United States 

Environmental Protection

Agency

Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

(2221-A)

EPA 310-R-99-001

January 1999

Profile of Local 

Government Operations

The Government Series
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 i General Information

GENERAL INFORMATION

This report is one in a series of volumes published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) to provide information of general interest regarding environmental issues associated with

specific industrial sectors. Science Applications International Corporation (McLean, VA)

developed this document under contract. The Local Government Workgroup of the National

Pollution Prevention Roundtable developed the pollution prevention sections that appear in

Chapter 3 and Appendix C of this document. This publication may be purchased from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. The following page lists the

available sector notebooks and document numbers.

All telephone orders should be directed to:

Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402

(202) 512-1800

FAX (202) 512-2250

8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., EST, M-F

Using the form provided at the end of this document, all mail orders should be directed to:

U.S. Government Printing Office

P.O. Box 371954

Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954

Complimentary volumes are available to certain groups or subscribers, including public and

academic libraries; federal, state, and local governments; and the media from EPA’s National

Center for Environmental Publications and Information at (800) 490-9198. For further

information, and for answers to questions pertaining to these documents, please refer to the

contact names and numbers provided within this volume. 

Electronic versions of all sector notebooks are available via Internet on the Enviro$en$e World

Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/oeca/sector/index.html. Enviro$ense is a free, public,

environmental exchange system operated by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance and Office of Research and Development. The Network allows regulators, the

regulated community, technical experts, and the general public to share information regarding:

pollution prevention and innovative technologies; environmental enforcement and compliance

assistance; laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies; points of contact for services and

equipment; and other related topics. The Network welcomes receipt of environmental messages,

information, and data from any public or private person or organization. Direct technical

questions to the “Feedback” button on the bottom of the web page.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1998 ii Sector Notebook Contacts

SECTOR NOTEBOOK CONTACTS

The Sector Notebooks were developed by the EPA’s Office of Compliance. Direct general questions

about the Sector Notebook Project to:

Seth Heminway, Coordinator, Sector Notebook Project

US EPA Office of Compliance

401 M St., SW (2223-A)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564-7017

Questions and comments regarding the individual documents should be directed to the specialists listed

below. See the Notebook web page at: www.epa.gov/oeca/sector for the most recent titles and staff

contacts.

Document Number Industry Contact Phone (202)

EPA/310-R-95-001. Profile of the Dry Cleaning Industry Joyce Chandler 564-7073

EPA/310-R-95-002. Profile of the Electronics and Computer Industry* Steve Hoover 564-7007

EPA/310-R-95-003. Profile of the Wood Furniture and Fixtures Industry Bob Marshall 564-7021

EPA/310-R-95-004. Profile of the Inorganic Chemical Industry* Walter DeRieux 564-7067

EPA/310-R-95-005. Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry Maria Malave 564-7027

EPA/310-R-95-006. Profile of the Lumber and Wood Products Industry Seth Heminway 564-7017

EPA/310-R-95-007. Profile of the Fabricated Metal Products Industry* Scott Throwe 564-7013

EPA/310-R-95-008. Profile of the Metal Mining Industry Maria Malave 564-5027

EPA/310-R-95-009. Profile of the Motor Vehicle Assembly Industry Anthony Raia 564-6045

EPA/310-R-95-010. Profile of the Nonferrous Metals Industry Debbie Thomas 564-5041

EPA/310-R-95-011. Profile of the Non-Fuel, Non-Metal Mining Industry Rob Lischinsky 564-2628

EPA/310-R-95-012. Profile of the Organic Chemical Industry* Walter DeRieux 564-7067

EPA/310-R-95-013. Profile of the Petroleum Refining Industry Tom Ripp 564-7003

EPA/310-R-95-014. Profile of the Printing Industry Ginger Gotliffe 564-7072

EPA/310-R-95-015. Profile of the Pulp and Paper Industry Seth Heminway 564-7017

EPA/310-R-95-016. Profile of the Rubber and Plastic Industry Robert Tolpa 564-2337

EPA/310-R-95-017. Profile of the Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Ind. Scott Throwe 564-7013

EPA/310-R-95-018. Profile of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Ind. Virginia Lathrop 564-7057

EPA/310-R-97-001. Profile of the Air Transportation Industry Virginia Lathrop 564-7057

EPA/310-R-97-002. Profile of the Ground Transportation Industry Virginia Lathrop 564-7057

EPA/310-R-97-003. Profile of the Water Transportation Industry Virginia Lathrop 564-7057

EPA/310-R-97-004. Profile of the Metal Casting Industry Steve Hoover 564-7007

EPA/310-R-97-005. Profile of the Pharmaceuticals Industry Emily Chow 564-7071

EPA/310-R-97-006. Profile of the Plastic Resin and Man-made Fiber Ind. Sally Sasnett 564-7074

EPA/310-R-97-007. Profile of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Industry

