hater Supply
Activity
Output Unit
Number
Frequency/
Annum
Hours per
Unit
Manpower
Need
Review Construction
Plans t
Pools
PWS
Review Plan
130
90
1
1
8.0*
8.0*
0.97
Routine Inspection oft
PWS
Semi-Public W.S.
Visit
Visit
435
1000
2
2
4.0*
4.0
1.93
4.44
Review of Reports fi
Samples:
PWS
Semi-Public H.S.
Review Report
Review Report
435
1000
12
12
0.72
0.72
2.08
4.80
Technical Information
6 Trouble Shooting
2.55
Administration
Per Bnployee
17
0.2 MY
3.40
Professional 20.17
Clerical 4.48
Total 24.65
* The hours per unit indicated represent an increase in the time presently spent on
these items to achieve a qualitative increase in the work performed. EPA
recommends that the 4 hours per unit for a PWS visit be increased to 8.
Note:
The anticipated adoption of new drinking water standards will have an effect on
the work load of this section (specifically in the review of water supply reports
and technical assistance areas). This impact should be more fully investigated
once the new standards are in effect.
73
-------
Table A-6
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Laboratories: Water Pollution Control and Water Supply
Activity
Output Unit
Number
Frequency/
Annum
Hours per
Unit
Manpower
Need
25.00
Lab Analysis & Equip-
ment Maintenance
Quality Control &
Special Studies
2.50
Local & Private Lab
Certification and
Training
0.50
Administration
Per Employee
28
0.1 MY
2.80
Professional 30.80
Clerical 6.00
Total 36.80
74
-------
Table A-7
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Air Pollution: Surveillance
Activity
Output Unit
Number
Frequency/
Annum
Hours per
Unit
Manpower
Need
Inspections (Scheduled)
25 Ton Point Sources
Operating Permits
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
500
400
100
2347
1
2
4
1
3.0
8.0
12.0
3.0
0.83
3.54
2.67
3.91
Complaints & Field
Patrol
Investigation
360
1
10.4
2.08
Special Surveys (for
enforcement)
Survey
1 .45
Stack Tests (in coope-
ration lab personnel)
lest
192
1
56.25
6.00
Technical Information
0.49
Administration
Per Employee
21
0.2 MY
4.20
Professional 25.17
Clerical 5.59
Total 30.76
Note:
At the present time, the State of Indiana performs field patrol in this area as
a follow-up to complaints. If in the future a regular program of routine field
investigation is adopted as is strongly recommended by EPA, it is estimated that
an additional 7 man-years of effort will be required. This dependSf however,
on the extent of field patrol provided by local agencies.
75
-------
Table A-8
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Air Pollution: Technical/Permits
Activity
Output Unit
Number
Frequency/
Annum
Hours per
Unit
Manpower
Need
Plan & Special Review
Review
390
1
7.4
1.60
Emergency Episode Plan
Review
Plan Development &
Operations
250
1
*
1.1
0.12
0.50
Technical Information
Continuous
0.47
Operating Permits
Review & Process
2347**
1
4.0
5.21
^dministration
Per Employee
8
0.2 MY
1.60
Professional 9.56
Clerical 2.11
Total 11.61
* EPA recommends that the hours per unit be increased from 1.1 to 3.
**
Assumes that local agencies will operate permit programs in same
jurisdiction.
76
-------
Table A-9
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Air Pollution: Laboratory
Activity
Output Unit
Number
Frequency/
Annum
Hours per
Unit
Manpower
Need
Monitoring Analysis
and Calibration
Sample
20
60
7.5
5.00
Special Lab Analysis
Sample
20
60
4.0
2.67
CAMP Stations
Maintenance per Site
2
0.31 MY
0.62
Special Surveys
0.56
Stack Testing (in
cooperation with
surveillance
personnel)
Test and Analysis
192
1
28.12
3.0
Administration
Per Employee
12
0.2 MY
2.40
Professional 14.25
Clerical 3.17
Total 17.42
*EPA recommends increase in time per unit from 0.31 to 0.50 man-year per site.
77
-------
Table A-10
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Air Pollution: Local Assistance
Activity
Output Unit
Number
Frequency/
Annum
Hours per
Unit
24.0
Manpower
Need
1.60
Visits to Locals
Visit
10
12
Review of Local
Reports
Review Reports
10
12
4.0
0.26
Review of Local
Plan Review,
Permit Programs,
Review
Continuous
2.00
Technical Assistance*
2.00
Administration
Per Employee
6
0.2 MY
1.20
Professional
Clerical
Total
* Includes instrument calibration, special projects, etc.
7.06
1.57
8.63
78
-------
Table A-ll
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Solid Waste Management
Activity
Output Unit
Number
Frequency/
Annum
Hours per
Unit
Manpower
Need
Landfill Inspections
Visit
180
12
2.85
3.43
Inspection of
Miscellaneous Solid
Waste Sites
Visit and Enforce-
ment
360
12
2.00
4.80
Review Construction
Plans
Review Plan
*
50
1
8.62
0.23
operating Permits
Permit
180
4.00
0.40
Public Education
Course
30
1
28.00
0.46
Technical & Planning
Assistance
Continuous
2.00
Complaints
0.20
Administration
Per Employee
11
0.2 MY
2.20
* This number is expected to decrease in the future
when most open dumps have been converted to land Professional 13-72
fills- Clerical
Total
79
-------
Table A-12
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Standards Development and Technical Information Systems
Professional 16.80
Clerical 3.73
Total 20.53
80
-------
Table A-13
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Legal Services
Activity
Manpower Need
Review Data
2.00
Prepare for Hearings
Attend Hearings
Write Results & Prepare Orders for Boards
Provide Assistance to Program Bureaus
6.00
Follow-up with Attorney General
O
o
rH
Administration
1.80
Professional 10.80*
Clerical 2.40
Total 13.20
* EPA Region V recommends that the professional staff for
legal services be increased to 16.
81
-------
Table A-14
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Planning and Evaluation
Activity
Manpower Need
Basin Plans and Metropolitan/Regional Plans
6.00
Program Plans and Grant Applications
EPA Liaison
1.50
Program Monitoring and Evaluation
2.50
Land-Use Plans
1.00
Environmental Impact Assessments
2.00
Administration
2.60
Professional 15.60
Clerical 3.47
Total 19.07
82
-------
Table A-15
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Public Affairs
Activity
Manpower Need
Public Outreach
Speeches
Media for Schools
Press Releases
Central Complaint & Information Office
o
o
CM
Professional 2.00
Clerical 0.40
Total 2.40
83
-------
Table A-16
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Manpower Planning and Development
Activity
Manpower Need
In-House Training
Manpower Planning
1.50
State
Local
Operator Certification for Sewage Industrial Waste
0.50
Professional 2.00
Clerical 0.40
Total 2.40
84
-------
APPENDIX B
COSTS OF MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
85
-------
Table B-l
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Administration
Employee Title
Number
Salary
Total
Assistant Commissioner
1.0
$33,618
$ 33,618
Administrative Assistant
1.0
9,867
9,867
Bureau Directors:
Water Pollution Control & Water Supply
Air Pollution Control
Engineering
1.0
1.0
1.0
26,884
26,884
26,884
26,884
26,884
26,884
3ffice Director:
Special services
1.0
26,884
26,884
Secretary
5.0
7 ,449
37,245
Total
11.0
$188,266
87
-------
Table B-2
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Water Pollution Control: Surveys
oo
03
Revenue
Source
Activity
Manpower
Needs
Employee Title
Number
Level
Salary
Total
Permit
Proqram
None Apply
General
Revenue
Stream Monitoring
3.29
Stream Biologist
General Student Assistant
2.0
1.5
II
$12,103
5,473
Water Quality Surveys
9.24
Stream Biologist
Sanitary Engineer
Public Health Sanitarian
Public Health Sanitarian
General Student Assistant
2.0
1.0
2.5
3.25
"0.5
II
III
I
II
12,103
16,159
10,153
11.5B3
5,473
Fish Kills and Investigation of
Pollution Incidents
2.13
Public Health Sanitarian
Public Health Sanitarian
1.75
0.5
II
I
11,583
10,153
Special Reports
0.40
Public Health Sanitarian
0.5
III
Technical Information
1.30
Strear. Biologist
Public Health Sanitarian
1.0
0.5
II
in
12,103
12,610
Administration
3.20
Division Director
Stream Bioloqist
1.0
2.0
in
19,994
13,728
Clerica]
4.33
Cleric -Stenn
Clerk-Steno
1.0
3.n
ii
1
6,736
Total
23.89
24.0
$261,009
-------
Table B-3
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Hater Pollution Control: Sewage
!
Revenue
"ource
Activity
Manpower
tieeds
Employee Title
Nvanber
Level
Salary
Total
Permit
Issue Permits
1.36
Sanitary Engineer
1.5
II
$13,156
Program
Scheduled Inspections of
Operations
3.62
Public Health Sanitarian
Sewage Works Supervisor
1.0
3.0
III
12,610
9,737
Review plans
2.16
Sanitary Engineer
Sanitary Engineer
1.0
1.0
III
I
16,159
12,857
Administration
1,00
Sanitary Engineer
Division Director
0.5
0.5
III
16,159
19,994
$118,827
Clerical
1.30
Clerk-Stono
1.5
II
6,786
Lier.cral
Revenue
Construction Grants
2.24
Sanitary Engineer
Public Health Sanitarian
1.0
1.0
III
I
16,159
10,153
Inspection of Construction
0.66
Sanitary Engineer
0.5
II
13,156
Technical Information
0.93
Sanitary Engineer
1.0
I
12,857
$ 74,002
Administration
1.20
Sanitary Engineer
Division Director
0.5
0.5
III
16,159
19,394
Clerk
1.62
Clerk-Steno
1.5
II
6,786
Total
16.09
16.00
$192,829
-------
Table F-4
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Water Pollution Control: Industrial Waste
jp.evenue
Source
Activity
Manpower
Needs
Employee Title
Number
Level
Salary
Total
?emit
Program
Operating Permits
4.98
Sanitary Engineer
Public Health Sanitarian
Public Health Sanitarian
2.0
2.0
1.0
II
II
I
$13,156
11,583
10,153
Review of Construction Plans
0.85
Sanitary Engineer
1.0
III
16,159
Scheduled Inspections
7.66
Banitazy Engineer
Sanitary Engineer
1.5
1.5
III
II
16,159
13,156
Public Health Sanitarian
Public Health Sanitarian
Public Health Sanitarian
Public Health Sanitarian
.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
IV
III
II
I
13,156
12,610
11,593
10,153
$345,878
Review of Reports
7.00
Sanitary Engineer
Public I'ealth Sanitarian
3.5
3.5
II
II
13,156
11,583
Administration
4.00
Division Director
Sanitary Engineer
Public Health Sanitarian
0.5
0.5
2 -5
III
IV
19.994
16,159
13,156
Clerical
5.06
Clerk-Steno
Clerk-^teno
1.0
4.0
II
I
6, 786
6,227
General
Revenue
Tax Exemption Inspections
0.06
Sanitary Engineer
0.1
II
11,583
Coal Mine Drainage ฃ Oil
Pollution
1.00
Sanitary Engineer
1.0
16,159
Technical Information
1.84
Sanitai-y Engineer
1.9
II
13,156
68,962
Administration
.60
Divis;ion Director
0.5
-
19,994
Clerical
1.15
Clerk-:;teno
1.0
6,227
Total
34.20
34.00
$414,840
-------
Table B-5
State of Indiana Mcin;xjwer Requirements
Water Pollution Cotifrol: Hater Supply
Revenue
Activity
Manpower
Heeds
Employee Title
Number
Level 1
t
Salary
Total
ฆ
itVrr-it
r rotjrar.
icw of PWS Reports and
Sxnples
6.88
Public Health Sanitarian
7.0
1
I 1
1
10,153
.\lr.i r.istration
1,70
Division Director
Sanitary Engineer
0.5
0.5
III
19,994
10,159
$14,491
Clerical
2.24
Clerk-.' tenc
Clcrk-i teno
0.5
1.5
II
I
6,736
6,227
5127,101
Review Construction Plana
0.97
Sanitary Engineer
1.0
III
>12,610
Jor.cral
"rvor.'io
routine Inspection of Public
Wj tor r'ui ply
6.37
Sanit-'-y Engineer
Public Health Sanitarian
2.5
4.0
I
II
12 ,857
11,583
Technical Information and
Trouble Shooting
2.55
Sanitary Engineer
2.5
II
13,156
5129,565
Adninistration
1.70
Division Director
Sanitary Engineer
0.5
0.5
III
19,994
16,159
Clerical
2.24
Clerk-iteno
Clerk-oteno
0.5
1.5
II
I
6,786
6,227
T"al
i
i
24.65
24.00
$256,666
-------
Table b-6
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Laboratories: Water Pollution Control and Water Supply
Revenue
Manpower
Source
Activity
Keeds
Employee Title
Number
Level
Salary
Total
Pernit
Laboratory Analysis
14.80
Chemist
2.0
IV
513,726
Program
Chemist
6.0
III
12,610
Chemist
4.0
II
12,129
Bacteriologist
3.0
II
11,08?
Administration
1.80
Chemist
0.5
IV
13,728
>233 ,643
Chemist
0.8
III
12,610
Division Director
0.5
-
19,994
Clerical
3.50
Clerk-Sieno
3.5
I
6,227
General
Laboratory Analysis
13.20
Chemist
1.2
III
12,610
Revenue
Quality Control fi Special
Chemist
4.0
I
10,608
Studies
Bacteriologist
4.0
II
11,089
Lab. Certifications
Laboratory Technician (Summer)
4.0
II
6,487
>160,296
Administration
1.00
Chemist
0.5
IV
13,728
Division Director
0.5
-
19,994
Clerical
2.50
Clerk-Steno
2.5
I
6,227
Total
36.80
37.00
5393,939
-------
Table B-7
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Air Pollution: Surveillance
Revenue
Source
Activity
Manpower
Needs
Bnployee Title
Number
Level
I
Salary
Total
Permit
Inspection for Permits
3.91
Sanitary Engineer
4.0
11 1
$13,156
1
Program
Stack. Tests
2.00
Sanitary Engineer
Public Health Sanitarian
1.0
1.0
J 1
12,857
11.5G3
Scheduled Inspections
7.04
Sanitai-y Engineer
Sanitary Engineer
1.0
1.0
III
II
16,159
13,156
i
Sanitary Engineer
Public Health Sanitarian
Public Health Sanitarian
1.0
2.0
2.0
I
III
I
12 ,ฃ57
12,610
10,153
S232,368
Administration
2.SO
Sanitary Engineer
Division Director
1.9
0.6
III
16,159
19,994
Clerical
3.59
Clerk-steno
4.0
I
6,227
General
Complaints and Field Patrol
2.08
Public Health Sanitarian
2.0
II
11,583
Revenue
Air Quality Surveys
1.45
Sanitary Engineer
1.5
I
12,857
Stack Tests
4.00 .