 Rafael Sanchez 564-7028

EPA/310-R-97-008. Profile of the Shipbuilding and Repair Industry Anthony Raia 564-6045

EPA/310-R-97-009. Profile of the Textile Industry Belinda Breidenbach 564-7022

EPA/310-R-97-010. Sector Notebook Data Refresh-1997 Seth Heminway 564-7017

EPA/310-R-98-001. Profile of the Aerospace Industry Anthony Raia 564-6045

 Government Series

EPA/310-R-99-001. Profile of Local Government Operations John Dombrowski 564-7036

*Spanish translations available.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 iii Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................... . 1-1

1.1 Summary of the Sector Notebook Project ................................ . 1-1

1.2 Providing Comments ................................................ . 1-2

1.3 Adapting Notebooks to Particular Needs ................................ . 1-2

1.4 Why Were Local Governments Included in the Sector Notebook Project? ...... . 1-2

2. OVERVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ......................................... . 2-1

2.1 Approaches for Providing Services ..................................... . 2-2

2.2 Organizational Structures ............................................ . 2-5

2.3 Financial Overview ................................................. . 2-5

2.4 Public Participation ................................................. . 2-6

3. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS .......................................... . 3-1

3.1 Pollution Prevention and Compliance Assistance .......................... . 3-1

3.1.1 Benefits of Pollution Prevention ................................. . 3-2

3.1.2 Implementation of Pollution Prevention at the Local Government Level . . . 3-2

3.2 Purchasing Practices That Encourage Regulatory Compliance

and Pollution Prevention ............................................. . 3-5

3.2.1 Typical Products Purchased by Local Government and Environmentally

Preferable Product Alternatives .................................. . 3-5

3.2.2 Top Pollution Prevention Opportunities ........................... . 3-7

3.3 Construction/Property Management ................................... . 3-10

3.3.1 General Activities ........................................... . 3-10

3.3.2 Roads/Bridges/Tunnels ....................................... . 3-12

3.3.3 Buildings .................................................. . 3-16

3.3.4 Outdoor Recreation Facilities (including stadiums and golf courses) .... . 3-21

3.3.5 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance ............................... . 3-24

3.3.6 Pollution Prevention in Construction and Maintenance .............. . 3-24

3.3.7 Success Stories ............................................. . 3-26

3.4 Pesticide/Vector Management ........................................ . 3-29

3.4.1 Purchasing Pesticides ........................................ . 3-30

3.4.2 Applying Pesticides .......................................... . 3-31

3.4.3 Storing Pesticides ........................................... . 3-34

3.4.4 Disposing of Pesticides ....................................... . 3-36

3.4.5 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance ............................... . 3-36
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 iv Table of Contents

3.4.6 Pollution Prevention in Pesticide Management ..................... . 3-37

3.4.7 Success Stories ............................................. . 3-40

3.5 Public Safety ..................................................... . 3-42

3.5.1 Emergency Planning ......................................... . 3-42

3.5.2 Fire Protection and Emergency Response ......................... . 3-45

3.5.3 Police Protection ............................................ . 3-48

3.5.4 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance ............................... . 3-51

3.5.5 Pollution Prevention and Public Safety ........................... . 3-51

3.6 Solid Waste Management ........................................... . 3-55

3.6.1 Collecting and Storing Municipal Solid Waste ..................... . 3-56

3.6.2 Recycling and Composting .................................... . 3-58

3.6.3 Source Reduction ............................................ . 3-61

3.6.4 Disposal ................................................... . 3-61

3.6.5 Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Storage ................ . 3-63

3.6.6 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance ............................... . 3-64

3.6.7 Other Operations That May Be Regulated ........................ . 3-64

3.6.8 Pollution Prevention in Solid Waste Management Operations ......... . 3-64

3.7 Wastewater Management ........................................... . 3-68

3.7.1 Operation and Maintenance of Sewer Systems ..................... . 3-70

3.7.2 Wastewater Treatment ........................................ . 3-73

3.7.3 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance ............................... . 3-81

3.7.4 Other Operations That May Be Regulated ........................ . 3-81

3.7.5 Pollution Prevention in Wastewater Management .................. . 3-81

3.7.6 Success Story ............................................... . 3-83

3.8 Water Resources Management ....................................... . 3-84

3.8.1 Surface Water Protection ...................................... . 3-85

3.8.2 Groundwater (Wellhead) Protection ............................. . 3-88

3.8.3 Pollution Prevention and Water Resources Management ............. . 3-90

3.8.4 Top Pollution Prevention Opportunities .......................... . 3-91

3.8.5 Success Stories ............................................. . 3-94

3.9 Water Supply ..................................................... . 3-97

3.9.1 Water Treatment ............................................ . 3-98

3.9.2 Water Distribution System Operation and Maintenance ............. . 3-103

3.9.3 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance .............................. . 3-106

3.9.4 Pollution Prevention in Water Supply ........................... . 3-106

3.10 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance .................................... . 3-111

3.10.1 Vehicle Repair Shops ....................................... . 3-111

3.10.2 Fueling Stations ............................................ . 3-115

3.10.3 Purchasing ................................................ . 3-116
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 v Table of Contents

3.10.4 Pollution Prevention in Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance ........... . 3-116

3.10.5 Success Story .............................................. . 3-122

3.11 Local Government Regulatory Programs .............................. . 3-123

3.11.1 Pretreatment Programs ...................................... . 3-124

3.11.2 Air Pollution Control ........................................ . 3-125

3.11.3 Land Use Planning/Zoning ................................... . 3-126

3.11.4 Pollution Prevention in Air Pollution Programs and Pretreatment

Programs ................................................. . 3-126

3.11.5 Pollution Prevention in Land Use Planning & Zoning

and Brownfield Redevelopment ............................... . 3-129

4. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ................ . 4-1

4.1 Clean Air Act ...................................................... . 4-1

4.2 Clean Water Act ................................................... . 4-4

4.3 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 .................... . 4-8

4.4 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ..... . 4-9

4.5 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act .................. . 4-10

4.6 Endangered Species Act ............................................ . 4-11

4.7 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ....................... . 4-13

4.8 National Environmental Policy Act .................................... . 4-14

4.9 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act .............................. . 4-15

4.10 Rivers and Harbors Act ............................................. . 4-19

4.11 Safe Drinking Water Act ............................................ . 4-19

4.12 Toxic Substances Control Act ........................................ . 4-21

5. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT HISTORY ................................... . 5-1

5.1 Compliance and Enforcement Data Definitions ........................... . 5-2

5.1.1 General Definitions ........................................... . 5-2

5.1.2 Data Table Column Heading Definitions .......................... . 5-3

5.2 Local Government Compliance History ................................... . 5-5

6. REVIEW OF MAJOR LEGAL ACTIONS ......................................... . 6-1

6.1 Selected Enforcement Cases .......................................... . 6-1

6.2 Supplemental Environmental Projects .................................. . 6-4

7. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES .......................... . 7-1

7.1 EPA Initiatives and Voluntary Programs .................................. . 7-1

7.2 U.S. Department of Agriculture Initiatives and Voluntary Programs ............. . 7-9

7.3 Summary of National Associations ...................................... . 7-11
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 vi Table of Contents

APPENDIX A. STATISCAL OVERVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ..................... . A-1

APPENDIX B. OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .......................... . B-1

APPENDIX C. EXAMPLES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLLUTION PREVENTION

AND PURCHASING PROJECTS ...................................... . C-1

APPENDIX D. STATUTORY MATRIX OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

AND ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES ................................... . D-1

APPENDIX E. EXAMPLES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS VIOLATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL

LAWS (1992-1997) .............................................. . E-1

REFERENCES ............................................................... . R-1
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 vii List of Exhibits

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 2-1. Number of Local Governments by Type, 1992 ........................ . 2-2

Exhibit 2-2. Number of Local Governments in Each State, 1992 .................... . 2-3

Exhibit 3-1. Typical Products Purchased by Local Governments and Environmentally

Preferred Alternatives ........................................... . 3-6

Exhibit 3-2. Construction and Maintenance ................................... . 3-11

Exhibit 3-3. Pesticide Management .......................................... . 3-30

Exhibit 3-4. Public Safety ................................................. . 3-43

Exhibit 3-5. Examples of Typical Photoprocessing Wastes ....................... . 3-49

Exhibit 3-6. Solid Waste Management ....................................... . 3-57

Exhibit 3-7. Wastewater Management ........................................ . 3-69

Exhibit 3-8. Water Supply ................................................. . 3-98

Exhibit 3-9. Chemicals Used in Water Supply Activities ........................ . 3-101

Exhibit 3-10. Vehicle Maintenance Activities .................................. . 3-111

Exhibit 3-11. Vehicle Repair Shop Activities .................................. . 3-112

Exhibit 5-1. Five-Year Inspection and Enforcement Summary by Statute for Local

Government SIC Groups ......................................... . 5-7

Exhibit 5-2. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 4941 - Water Supply .................... . 5-8

Exhibit 5-3. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 4952 - Sewer Systems ................... . 5-9

Exhibit 5-4. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 4953 - Refuse Systems ................. . 5-10

Exhibit 5-5. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 4959 - Sanitary Services, not Elsewhere

Classified .................................................... . 5-11

Exhibit 5-6. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 7999 - Amusement and Recreation Services, 

not Elsewhere Classified ........................................ . 5-12

Exhibit 5-7. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 8211 - Elementary and Secondary Schools . . . 5-13

Exhibit 5-8. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 8231 - Libraries ....................... . 5-14

Exhibit 5-9. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 9211 - Police Protection ................ . 5-15