Public Health Sanitarian
Public Health Sanitarian
Sanitary Engineer
1.0
1.0
2.0
III
II
II
12,610
11,583
13,756
Technical Information
0.49
Sanitary Engineer
0.5
I
12,857
5132,993
Administration
1.50
Sanitary Engineer
Public Health Sanitarian
Division Director
0.1
l.o
0.4
III
IV
16,159
13,156
19,994
Clerical
2.00
Clerk-steno
2.0
r
6,227
Total
30.76
31.00
$365,361
-------
Table B-8
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Air Pollution: Technical Permits
Revenue
Source
Activity
Manpower
Needs
Employee Title
Number
Level
Salary
Total
Permit
Program
Operating Permits
Plan and Specification Review
5.21
1.60
Sanitary Engineer
Sanitary Engineer
Sanitary Engineer
Sanitary Engineer
1.3
4.25
0.3
1.25
III
II
III
II
$16,159
13,156
16,159
13,156
Clerical
1.61
Clerk-Steno
1.5
I
6,227
$126,013
Administration
1.00
Sanitary Engineer
Division Director
0.4
0.6
III
16,159
19,994
General
Revenue
Emergency Episode Plan
Technical Information
0.62
0.47
Sanitary Engineer
Sanitary Engineer
0.5
0.5
III
11
16,159
13,156
Administration
0.60
Division Director
Sanitary Engineer
0.4
0.5
III
19,994
16,159
$ 33,848
Clerical
0.50
Clerk-Steno
0.5
I
6,227
Total
11.61
12.00
$159,861
-------
Table B-9
State of Indiana. Manpower Requirements
Air Pollution: Laboratories
Revenue
Source
Activity
Manpower
Meeds
Employee Title
Number
Level
Salary
Total
Pomit
Program
Secondary Konitoring: Collec-
3.16
Public Health Sanitarian
Chemist
1.2
1.0
II
I
511,583
:f .rri
Lab Technician
Electronics Technician
0 .8
1.2
III
I
9,308
9,308
CAMP Stations
0.39
Public Health Sanitarian
.4
I
10,153
hl-ccial Surveys
0.35
Public Health Sanitarian
.35
II
11,553
"l-c-cial Lab Analyses
1.70
Lab Toc.inician
0..7
III
9
Stack Testing
2.00
Chemist
Public Health Sanitarian
Public Health Santarian
1.0
.7
1.3
rv
ii
1
13,72ซ
11 ,583 I
10,153
-137,936
.\d.-inistration
1.40
Sanitary Engineer
Cheniปt
Division Director
0 -2
1.0
0.6
III
IV
ฆ
16,159 |
13,728
19,904
Clerical
2.17
Clerk-Steno
2.6
i
6,227
General
Revenue
Secondary Konitorii. . Collec-
tion, Analysis & Calibration
1.84
Public Health Sanitarian
Lab Technician
Electronics Technician
0.6
1.5
0.8
I
hi
i
10,153
9,308
9,308
CrJ'S Stations
0.23
Public Health Sanitarian
0.25
ii
11,583
Special Surveys
0.21
Public Health Sanitarian
0.2
ii
11,583
$ 86,665
Special Lab Analyses
0.97
Chemist
1.0
I IV
13,728
Stack Testing
1.00
Public Health Sanitarian
Public Health Sanitarian
.3
.7
II
I
11,583
10,153
Administration
1.00
Sanitary Engineer
Division Director
.8
0.4
III
16,159
19,994
J
Clerical
1.00
Clerk-Steno
1.4
I
6,227
1
Total
17.42
21.00
1
jS224,601
L ... _ .
-------
Table B-10
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Air Pollution: Local Assistance
10
o>
Revenue
Source
Activity
Manpower
Needs
Employee Title
Number
Level
Salary
Total
Permit
Program
None applies
General
Bevenoes
Visits to Locals
1.60
Sanitary Engineer
ChemisL
0.6
1.0
III
III
$16,159
12,610
Review of Local
Plan Review,
Permit Peogrws
2.00
Sanitary Engineer
2.0
II
13,156
Review of local Reports
0.26
Sanita?-y Engineer
0.2
III
16,159
5170,999
Technical Assistance
2.00
Sanitary Engineer
Public Health Sanitarian
o o
H H
II
II
13.1S6
11,583
Administration
1.20
Sanitary Engineer
Division Director
0.2
1.0
III
16,159
19,994
Clerical
1.57
Clerk-ฃ;teno
Clerk-Steno
o o
I
II
6,227
6,786
Total
8.63
9.0
$170,999
-------
Table B-ll
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Solid Waste Management
Revenue
Source
Activity
-------
Table B-12
State of Indiana Manpower Requirements
Special Services
Revenue
Source
Function
Manpower
Needs
Employee Title
I
Number |
i
Level j
Salary
I
Total
Permit
Program
1
None applies
1
i
|
I
i !
Goneral j
Revenue
Standards Development
and Technical Information
Systems
16.80
S.initary Engineer
Sanitary Engineer
Systems Analyst
Programmer
i
6.0
6.0
3.0
2.0
Ill
II
II
I
516,159
13.156
16,159
10,608
1
Legal Services
8.40
Lawyer
Lawyer
Sanitary Engineer
1.0
5.0
2.5
II
I
III
19,000
15,132
16,159
Planning and Evaluation
15.60
Planner
Economist
Sanitary Engineer
Systems Analyst
5.0
3.0
5.5
2.0
III
I
13,156
15,132
16,159
13,156
t
I
Public Affairs
2.00
Public Information
Specialist
2.0
-
14,000
1
Manpower Planning and
Development
2.00
Manpower Specialist
2.0
-
14,000
1
I
Clerical
10.40
Clerk-Steno
Clerk-Steno
6.0
s.o
II
I
6,786
6,227
1
i
Total
55.20
56.0
$734,854
-------
APPENDIX C
REVIEW OF ADEQUACY OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
99
-------
ADEQUACY OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
In recent years, efforts to protect Indiana's environment have been based
largely on statutes that deal separately with water , air , and solid
wastes , and that grant assorted regulatory powers to three state agencies,
the Stream Pollution Control Board (SPCB), the Air Pollution Control Board
(APCB) and the State Board of Health (SBH). Passage of the Indiana En-
vironmental Management Act (EMA)4 in 1972 corrected deficiencies in the
older statutory authorities and revealed, for the first time, a comprehen-
sive perspective on the state's entire environmental protection effort.
This Act ostensibly confers upon a new Environmental Management Board (EMB)
sweeping regulatory powers with respect to air, water and solid wastes.
At the same time, it preserves many pre-existing functions of the three
older Boards and permits transfers of functions to and from the EMB.
Setting aside for the moment problems of organization and allocation of
powers among the four Boards, it will be useful to consider first the ade-
quacy of the entire current array of powers at the State level, as most
recently augmented by the EMA.
The Array of Powers
An adequate state program for environmental protection requires the exer-
cise of certain basic powers, either by the legislature directly or by
administrative agencies or local governments with the sanction of the
legislature. They may be identified as follows:
1. Power to establish standards of environmental
quality and to prohibit or restrict activities
that may violate those standards.
2. Power to prescribe and to regulate the use of
facilities for controlling or preventing
pollution.
3. Power to secure detailed and comprehensive in-
formation concerning possible sources and ef-
fects of pollution, through surveys, monitors,
inspections and reports.
4. Power to enforce statutes and regulations against
violators, through administrative orders and
judicial remedies.
In addition to the foregoing array of traditional regulatory powers,
there are three whose significance has only lately been emphasized:
5. Power to override failures or refusals of local
governments to exercise effective first-line
responsibilities for environmental quality control.
101
-------
6. Power to secure joint or regional arrangements
for the control of wastes from multiple points
of origin, in accordance with rational comprehen-
sive planning.
7. Power to coordinate or integrate strategies for
all media in a comprehensive program of environ-
mental protection.
Finally, and summarily, the growing involvement of the federal government
in this field should be reflected at the State level in
8. Power to meet requirements of, and to secure
benefits available under, federal law.
The statutes of Indiana exercise or delegate the first four of these
powers decisively enough to support an effective, comprehensive program
of environmental protection at the state level. The next three are not
as fully realized as they should be. The last one has probably been
exercised in sufficient degree for the present.
Standards and Prohibitions
The EMB is generally authorized to "evolve standards ... to preserve,
protect and enhance the quality of the environment", to adopt rules and
regulations "defining standard#, and to "[a]ct for the state in the
adoption of standards pursuant to any federal law regarding environmental
protection."5 More specifically, the Stream Pollution Control Board (SPCB)
may establish water quality criteria for use in identifying a "polluted
condition" that is detrimental to public health, to wildlife, or to any
lawful use of a waterway,ฎ and no person may dispose of any matter in a
way "that shall cause or contribute to a polluted condition of such waters
. . "J Similarly, the Air Pollution Control Board "shall create air qua-
lity basins . . . and promulgate standards for ambient air quality for
each basin",ฎ and no one may discharge contaminants into the outdoor at-
mosphere "so as to cause air pollution and create a public nuisance. . ,"9
It is prohibited to sell for public consumption any drinking water with
bacteriological or chemical contents "deleterious to public healthy.10
These prohibitions can perhaps be faulted for vagueness, but the defect
may be largely cured by a provision of the EMA which states that no person
shall
"[d]ischarge, emit, cause, allow or threaten to dis-
charge, emit, cause or allow any contaminant or
waste including any noxious odor, either alone or
in combination with contaminants from other sources,
into the environment in any form which causes or
would cause pollution which violates or would vio-
102
-------
late regulations, standards, or discharge and/or
emission requirements approved by the (Environmental
Management] board . .