Exhibit 5.10. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 9224 - Fire Protection .................. . 5-16

Exhibit 5-11. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 9229 - Public Order and Safety, not

Elsewhere Classified ........................................... . 5-17
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 viii List of Exhibits

Exhibit 5-12. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 9411 - Administration of Education

Programs .................................................... . 5-18

Exhibit 5-13. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 9511 - Air and Water Resource and Solid

Waste Management ............................................ . 5-19

Exhibit 5-14. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 9512 - Land, Mineral, Wildlife, and Forest

Conservation ................................................. . 5-20

Exhibit 5-15. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local 

Government Sector SIC Code 9531 - Administration of Housing Programs . 5-21

Exhibit 5-16. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 9532 - Administration of Urban Planning

and Community and Rural Development ............................ . 5-22

Exhibit 5-17. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary for Local

Government Sector SIC Code 9651- Regulation, Licensing, and

Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sites ...................... . 5-23

Exhibit 5-18. SDWIS Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Summary Information

Reported for Local Government-Owned Public Water Systems .......... . 5-24

Exhibit 6-1. Examples of Supplemental Environmental Projects - Local Government

Sector ........................................................ . 6-5
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 ix List of Acronyms

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACO Administrative Consent Order

AST Aboveground Storage Tank

AHERA Asbestos Hazards Emergency Response Act

BIF Boiler and Industrial Furnace

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

CACO Consent Agreement/Consent Order

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CSQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator

CFC Chlorofluorocarbon

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

CSS Combined Sewer Systems 

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELP Environmental Leadership Program 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

ESA Endangered Species Act

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FR Federal Register

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant (CAA)

HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

LDR Land Disposal Restrictions (RCRA)

LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology (CAA)

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

MFS Marine Fisheries Service

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

NAA Nonattainment Area

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAA)

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 x List of Acronyms

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NOV Notice of Violation 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (CWA)

NPL National Priorities List 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards (CAA)

OAR Office of Air and Radiation

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OPA Oil Pollution Act

OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OSW Office of Solid Waste

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OW Office of Water

P2 Pollution Prevention

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PMN Premanufacture Notice

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PSM Process Safety Management

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SEP Supplemental Environmental Project 

SERC State Emergency Response Commission 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

SIP State Implementation Plan

SOx Sulfur Oxides

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure

SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

TOD Transit-Oriented Development

TRI Toxic Release Inventory

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

UIC Underground Injection Control (SDWA)

UST Underground Storage Tank (RCRA)

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

VOE Variance or Exemption

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 1-1 Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 SUMMARY OF THE SECTOR NOTEBOOK PROJECT

Environmental policies based upon comprehensive analysis of air, water and land pollution (such

as economic sector, and community-based approaches) are becoming an important supplement to

traditional single-media approaches to environmental protection. Environmental regulatory

agencies are beginning to embrace comprehensive, multi-statute solutions to facility permitting,

compliance assurance, education/outreach, research, and regulatory development issues. The

central concepts driving the new policy direction are that pollutant releases to each

environmental medium (air, water and land) affect each other, and that environmental strategies

must actively identify and address these interrelationships by designing policies for the "whole"

facility. One way to achieve a whole facility focus is to design environmental policies for similar

industrial facilities. By doing so, environmental concerns that are common to the manufacturing

of similar products can be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Recognition of the need to

develop the industrial ?sector-based” approach within the EPA Office of Compliance led to the

creation of this document. 

The Sector Notebook Project was initiated by the Office of Compliance within the Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) to provide its staff and managers with

summary information for eighteen specific industrial sectors. As other EPA offices, states, the

regulated community, environmental groups, and the public became interested in this project, the

scope of the original project was expanded. The ability to design comprehensive, common sense

environmental protection measures for specific industries is dependent on knowledge of several

interrelated topics. For the purposes of this project, the key elements chosen for inclusion are:

general industry information (economic and geographic); a description of industrial processes;

pollution outputs; pollution prevention opportunities; Federal statutory and regulatory

framework; compliance history; and a description of partnerships that have been formed between

regulatory agencies, the regulated community and the public. 

For any given industry, each topic listed above could alone be the subject of a lengthy volume. 

However, in order to produce a manageable document, this project focuses on providing

summary information for each topic. This format provides the reader with a synopsis of each

issue, and references where more in-depth information is available. Text within each profile was

researched from a variety of sources, and was usually condensed from more detailed sources

pertaining to specific topics. This approach allows for a wide coverage of activities that can be

further explored based upon the references listed at the end of this profile. As a check on the
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 1-2 Introduction

information included, each notebook went through an external document review process. The

Office of Compliance appreciates the efforts of all those that participated in this process and

enabled us to develop more complete, accurate and up-to-date summaries. Many of those who

reviewed this notebook are listed in Chapter 7 and may be sources of additional information. 

The individuals and groups on this list do not necessarily concur with all statements within this

notebook.

1.2 PROVIDING COMMENTS

OECA’s Office of Compliance plans to periodically review and update the notebooks and will

make these updates available both in hard copy and electronically. If you have any comments on

the existing notebook, or if you would like to provide additional information, please send a hard

copy and computer disk to the EPA Office of Compliance, Sector Notebook Project (2223-A),

401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments can also be sent via the web page or to

notebook@epamail.epa.gov.

1.3 ADAPTING NOTEBOOKS TO PARTICULAR NEEDS

The scope of the sector described in this notebook approximates the national occurrence of

entities within the sector. In many instances, entities within specific geographic regions or states

may have unique characteristics that are not fully captured in these profiles. The Office of

Compliance encourages state and local environmental agencies and other groups to supplement

or re-package the information included in this notebook to include more specific information that

may be available. Additionally, interested states may want to supplement the "Summary of

Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations" chapter with state and local requirements. 

Compliance or technical assistance providers may also want to develop the "Pollution

Prevention" sections in more detail. Please contact the appropriate specialist listed on the

opening page of this notebook if your office is interested in assisting us in the further

development of the information or policies addressed within this volume. If you are interested in

assisting in the development of new notebooks, please contact the Office of Compliance at 202-

564-2395.

1.4 WHY WERE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS INCLUDED IN THE SECTOR NOTEBOOK PROJECT?

To date, the sector notebook project has focused exclusively on specific sectors of private

industry, such as iron and steel, printing, and pulp and paper. However, the project is now

expanding its scope to include government-managed and operated sectors. This
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 1-3 Introduction

It is at the local, community, and neighborhood

level that environmental problems often originate

and must be resolved. Engaging local leaders

and communities in the effort to meet future

environmental challenges is critical to achieving

successful outcomes. EPA realizes that local

governments must be empowered to fully realize

their stewardship responsibilities, and we are

working to ensure that local governments have

access to the information, expertise, and

resources necessary to build comprehensive,

long-term environmental solutions at the local

level.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Strategic Plan

notebook–Profile of Local Government

Operations–represents the first notebook to

be included in the new Government Series. 

Over the past few years, EPA has been

working closely with local governments to

address their impacts on the environment, as

well as to understand their operations and

ability to achieve environmental compliance. 

As a result of this working relationship, EPA

has developed and implemented many

policies and programs that focus specifically

on local governments, especially small local governments. These policies and programs are

designed to encourage compliance by offering both assistance and incentives to local

governments.

The purpose of this document is to provide EPA personnel with the additional information

needed to effectively work with and, as necessary, regulate the local government sector. Equally

important, however, the document is designed to assist local governments in achieving

environmental compliance. The intent of this document is to give the reader a better

understanding of the different types of local governments, the operations those governments

provide that have the potential to significantly affect the environment, the potential

environmental impacts of those operations, the regulatory requirements with which local

governments must comply, and potential pollution prevention opportunities.

The cumulative environmental aspects and impacts that could result from activities managed or

operated by local governments (e.g., wastewater treatment, solid waste management), combined

with the large number of local governments in the United States, enhances the need for this type

of tool.

Like other EPA sector notebooks, this document presents overview information and data on all

aspects of local governments. In addition to this introductory chapter, the document comprises

six chapters:

C Chapter 2 presents an overview of local governments, including the types, numbers, and

sizes of local governments in the United States.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 1-4 Introduction

C Chapter 3 identifies the major operations conducted by local governments and presents

pollution prevention opportunities for each.

C Chapter 4 provides an overview of the federal statutes and regulations that may affect

local governments.

C Chapter 5 presents compliance and enforcement data on local governments.

C Chapter 6 examines major legal actions that have been taken against local governments.

C Chapter 7 provides information on voluntary programs designed for and available to

local governments. It also identifies associations and organizations that may be relevant

to local governments.

Chapter 3, which is the heart of this profile, focuses on eight specific areas of operation that local

governments are commonly responsible for conducting:

C Construction/property management

C Pesticide/vector management

C Public safety

C Solid waste management

C Wastewater management

C Water resources management

C Water supply

C Vehicle/equipment maintenance.

Although this list may not include all operations conducted by local governments, it is

representative of the operations that present the most significant environmental aspects and

impacts. This document intentionally omits other operations with significant environmental

aspects and impacts, such as power generation and transportation, because they are the subjects

of other EPA sector notebooks. (Page ii of this profile provides more information on the power

generation and transportation sector notebooks.)

It should be noted that while federal and state agencies regulate local government operations,

local governments also play the role of the regulator in many environmental programs. Several

programs may be developed at the federal and state levels, but are delegated to local governments

to implement and regulate. Chapter 3 also discusses this aspect of local governments.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

1 Municipalities include those governments designated as cities, boroughs (except in Alaska), towns (except in

some New England states, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin), and villages. Townships include those

governments designated as towns in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York,

Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, as well as townships in other states.