Indiana law specifically restricts, or provides for specific restrictions,
on a variety of activities potentially injurious to the environment. With
respect to solid wastes, ambient standards cannot readily be defined, but
open dumping is prohibited!2 and all other methods of refuse disposal must
receive state approval prior to use.13 State laws also prohibit littering,
regulate the location and operation of junkyards, and hold owners of aban-
doned vehicles responsible for all public costs incidental to their dis-
posal. Recently enacted laws restrict the phosphate content of detergentsl5
and empower the SPCB to regulate construction and operation of confined
animal feedlots.16 Regulations of the SPCB further require users of cya-
nides to prevent their drainage to any sewer system or watercourse, and
owners of coal mines to minimize acid mine drainage.^ The appropriate
Board may prescribe standards for filling or sealing abandoned wells and
holes in order to protect ground water against contamination, and standards
and conditions for use of any fuel or vehicle constituting an air pollution
hazard.1ฎ Open burning of refuse is prohibited.^ The APCB may prescribe
controls of emissions from motor vehicles2^ (consistent with Federal law).
For the protection of water supplies, state law regulates construction of
dams and reservoirs, limits withdrawals from restricted water-use areas,
contemplates state acquisition of lands for water storage, prohibits con-
struction of projects likely to lower water levels, regulates surface
mining and prescribes reclamation practices.21
But no exhaustive enumeration of activities to be regulated is necessary
under Indiana law. For the Boards are generally empowered to prescribe
"[sjtandards or requirements for discharge or emission ... of various
contaminants of the air, water, or land" and to [s]pecify conditions under
which, or geographical areas in which, the discharge of certain types of
waste will not be permitted.22 These provisions supplement the SPCB's
power to restrict the polluting content of any wastes discharged to state
waters,23 which is backed by a prohibition against increasing the quantity
or strength of any discharge without prior Board approval,24 and the APCB's
general power to adopt regulations for abating air pollution, pursuant to
which it has prescribed emission standards and controls.25 Procedures
also are provided for ordering reduction or discontinuance of all discharges
in any area where a public health emergency may arise because of excessive
contamination of air, water or land, and the EMB may prescribe alert cri-
teria and abatement standards for emergency episodes.26 Thus, Indiana
law authorizes the regulation of all waste disposal practices in the state,
whatever the affected medium may be, and under all conditions.
Pollution Control Facilities
A key provision of the EMA prohibits all persons from constructing, in-
stalling, operating or modifying "any equipment or facility of any type
. . . which may be designed to prevent pollution", except upon prior approval
103
-------
of the appropriate Board.27 This unifies scattered provisions of law under
which plans and specifications for sewage treatment plants,28 emission
control facilities,^9 an(j refuse disposal30 must first be approved by
appropriate Boards. The EMA authorizes development of a comprehensive
permit system3"^ for construction and operation of all such facilities,
with expenses of administering the system, including issuance of permits
and surveillance of the activities they regulate, to be recovered by
charges assessed upon permitees.32 The appropriate Board must approve plans
and specifications before issuing construction permits, may condition the
grant of any such permit on conditions it deems necessary to accomplish
purposes of the Act, and may prescribe both operating and discharge stand-
ards. Permits may be issued for a maximum of four years and may be re-
voked or modified upon violation of permit terms, failure to disclose re-
levant facts in applying for a permit, "changes in conditions that require
. . reduction in the discharge of contaminants", or any other good cause.
These provisions furnish powerful tools for regulating, on a continual basis,
all waste disposal facilities and practices throughout the state.
A permit must also be obtained for construction or installation of facili-
ties for providing, treating, disinfecting, storing or distributing any
public water supply.33 The applicant must submit any data deemed material
by the issuing Board for review of proposed plans and specifications. These
must be found satisfactory with respect to sanitary and mineral quality,
adequacy of supply, location, design, construction, operation and mainten-
ance, before a permit will be issued. All public water supplies must be
continuously operated and maintained so as to preserve their safety and
quality.
Indiana law further provides that all sewage treatment and water distribu-
tion plants, whether publicly or privately owned, must be under the super-
vision of a certified operator.3^ The EMB35 has the tasks of classifying
all plants according to the skills required to run them, of examining can-
didates, and of certifying the qualifications of individuals for operating
positions. Certifications may be revoked for deceptive practices or incom-
petent performance. Thus Indiana has recognized the importance of entrusting
the supervision of complex waste-water treatment and water purification works
to operators of proven integrity and skill.
Data-Gathering
Programs for environmental protection cannot operate efficiently without
a continuous supply of Reliable intelligence concerning discharges and con-
centrations of wastes. Organizational and staffing difficulties may in-
hibit the supply of such intelligence (but the laws of Indiana cannot be
faulted on this score.
The permit system (discussed above) furnished great leverage for acquiring
data on discharges, both before and after treatment. In addition, the EMB
may establish such reporting requirements as it deems necessary to carry out
its own powers or those of the APCB or SPCB,36 and all persons "discharging
104
-------
or proposing to discharge . . . contaminants which could affect environ-
mental quality shall furnish such reasonable technical or monitoring pro-
gram reports,"37 and pay such filing fees,38 as the Board may specify by
regulation. These provisions supplement a long-standing requirement of
the SBH that owners of sewage treatment works submit to it monthly oper-
ating reports.39 They receive added force from the capability of the EMB
to prescribe "[r]equirements and standards for equipment and procedures
for monitoring contaminant discharges at their sources, for the collection
of samples, and for the collection, reporting and retention of data re-
sulting from such monitoring."40
The EMB also has the duty to "[c]onduct a program of continuing surveillance
and inspection of refuse disposal sites, public water supplies, [and] actual
or threatened sources of environmental pollution . . ."41 to that end, its
agents may enter private or public property at any reasonable time to in-
spect for possible violations.42 "Requirements ahd procedures for the in-
spection of any equipment, facility, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft that may
cause or contribute to pollution"43 may be prescribed by the Board. These
provisions complement in part, the powers of the APCB to "[m]ake investi-
gations" and of the SBH to "conduct studies, investigations and research
relating to air pollution and [c]ollect and dissei|inate information."44
Enforcement
The EMA sets forth the sequence of administrative investigation, complaint,
hearing and issuance of final orders which the Boar*ds are to follow in
dealing with violations of the EMA or of any regulation or standard adopted
thereunder. Parallel powers are vested in the SPCB and APCB under their
own statutes.^5 In such proceedings, full rights to hearings upon adminis-
trative complaints and to judicial review of administrative orders are pre-
served to defendants under the state's Administrative Adjudication and Court
Review Act.^ฎ
Final orders of a Board may include directions to cease and desist from vio-
lations or to take corrective actions within a specified time.47 Any such
order may also revoke a permit.48 it is important to note that the Act also
states that a Board may, by administrative order, "impose monetary penal-
ties in accordance with this article . . ."49 The Acฃ does not, however,
state what these penalties may be. As a result, the provision is of doubt-
ful constitutionality. An amendment to the EMA fixing the amounts of fines
which Boards may impose could activate this significant power and protect
its exercise against constitutional challenge.50
The courts of Indiana are available both to enforce Board regulations or
orders and to restrain or punish primary violations of the EMA. Civil
penalties of up to $10,000 for the first day of any violation and $1,000
for each additional day may be recovered judicially, with an additional
penalty of $500 per hour for violation of any emergency order. An inten-
tional or willful violation is punishable by a criminal fine of not less
than $1,000 and by imprisonment up to one year. Disobedience to the
subpoena or lawful request of a board is separately punishable by fine
or imprisonment.^* In addition, Indiana law authorizes any agency to
105
-------
seek enforcement of its final orders by requesting courts of equity to
issue mandatory or prohibitory injunctions.52
Violations of the Anti-Litter Law are punishable by a maximum penalty of
$100 and thirty days' imprisonment,53 and violations of the Junkyard Con-
trol Act carry fines of $100 to $500 and imprisonment up to 180 days.5^
For failure to obey a lawful order of the SBH to improve facilities for
water purification or sewage treatment, an operator may be fined $500 for
each day's delay in complying.55
The scope of actions that the Boards may take or compel through enforce-
able administrative orders is impressive. In general, such orders may re-
quire violators not merely to cease and desist, but to take prescribed
corrective action within a specified time. The SBH may not only order
additional purification of any water supply or treatment plant effluent
but, in case of inefficient maintenance or operation, may order the vio-
lator to appoint a more competent operator.5*> Failure to maintain in
good working order any mechanism or system prescribed by the APCB for con-
trolling air pollution from a motor vehicle may lead to suspension or
cancellation of the vehicle's registration.57 The EMB, as noted above,
may revoke any construction or operating permit for failure to comply with
its conditions or for another good cause.5ฎ
Indiana law sets forth a clear strategy for enforcing orders of the SPCB
against municipal polluters.59 To meet the local cost-share for construc-
tion or improvement of sewage treatment facilities ordered by the Board,
municipalities must, if necessary, issue either general obligation or re-
venue bonds. The question whether such bonds shall be issued, or compli-
ance with the order otherwise achieved, is not to be submitted to the
voters of the municipality for their approval, nor shall voters' objec-
tions operate to justify or excuse failure to comply. Any municipal offi-
cer who fails to discharge a duty imposed upon him by the Board's order
may be punished by fine and imprisonment. These provisions of law put
Indiana in a stronger position than most states to cope with foot-dragging
by municipal polluters.