January 1999 2-1 Overview of Local Governments

For the purposes of this document...

The term local government means all of the

government units described in the opening

paragraph of this chapter (i.e., county,

subcounty, special district, and school

district). The term subcounty refers to

municipalities and towns/townships

combined.

2. OVERVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

There are three distinct layers of government within the United States— the federal government,

state governments, and local governments. Local governments are distinguished from the federal

and state governments in that their authority is defined in state constitutions and by state law. 

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, there are four distinct types of local governments:

C County Governments— Established to provide general government, often as a direct

extension of the state government. Counties cover all of the land area in the U.S. 

(County governments are legally designated as "boroughs" in Alaska and "parishes" in

Louisiana.)

C Subcounty Governments— Include both municipal and township governments.1

Subcounties are established to provide for direct rule in a local area. Subcounties

provide general government for a defined area that is generally smaller than a county.

C Special Districts— Authorized by state law to provide only one, or a limited number of,

designated functions. These districts have sufficient administrative and fiscal autonomy

to be recognized as separate governments. They are generally referred to as districts,

authorities, boards, or commissions.

C School Districts— Provide public elementary, secondary, and/or higher education. 

These districts, like special districts, have sufficient autonomy to qualify as separate

governments.

As shown in Exhibit 2-1, the United States had

nearly 85,000 local governments in 1992. 

Subcounties represented the largest percentage of

local governments (42 percent), while counties

accounted for the smallest percentage (4 percent). 

The disbursement of local governments across the

50 states varies considerably, from 125 in Rhode

Island to 6,722 in Illinois. This variance is
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 2-2 Overview of Local Governments

primarily attributable to the legal structure established in each state for the formation of local

governments. Other characteristics of the state, such as population and geographic size, may also

affect the numbers. Exhibit 2-2 provides the number of local governments in each state. 

Exhibit 2-1. Number of Local Governments by Type, 1992

Type of Local Government Number

County governments 3,043

Subcounty governments

 -19,279 Municipalities (53.6%)

 -15,656 Townships (46.4%)

35,935

School districts 14,422

Special districts 31,555

Total 84,955

Source: 1992 Census of Governments. Government Organization, Volume 1, Number 1, Table

3.

Although these are four discrete types of local government, it is important to note that

subcounties, special districts, and school districts can be located within a county, yet still

maintain their autonomy for specified functions. For example, a subcounty, school district and

special district could all be located within one county. The Census Bureau would count this

situation as four local governments. In 1992, each county in the United States had an average of

27 local governments. Appendix A provides more detailed information on the number and types

of local governments in the United States.

The remainder of this chapter discusses the provision of services, organizational structures, and

financial conduct of local governments, as well as the importance of public participation to local

government.

2.1 APPROACHES FOR PROVIDING SERVICES

As mentioned in Chapter 1, local governments provide a wide assortment of services to their

populations. These services are as diverse as the local governments providing them. The 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 2-3 Overview of Local Governments Washington 1760Alaska 174 Hawaii 160 Oregon 1450 Montana 1275 Idaho 1086 California 4392 Nevada 207

Utah

626

Arizona

590

New Mexico

341

Colorado

1760

Wyoming

549

North Dakota

2764

South Dakota

1785

Nebraska

2923

Minnesota

3579

Io

wa

1880

Kansas

3891

Texas

4791

Oklahoma

1794

Louisiana

458

Arkansas

1446

Missouri

3309

Florida

1013

Miss.

869

Alabama

1121

Georgia

1297

Tennessee

923 South

Carolina

697

North Carolina

937

Kentucky

1320

Illinois

6722

Indiana

2898

Ohio3523

Virginia

454

W. Va.

691

D.C. - 2Maryland - 401Delaware - 275New Jersey - 345

Connecticut - 1512

Rhode Island - 125

Massachusetts - 843

New Hampshire - 527

Pennsylvania

5158

Michigan

2721

New York

3298

Maine

796 Vermont - 3298

Wisconsin

 2738

Exhibit 2-2. Number of Local Governments in Each State, 1992
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 2-4 Overview of Local Governments

mechanisms through which local governments provide the services are also diverse. A local

government usually provides services through two distinct mechanisms: 

C Through its own employees

C Through a contract.

A county, for example, may hire and retain its own personnel and equipment (e.g., dumpsters,

trucks) to collect solid waste within its boundaries. In contrast, a county may negotiate a contract

with a private waste management company to collect solid waste. Through either of these

mechanisms, the local government is providing the service. It should be noted, too, that even

though a local government may not actually conduct the operation (e.g., collect solid waste) and

contracts it to a private company, the local government is still ultimately responsible for the

environmental performance of that operation and contractor. For this reason, local governments

should be aware of the environmental requirements of all operations whether they actually

conduct them or not. 

In addition to the two methods of providing service discussed above, a local government may

allow private companies to compete for the business rather than provide the service itself. For

example, a county may decide to allow several private waste management companies to compete

for business from commercial and residential customers. In this type of scenario, the local

government is not responsible for the environmental performance of the private waste

management companies.

In situations where the local government does not, or cannot, provide services, another option is

to establish a special district. Special districts are local government units that perform one or

more specific services that are not being supplied by other government units. Special districts are

known by a variety of titles, including districts, authorities, boards, and commissions. A majority

of special districts are established to perform a single function, but some have been given

authority to provide several, usually related large-scale services, such as water supply,

wastewater treatment, or solid waste management. They may exist within the boundaries of a

single city, across city and county boundaries, or across state lines.

Examples of special districts include the Tennessee Valley Authority, which provides water,

electricity, and flood control services in the southeast; the Port Authority of New York/New

Jersey, which provides transportation services in New York and New Jersey; and the Sanitary

District of Decatur, which manages the sanitary sewer system in parts of several local

governments in Illinois. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 2-5 Overview of Local Governments

Special districts are the fastest growing local government unit in the United States for various

reasons. Special districts can often provide a service more efficiently, because their boundaries

can be tailored to provide services where they are specifically required. In addition, special

districts are independent financial entities and are able to levy user fees or special assessments,

rather than rely on taxes or municipal bonds to fund their services.

2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Most local governments have some basic organizational structures, however, the variations in

these structures are as numerous as the local governments themselves. For counties, the principal

governing body is usually a county board, which may also be referred to as a board of county

commissioners or county commission. The county board often appoints a county administrator

or manager whose responsibilities may include appointing county officials, supervising all

county offices and departments, and executing regulations. At the subcounty level, various

government structures are possible, the most common of which are listed below:

C Commission

C Council-mayor

C Council-manager.

In each of these forms of government, the commissions/councils and mayors/managers have

clearly defined roles and responsibilities, ranging from passing local ordinances to overseeing

specific departments to developing and approving budgets. Special districts, like both counties

and subcounties, can be organized in a variety of ways, depending on the type of special district

and the types of services they provide.

Appendix A presents more information on the organization of local governments and typical

organizational structures.

2.3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW

From a financial standpoint, a local government operates like any business, organization, or

household. It has cash inflow and outflow, savings accounts, investments, and debt. It also has a

defined system for managing its finances and controlling its assets, liabilities, and capital. 

Appendix A examines these financial components of local governments. Specifically, the

appendix provides information on a local government’s budget process, revenue generation,

expenditures, cash and security holdings, and debt and debt transactions.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 2-6 Overview of Local Governments

2.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public participation is a critical component in a local government’s efforts to comply with

environmental regulations because it adds a layer of accountability to the performance of the

local government. Public participation ensures that citizens are informed of environmental issues

affecting them and involved in decision-making processes from the outset, which helps avoid

conflicts, misunderstandings, and any consequent potential delays in operations. Public

participation involves various activities that can be divided into two basic categories: 1) public

outreach and education and 2) public involvement. Public outreach and education tools are

designed to increase the public’s awareness, in this case, of environmental issues pertaining to

local government operations. Public involvement tools are designed not only to inform the

public, but also to encourage activism and involve the public in decision-making processes. 

Public involvement also is important in fostering good relationships and open communication

among citizens, operators of local government facilities, local governments, and other

stakeholders. Appendix B describes the tools in each of these categories.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-1 Local Government Operations

3. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Local governments, regardless of size, location, or demographic factors, are responsible for

providing a variety of services (i.e., operations) to their populations. This chapter identifies and

examines some of the services and the specific day-to-day activities that occur within each. The

purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the operations and activities, present the

environmental aspects and impacts of the operations/activities, and identify the environmental

requirements to which these operations/activities may be subject. Chapter 4 and Appendix D

present additional information on the specific environmental requirements.

It should be noted that the following sections are not exhaustive discussions of every aspect of

the specific operations. Instead, the sections attempt to highlight the activities with the greatest

potential to impact the environment. Other related activities, while not directly discussed in this

chapter, are identified in the regulatory matrix that is included as Appendix D to this profile.

A significant aspect of all of the operations presented in this chapter is pollution prevention. Not

only does pollution prevention result in less waste that must undergo treatment and disposal, it

also plays an important role in helping local governments achieve compliance. For these reasons,

this chapter begins with an overview of pollution prevention and its relationship with

compliance. This chapter also includes a section on purchasing and its relationship with

pollution prevention and compliance. In addition, each section on a specific operation discusses

pollution prevention practices and presents a case study.

3.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE

Pollution prevention, also known as source reduction, is any practice that eliminates or reduces

pollution at its source. Pollution prevention is achieved through material substitutions, process

changes, and the more efficient use of natural resources (e.g., raw materials, energy, water, and

other resources). Through pollution prevention, the use and production of hazardous substances

can be minimized, thereby protecting human health, strengthening economic well-being, and

preserving the environment.