A recently enacted "private attorney general" bill affords standing to any
person to sue any other person for protection of the state's environment
from significant pollution, impairment or destruction.ฎ0 If the concerned
state agency, after receiving notice of such suit, either refuses to pro-
secute the alleged violator or fails to reach a final determination in the
matter within 180 days, the complainant may prosecute his own suit in the
courts. This citizens' remedy should heighten the resolve of the Boards to
enforce the state's environmental laws, and will provide relief where, for
one reason or another, no official enforcement action is taken.
Indiana law does not furnish the Boards with the capacity to bring lawsuits
in the courts by their own general counsel. That power is reserved to the
Attorney General's office, which appears on behalf of the Boards. Cooper-
ation between the Boards and the A.G.'s office appears to be satisfactory
at the present time.
106
-------
State-Local Relations
Like most other states, Indiana recognizes that local governments can
and should play important roles in protecting the environment. This is
especially true in the field of air pollution control, where the sheer
number of emitters makes it desirable to encourage local control pro-
grams with staffs and budgets of their own. Counties,cities,62 and
towns63 may enact and enforce ordinances for air pollution control, and
nothing in the APCL shall be construed as preventing them from doing so,
provided that their ordinances are consistent with and at least as strict
as state law.ฎ^ State policy declares "that local and air quality basin
control programs are to be supported to the extent practicable as essen-
tial instruments for the securing and maintenance of appropriate levels
of air quality."65 To that end, the SBH furnishes assistance to local
governments on air pollution matters and encourages them "to handle air
pollution problems within their respective jurisdictions td the greatest
extent possible." The EMB has the duty to furnish similar encouragement
and assistance.6?
Such ordinances are typically of comprehensive scope. They establish, or
empower local control boards to establish, air quality and emission stand-
ards. Under their provisions local boards may also review and prescribe
plans and schedules for abatement action, inspect control equipment, mon-
itor air quality, require submission or operating reports, issue abatement
orders, grant permits and variances, and take enforcement actions against
violators. State law fully applies, in the first instance, only in areas
and with respect to problems not covered by local regulations.ฎฎ Staff
members of the SBH who also service the APCB informally oversee all local
control programs to ensure that they are properly administered in confor-
mity with state laws, regulations and guidelines. If a local agency "fails
to enforce the local ordinance which affords protection to the public equal
to that provided by state law", then the APCB "may take such appropriate
action as may be necessary to enforce applicable provisions of state law."69
This is the only statutory provision that deals directly with the problem
of inadequate performance at the local level. Unfortunately, its vague
wording fails to indicate what action the APCB could take if, for example,
a local agency repeatedly issued permits for inadequate emission control
facilities. Nor does the EMA indicate what accommodations are to be
reached between the EMB and local control agencies with respect to their
mutally overlapping powers. This looseness in adjustment of local to state
powers is a substantial defect in Indiana law - typical, however, of most
state programs in the field of air pollution control. The defect could
be corrected by legislation expressly requiring close supervision of local
control programs by the APCB, or EMB, empowering the latter to assume total
state control in any area where it finds widespread or repeated deficien-
cies in the performance of the responsible local agency.
With respect to water pollution control, water supply and solid wastes,
local governments also have substantial duties and responsibilities. By
107
-------
authorization of state law, cities and towns locate, build, finance and
operate their own sewer systems,70 sewage treatment plants,71 water works,72
and refuse disposal facilities.73 Municipal regulation of these matters
is not, however, as comprehensive as it sometimes is with respect to air
pollution control. By and large, it yields to the superior power of state
Boards to approve all plans for proposed construction, to issue permits
and abatement orders, and to enforce environmental and public health laws
against violators.7^ Under these circumstances, local decisions will not
often conflict with state policy.^
Sewage collection by a municipality may, however, give rise to such a con-
flict. Municipalities with sewage treatment plants may accept or require
connection of waste sources to their sewer lines,76 and may require pre-
treatment of tied-in commercial or industrial wastes77 to safeguard the
treatment plant. But what if a city or town permits too many new connec-
tions, increased discharges through existing connections, or inputs of
toxic wastes to the sewer System,78 with the result that its treatment
plant becomes overloaded on! fails to function properly? These are coirmon
problems in cities that decline to enforce their sewer ordinances or other-
wise to regulate their own growth by environmentally sound standards. The
EMA provides that no person shall "[i]ncrease the quantity or strength of
any discharge of contaminants into the waters, or construct or install any
sewer or sewage treatment facility or any new outlet for contaminants into
the waters of this state without prior approval of the appropriate agency."7ฎ
This language would cover new sewer lines and new discharges directly into
state waters, but apparently fails to regulate the volume and concentration
of wastes piped into existing sewer systems through new or old connections.
The loophole - which is common to many states - could be closed by fresh
legislation expressly requiring state approval of new sewer connections and
empowering the state to regulate tied-in sources through permits with ef-
fluent quotas, to revoke,permits and order disconnection in appropriate
cases, and, in default of municipal enforcement of an adequate local sewer
ordinance, to bring enforcement actions directly against abusers of any
sewer system.
Joint and Regional Arrangements
Even if all local governments were willing to discharge fully their separate
responsibilities for environmental protection, the overall state program
might suffer from excessive fragmentation of effort along local lines. Poll-
ution is no respector of jurisdictional boundaries. Nor can it be con-
trolled efficiently without cooperative efforts on an areawide scale.
Indiana law permits and encourages such cooperation. Under the Interlocal
Cooperation Act, local governments may contract with one another to provide
services and facilities "on a basis of mutual advantage."81 They may es-
tablish joint organizational arrangements for such a purpose, with the ap-
proval of the appropriate state agency. Specifically, they may form re-
gional districts for water supply or for collection, treatment, and dis-
posal of sewage, upon approval of the SPCB,ฎ2 and two or more local govern-
ments within an air quality basin may administer their control programs
108
-------
jointly in accordance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act.83
The question is whether these provisions for voluntary cooperation are
adequate to Indiana's needs. Despite the fact that responsibility for
air pollution control may be divided between two or more local govern-
ments in a single air quality control region,no regional districts
for this purpose have yet been formed under Indiana law. The only way
of compelling their formation would be under the general provision for
mandatory regionalization contained in the EMA. This states that if
local governments, in the judgment of the EMB, have not "developed plans
which provide for adequate water supply, air, water, or wastewater treat-
ment or solid waste disposal facilities," the Board after hearing, "may
order the affected local governmental units to proceed to form regional
water, sewage, air or solid waste districts . . ."8^ But the provision comes
into play only in the absence of adequate local "plaps"; it is of no use
to remedy deficiencies in the conduct or coordination of local programs.
This shortcoming could be remedied by enlarging the Board's authorization
so as to permit it to order formation of an interlocal district whenever,
in its judgment, efficiencies in management, regulation or enforcement
would be achieved thereby. The authorization would cover not only air,
but water and solid waste as well. Particularly with(respect to solid
wastes, increasing costs of disposal, lack of suitable space, objections
to locating disposal facilities near residences, and jack, of proper waste col-
lection and disposal equipment are beginning to indicete a need for interlocal
arrangements. These should be established, mandatorily if necessary, pursuant
to a comprehensive state wide plan for storage, collection and disposal,
overriding the traditional pattern of inadequate, fragmented local control.
Indiana law already supplies most of the power needed to regionalize
wastewater management and disposal. If the EMB "finds'it is in the inter-
est of the health, safety, convenience and welfare of iie residents of any
area, any person may be ordered to connect to or receivt and treat sew-
age from any other person . . ."86 If the persons involved cannot volun-
tarily negotiate the terms for such connection and service, the Public
Service Commission will decree the terms "and enter an crder designating
the person or persons who shall perform the work of estilishing the
connection, and such other conditions as are necessary Indiana is
ahead of many other states by virtue of having such a la^ on its books.
Strategic Integration For All Media
Pollution controls should be planned in the light of all Jieir consequential
impacts on the environment. Disposal of sludge from treament plants may
present an air pollution or solid waste problem; buried mfuse may infect
water-bearing strata or leach into streams; low-flow augmeitation may im-
peril water supplies. Such examples could easily be multiplied. More
fundamentally, residential, industrial and public service developments
should be planned and controlled so as to minimize their adverse environ-
mental impacts. New roads may multiply air pollution; new subdivisions
109
-------
overload a sewage treatment plant; a dam or power plant destroy recrea-
tional values. Examples of this kind could be multiplied indefinitely.
Indiana has made some recent strides toward grappling with these problems
of overall environmental management, but, like most other states, still
has a long way to go.
The purpose of the EMA is "to provide for evolving policies for compre-
hensive environmental development and control on a statewide basis" and
"to unify, coordinate, and implement programs"87 for beneficial use of
the state's resources and protection of its environment.xo these ends,
the EMB has the duties to evolve a comprehensive long-term program with
standards and regulations for realizing it;89 to establish priorities and
coordinate activities of the SPCB, the APCB, and other "programs for which
the board shall be the ultimate authority in environmental management
matters"?90 and to approve rules of procedure, regulations and standards
of the SPCB and APCB before they become effective.9! These provisions
confer on the EMB coordinative, supervisory and policy-making powers9^ which,
in conjunction with its m6re specific powers to set standards and regula-
tions, issue permits, and decree regional districts, should enable it to
integrate the various separate programs for air and water pollution control,
solid waste management and water supply throughout the state. Systematic
procedures could be established for ensuring that abatement measures in
one medium will not exacerbate problems in another, and that all such mea-
sures are consistent with long-range comprehensive plans.
The legal picture is less satisfactory, however, with respect to activities
and developments that may threaten environmental damage in the first place.
It is unsatisfactory to >ase control programs entirely upon ad hoc reac-
tions to problems after Hiey have arisen. Yet this is what often happens
in Indiana, as elsewhere*. For example, local zoning boards need not secure
approval from any environmental state Board before sanctioning intensive in-
dustrial or residential ^development, which may jeopardize air and water re-
sources. Nor need developers secure such approval before proceeding with
projects whose wastes mfry overload municipal sewage treatment plants.^3
And municipalities, as Already noted, may permit additional sewer connections
without state approval.
Indirectly and tangentijally, the state Boards could affect local land-use
patterns by refusing *4 allow increased discharges to air or waterways,
or by refusing to granf, for certain impacted locations, the necessary prior
approval of "any equipPฎnt or facility of any type which may cause or con-
tribute to pollution.'] Conceivably, the EMB could promulgate standards
and regulations96 requiring early submission to it of all plans for privately
or publicly financed development which may have significant environmental
impacts. But the EMB;does not clearly have the power to veto such plans,
and approvals will be difficult to withhold if the effect of doing so would
be to halt developments that are already well under way.
What Indiana needs, tfhen, is limited but systematic land-use control for
environmental protectionป administered by the state. The EMB would appear
110
-------
to be the logical choice of agency to do the job. A new law should spell
out the necessity for submitting to the EMB, at an early stage, all plans
for developments that may substantially affect the environment. The EMB
would approve a development proposal if it found, inter alia,^ that the
developer had made adequate provision for meeting all applicable require-
ments for pollution control and for protection of natural resources and
amenities. The burden would be on the developer to make the necessary
showing, in public hearings at which anyone might testify. Disapproval
by the EMB would effectively halt the development, with rights to judi-
cial review preserved.
Indiana law already provides that each state agency must report to the EMB
any plans or activities it has under way which may affect the environ-
ment,^ฎ and must include an environmental impact statement, after con-
sulting with other concerned agencies,ฎ^ in every report on proposed legis-
lation and other major state actions significantly Effecting environmental
quality as defined by the EMB. Moreover, before any state or local agency
may seek federal assistance for programs affecting the environment, it
must give prior notice to the EMB, which may participate as a party to the
process.10" These provisions do not, however, ensure that activities of
state and local governments will be consistent with environmental values.101
Such activities, along with these originating in tl^e private sector, should
be brought under the proposed land-use control law.
State and Federal Law
At the present time,there do not appear to be any requirements of federal
law that Indiana is unable to meet because of deficiencies in its own laws. *
The SPCB and APCB have been designated respectively,', as the state's agen-
cies for all purposes of.the Federal Water Pollution": Control Act and the
Federal Clean Air Act.1.0^ The State's Water Quality Standards, consisting
of water quality criteria and plans for their implementation, were approved
by EPA as meeting the requirements of Section 10 (c) of the FWPCA.103 The
State's Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan has been approved by EPA
as conforming to requirements of Sec. 110 of the FCAA, with exceptions104
that can be met or negotiated within the framework of existing law. Indiana
has qualified for financial assistance under the Federal Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act to plan and develop disposal programs, and has managed to furnish,
for every new municipal sewage treatment plant, the 25%'share of construc-
tion costs that is necessary to obtain the full 50 or 55% from EPA under
Sec. 8(b) (7) and (f) of the Federal Act.
This chapter was written before the passage of the Federal Water Quality
Act Amendments of 1972. Because the guidelines accompanying this new
legislation were not written at the time of this study, we cannot comment on
the extent to which Indiana's laws meet these or future requirements.
Ill
-------
The Federal Guidelines for Water Quality Management Planning require dev-
elopment of basin-wide and metropolitan area-wide plans which take account,
inter alia, of non-point sources, needs for regionalization, related land-
use planning, jurisdictional conflicts, and total environmental impacts.
Integration of land-use planning with water quality planning may be the
most difficult of these desiderata for Indiana to meet, but the various
provisions for the EMA for protecting environmental, values in the face of
economic development could prove sufficient for this purpose. The
state's fe^glot control law should eliminate a major non-point source of
pollution. where plans should call for wastewater management on a re-
gional bgsis, the state can compel industrial and inter-municipal connec-
tions.''" Its Department of Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction
over dams, reservoirs, flow augmentation, in-stream measures, interbasin
transfers and water reuse, cooperates with the SPCB in basin-wide planning.
The federal requirements for equitable recovery of industrial waste treat-
ment costs in municipal systems can clearly be met through the municipal
power to collect sewer service charges from all users in proportion to the
volume and strength of their respective wastes.107 These requirements,
as well as the ones set forth in the federal guidelines, are carried
forward in the Federal Water Quality Act Amendments of 1972. The Amendments
also mandate direct federal regulation of wastewater discharges in any
state that did not itself have an advanced permit system for water pollution
control. Indiana's EMA provides the basis for such a system.
Allocation of Functions at the State Level
We have already discussed, in Section 4.1.3 of this report, the problems
inherent in the present allocation of functions at the state level.
Briefly, we found that there is ambiguity in the Environmental Management
Act regarding the division of powers and duties between the EMB, SPCB, and
APCB. There are a number of questions where the Act is obscure. Hopefully,
the Boards will reach understandings among themselves on how their various
powers and functions will mesh. Regardless of understandings reached,
however, these weaknesses in the Act mean that Board actions may be chal-
lenged in court on the ground that they lack statutory authorization.
Summary
It is useful at this point to recapitulate briefly the recommendations made
in preceding pages regarding changes that should be made to strengthen
Indiana's legislative authority in the area of environmental protection.
Some caution should be exercised in interpreting these recommendations,
however. In most cases, the recommendations refer to changes in the law
which would be desirable to clarify or make explicit certain powers and
duties which may already be implied in existing law. Thus, one should
not interpret these recommendations as implying that the state has no
authority in these areas. With this caveat in mind, the recommendations
are the following:
112
-------
The Environmental Management Board should be expressly empowered
to coordinate and evaluate local air pollution control programs
and to assume total state control of them in the event of
widespread or repeated deficiencies in the performance of the
responsible local agency.
The EMB should be empowered to order the formation of inter-
local districts for air or water pollution control, water supply,
or solid waste disposal whenever, in the Board's judgment,
such a district would promote efficiencies in management,
regulation or enforcement.
A new law should require submission to the EMB, at an early
stage, of all plans for significant residential, industrial,
commercial or publicly sponsored developments that may sub-
stantially affect the environment. (Note that this applies only
to significant developments that may substantially affect the
environment; obviously, exceptions will occur for de minimis
circumstances.) The EMB should be empowered to approve a
proposed development if adequate provision has been made for
meeting all applicable requirements of law pertaining to pollution
control. Otherwise, EMB's veto would effectively halt the
development, unless a reviewing court reversed or remanded the
case to the Board.
Approval of the EMB should be required for all significant new
sewer connections. (Again, this applies only to significant
cases; this would not apply to de minimis circumstances, e.g.,
individual sewer hook-ups.) Moreover, the Board should be empowered
to regulate tied-in sources through permits with effluent quotas,
to revoke permits and order disconnection of violating sources,
and in default of municipal enforcement of an adequate local
sewer ordinance, to bring enforcement actions directly against
violators.
The SPCB and APCB should be abolished, and their powers and duties
be transferred to the EMB.
113
-------
FOOTNOTES
1. Indiana Code (1971) 13-1-3-1 through 13-1-3-18 (Stream Pollution
Control Law); 16-1-26-13 (water supply). All further citations
are to the Indiana Code, 1971 Edition and supplements, unless
otherwise indicated.
2. 13-1-1-1 through 13-1-1-10
3. 19-2-1-1 through 19-2-1-32
4. 13-7-1 through 13-7-18
5. 13-7-3-1(b), 13-7-5-1(c) and (e).
6. 13-1-3-7
7. 13-1-3-8. A somewhat redundant provision of Indiana law also
prohibits discharge to State waters of any substance deleterious
to public health, to the pursuit of any lawful occupation, or
to water life. 16-1-26-1.
8. 13-1-1-5
9. 13-1-1-7
10. 16-1-26-4
11. 13-7-4-1U): This sweeping prohibition could, however, be
improved by inserting "or" after "pollution.
12. 19-2-1-31 and 13-7-4-1(d).
13. 19-2-1-3
14. 13-7-4-1 (e) and 14-3-11 , Indiana Highway Junkyard Contrฐ?".^[
Ch. 107, Acts of 1969. Indiana has no law, however, pro
or discouraging the sale of non-returnable containers.
15. 13-1-5.5, added by P.L. 174 of April 9, 1971.
16. 13-1-5.7, added by P.L. 175 of April 2, 1971.
17. SPC 2 and 3.
!8. 13-7-7-5(d) and (c). 13-4-4 also provides for plugging of wells
to protect State waters against seepage.
115
-------
19. 13-7-4-1(g) and APC 2 of the APCB.
20. 13-1-1-6(a)
21. 13-2-1-3, 13-2-2-3 and -5, 13-2-14-3 and -15-1, 13-4-4, 13-4-6.
22. 13-7-7-5(d), 13-7-5-l(j).
23. 13-1-3-7
24. 13-7-4-1(b)
25. 13-1-1-1 and 13-1-1-4(A) (3); APC 3 through 7
26. 13-7-12-1, 13-7-7-5(e). The Governor may declare a public
emergency and issue such an order, upon request of the Secretary
of the SBH and the Technical Secretary of the EMB.
27. 13-7-4-1(f).
28. 13-1-3-10 and 13-7-4-1(b) SPCB); Regulation HSE 14 of October 15,
1945 (SBH, with respect to sanitary features). The latter
apparently exercises the SBH's traditional powers to regulate s
sewage disposal in the interests of public health.
29. APC 1, which apparently rests upon the APCB's general power to
adopt regulations for preventing and controlling air pollution.
13-1-1-4(a) (3) and 13-1-1-1.
30. 19-2-1-3. Powers of the SBH under the Refuse Disposal Act
(19-2-1) were transferred to EMB by 13-7-6-1.
31. 13-7-10, 13-7-7-5(b).
32. 13-7-16-6.
33. 13-7-10-1 and 13-7-14. These provisions build upon an earlier
requirement that plans and specifications for such facilities be
approved by SBH. 16-1-26-3. All powers of SBH under the
Sanitary Water Supply Act (16-1-26-1 through -13) were trans-
ferred to EMB by 13-7-6-1.
34. 13-1-6-1 through -10.
35. Id. Powers of the SBH under the Waste Water Treatment Control
Act, 13-1-6-1 through -10 were transferred to EMB by 13-7-6-1.
36. 13-7-5-1(d)
37. 13-7-16-7. Prior to enactment of these specific provisions,
reporting requirements of the APCB and SPCB rested, respectively,
on the former's general power to adopt regulations for con-
trolling air pollution (see citations at fn. 27, supra) and,
somewhat more precariously, on the latter's powers to impose
116
-------
effluent controls and to take other "appropriate steps to prevent
. . . pollution ..." 13-1-3-7.
38. 13-7-5-1(d)
39. Regulation HSE 15 of Oct. 15, 1945, apparently resting on the SBH's
traditional powers to regulate sewage disposal.
40. 13-7-7-5(g).
41. 13-7-3-1(c).
42. 13-7-5-1(b). The SPCB and APCB have similar rights of entry
under their own statutes, 13-1-3-6 and 13-1-1-4 (B) (9), with the
exception, however, that the APCB may not enter into or upon
"private residences" a limitation not applicable to the EMB.
13-1-1-9(a) further prohibits any person from refusing entry at
reasonable hours to APCB or SBH inspectors in the performance
of their lawful duties.
43. 13-7-7-5(f).
44. 13-l-l-4(a)(1), 13-1-1-4(B)(2) and (3).
45. 13-1-3-9, 13-1-1-4(A). Assistance in detecting violators is
furnished to the SPCB by law enforcement officers of the State's
Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to the investigatory
powers of this Department under 14-3-1-14(8).
46. 4-22-1-1 through 4-22-1-30, incorporated by reference into EMA
13-7-11-3(a) and 13-7-17-1.
47. 13-7-11-5.
48. Ibid.
49. 13-7-11-5(b)
50. The objection may be that the Act impermissibly delegates to an
administrative agency the power to define crimes and prescribe
punishments, and does not afford rights to trial by jury and
other guarantees of criminal due process to defendants. There
is, however, seme judicial precedent in favor of allowing
administrative agencies to assess civil penalties within limits
prescribed by the legislature.
51. 13-7-13. These provisions render largely obsolete, but do not
actually repeal, (1) the $25 to $100 fine and imprisonment up
to 90 days specifically authorized for violations of the SPCL
or of SPCB orders, 13-1-3-14; (2) the $100 per diem civil fine
specifically authorized for violations of such orders,
13-1-3-15? (3) the $500 per diem fine for violation of the APCL
or of APCB regulations or orders, 13-l-l-9(b); and (4) the per
diem fine of $100 to $500 separately prescribed for open dump-
ing, 19-2-1-31.
117
-------
52.
4-22-1-27. Injunctive or mandatory relief against open dumping
is also made expressly available to EMB by court action pursuant
to 19-2-1-31.
53. 14-3-11-11
54. Ch. 107 Acts of 1967, as amended by Ch. 216, Acts of 1969,
Sec. 9.
55. 16-1-26-13
56. 16-1-26-7 and -8.
57. 13-1-1-6(b).
58. 13-7-11-5(b), 13-7-10-5
59. 13-1-3-12 through -14.
60. 13-6-1-1 through 13-6-1-6 as amended by 13-7-11-1(b).
61. 13-1-1-10(c)
62. 18-4-21 (Ch. 389 of the Acts of 1969, with reference to cities
of the first class).
63. 18-4-21-1
64. 13-1-1-10(a)
65. 13-1-1-1
66. 13-1-1-1, 13-1-1-4 (B) (5) and (6)
67. 13-7-3-l(d).
68. "The regional, county and metropolitan air pollution control
agencies will have power of investigation and enforcement similar
to that of the State when the State Air Pollution Control Board
chooses to delegate such authority. In cases involving violation
and abatement, notices issued by the local agencies, procedures,
powers of enforcement and punishments shall be the same as for
cases prosecuted by the State, unless local ordinances require
more rapid procedures and more severe penalties for noncompliance."
Appendix 10-34, State of Indiana Implementation Plan (submitted
pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act.) And see IP 3-14 (investi-
gation of complaints and initiation of abatement actions to be
undertaken by thfi State in areas not covered by local regulations).
However, in view of the independent statutory bases for local
authority in this field, it seems clear that such authority
cannot depend entirely upon discretionary delegation from the
APCB.
118
-------
See also IP App. 9-2 through 9-8, where it is stated that the
APCB has primary responsibility for implementing state and
federal standards of air quality, but that the responsibility
will be borne mainly by local agencies in some areas and partly
by local agencies in others.
69. 13-1-1-10(e) .
70. 19-2-3-1, 18-1-4(48), 18-1-6(7), 18-3-1-50.
71. 19-2-5-2 and -3, 18-1-6(7). Moreover any city may enact
ordinances requiring purification of watercourses and water
supplies, protecting stream banks from encroachment or injury
and prohibiting pollution of public waterways by solid or
liquid refuse matter. 18-1-4-1.
72 19-3-10-1, 19-3-15, 18-1-8-1.
73- 19-2-6-l(b), 18-1-4-1(13), 17-2-24(county dumps)
74* See the discussion supra at pp. Regulation HSE 14 of the
SBH requires that plans, specifications and engineering reports
for construction of sewers as well as of sewage treatment works
be submitted to SBH for approval of their sanitary features.
HSE 10 empowers the SBH to order a city or town to construct
a sewerage system if the lack of one results in unsanitary
conditions.
75- Indiana's extraordinary legal provisions for avoiding municipal
defiance of State orders to construct sewage treatment facilities
are discussed above at pp.
76 19-2-5-22. The SBH may also require such connections when, in
its judgment, considerations of public health indicate the dis-
continuance of privies, cesspools, septic tanks or other
primitive means of sewage disposal.
77 19-2-14-5 (in cities of the first class).
7ฎ- Industries planning to install pretreatment facilities must
submit plans and specifications to the SPCB for approval, but
the Board lacks power to compel pretreatment at either new or
existing sources of tied-in wastes.
79. 13-7-4-1(b).
80. It could perhaps be argued that the term "sewer" in the
quoted passage includes connecting pipes to existing sewer
mains, but the contention would be of doubtful validity. Nor
does the language of 13-7-4-l(f), prohibiting any person from
constructing, installing, operating or modifying any "equipment
or facility" that may contribute to pollution without "prior
approval" of the appropriate Board, appear to cover the problems
identified in the text.
119
-------
81. 18-5-1-1 through -7 and 18-5-1.5-1 through -5.
82. 19-3-1.1
83. 13-1-1-10(c)
84. The Indiana portion of the Metropolitan Chicago Interstate
Air Quality Control Region involves control agencies of two
counties and three municipalities, in addition to the APCB.
An informal working agreement has been achieved among the
six agencies and EPA through the Northwest Indiana Air
Resources Management Program {see IP 1-10), but the multi-
plicity of jurisdictions still makes it difficult to avoid
inefficiencies in the overall management of the control
effort.
Indiana also participates in five Interstate AQC Regions.
Under the Indiana-Illinois Air Pollution Control Compact
(13-5-7), the two States pledge cooperation, but no action
of the Compact Commission is binding unless approved by
a majority of Commissioners from each State. The APCB has
initiated procedures to establish joint control commissions
with other neighboring States, for purposes of exchanging
information on air quality, emissions, legal actions and emergency
episodes (IP App. 9-1, 9-2). There exists, however, no
interstate authority with substantial powers, nor is one
likely to be established in the foreseeable future, given
the well-known political and technical obstacles to this
approach.
85. 13-7-5-2.
86. 13-7-5-1. The SBH, for narrower reasons of public health,
may also require connections to be made to sewerage systems.
Reg. HSE 10.
87. Ibid.
88. 13-7-1-1
89. 13-7-3-1(a) and (b)
90. 13-7-2-9, 13-7-2-6
91. 13-7-7-1(b)
92. Whether the law gives EMB the resources it will need to
exercise these powers effectively is another matter, discussed
infra on pp. 3-21 ff.
93. The SPCB is assured of being able to review project plans at
an early stage only if the project is to be financed by
federal mortgage money, or if the developer intends to furnish
his own treatment plant for which certification is required
from the Public Service Commission.
120
-------
94. 13-7-4-1(b), 13-7-5-l(j).
95. 13-7-4-1(f)
96. Pursuant to its general power under 13-7-3-1(b) to "[e]volve
standards and develop regulations, and adopt the same, to
preserve, protect and enhance the quality of the environment,
to assure the accomplishment of the comprehensive long-term
program; and procure compliance with its standards and
regulations."
97. There are, of course, other environmental values to be pro-
tected besides freedom from air, water or solid waste pollu-
tion and preservation of water supply. The proposal in the
text summarizes parts of Maine's Site Location of Development
Law, 38 Me. Rev. Stat. 481-488.
98. 13-7-16-4.
99.
102.
104.
105.
106.
13-1-10-3(c).
100. 13-7-16-5
101. The EMB will "review" the reports it receives, "coordinate"
the programs of the various agencies, and "make recommenda-
tions" with respect to their plans and activities. 13-7-16-4.
These provisions confer no substantial power on the EMB.
13-1-4-2 and -3, 13-7-2-10. They enjoy this status also by
designation of the Governor.
AarA* include an antidegradation
103. 40 C.F.R. 120.10. The standaras secondary treatment
clause and a requirement for ฎ with federal regulations an
at all point sources in accordance wi^n
guidelines.
40 C.F.R. 252.770-52.783 (subpart p> -
See fn. 15, supra.
See fn. 79, supra.
10 . 19-2-5-19. This provision also authorizes flat charges for
each sewer connection or charges based on water use or number
and size of water outlets. However, the Federal Guidelines
for Equitable Recovery of Industrial Waste Treatment Costs in
Municipal Systems (EPA, Office of Water Programs, October
1971) strongly favor user charges based on volume, loading,
and character of wastes. These Guidelines are based on
18 CFR 601, which conditions the federal con-
struction grant on the municipality's having in effect an
equitable system of cost recovery, whereby industries will
pay that part of the local share of treatment costs which is
attributable to their wastes.
121
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973 514-152/169 1-3
-------
5I'it
------- |