Pollution knows no boundaries. Pollution originating in the air, on the land, in the water, and

even on the other side of the world can eventually impact every living thing. Pollution prevention

can be applied across these environmental media (i.e., air, water, and land) and addresses both

point source and nonpoint source pollution. Point source pollution includes industrial and
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-2 Local Government Operations

manufacturing wastes; nonpoint source pollution originates from automobiles, construction,

agricultural runoff, and so forth. 

3.1.1 Benefits of Pollution Prevention

Pollution prevention practices are one of the best ways for localities to meet compliance

standards. Information on the waste streams and pollution prevention tips and strategies are

included with each local government operation in this chapter. 

These strategies can:

C Lead local organizations to meet compliance standards

C Improve practices and procedures to ensure continued compliance

C Move local organizations beyond these environmental compliance thresholds. 

Many of the pollution prevention tips contained in this profile are cost effective procedures that

not only save precious environmental resources but also money. 

Pollution prevention measures often:

C Inherently save money in production and material costs

C Many times lead to increased regulatory compliance and exemption from penalty fees

C Lead to reduction in disposal costs

C Reduce risk of employee exposure to hazardous waste by creating safer working

conditions.

3.1.2 Implementation of Pollution Prevention at the Local Government Level

Local governments across the United States have integrated pollution prevention into their

different agencies using many methods. Currently, pollution prevention practices are used at the

local level in the following areas: wastewater pretreatment and septic tank programs; watershed

and groundwater protection programs; educational activities targeted at residents; technical

assistance and compliance assistance to local businesses and industries; partnership activities

between government agencies; and in-house practices of municipal and county facilities. 

Appendix C contains four examples of successful pollution prevention programs implemented at

the local level.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-3 Local Government Operations

3.1.2.1 Purchasing and Procurement Opportunities

Local governments can incorporate environmental and health factors into purchasing decisions. 

Through revised purchasing procedures, local governments and other organizations can avoid

potentially harmful chemicals, reduce the risk of accidental injuries, and move toward

compliance. More information on purchasing and procurement procedures is located in the next

section of the profile.

3.1.2.2 Other Pollution Prevention Practices to Move Beyond Compliance

Aside from practicing pollution prevention to achieve compliance, local government

organizations can use pollution prevention to improve workplace productivity and efficiency. 

Many pollution prevention practices in the office save time, energy, natural resources and money. 

There are many ways agencies can practice energy efficiency and reduce air emissions and

energy consumption while saving money. The following list presents selected tips that address

general office practices:

C Purchase Energy Efficient Products and Equipment. By looking for the Energy

Star® label on appliances, computers, printers, copiers, light fixtures, and heating and

cooling equipment you can reduce your energy bill by 30 percent and your electric

lighting charges by 50 percent while cutting pollution.

C Turn Unused Appliances and Equipment Off. Turn off equipment (e.g., computers,

printers, copiers) and lights at night and on weekends, and unplug appliances when they

are not in use.

C Use Natural Lighting or, When Not Practical, Fluorescent Lighting. Design

buildings and offices to maximize natural lighting, thereby decreasing energy usage. If

lighting is needed, consider using fluorescent lighting. By replacing lamps and light

fixtures with energy conserving fluorescent bulbs, you will save 75 percent of the

energy used with incandescent bulbs. If you currently have fluorescent lighting,

consider using a more efficient type that has an electronic ballast that burns cooler. 

Caution: Remember to properly dispose of fluorescent bulbs.

C Reduce Paper Usage and Increase Electronic Mail. By double siding copies, reusing

single-sided paper (e.g., for receiving faxes, taking notes), using electronic mail, and
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-4 Local Government Operations

circulating documents with routing slips, an organization can save a significant amount

of energy and natural resources. One ton of waste paper saves enough energy to power

an average home for 6 months.

C Reduce Usage of Packaging and Shipping Materials. By using boxes and envelopes

suited to the size of your mailings, you can reduce large quantities of materials - both in

the packaging itself as well as the packing materials. When packaging is necessary,

reuse old newspaper or purchase packaging materials that do not contain polystyrene or

other plastics.

Resources

“Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties: A Compendium of Case Studies,” NPPR, 

NACo, NACCHO and U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1995. 

U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse, 401 M Street, SW (7409), 

Washington, DC 20460 (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2home)

Enviro$en$e, U.S. EPA Operations Research Development Division, 401 M Street, SW (MC8722R), Washington, DC 20460 (http://www.epa.gov/envirosense)

National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, 2000 P Street NW, Suite 708, Washington, DC 20036

(http://www.p2.org)

National Association of Counties, 440 First Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 

(http://www.naco.org)

National Association of City and County Health Departments, 440 First Street NW, Suite 450, 

Washington, DC 20001

U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1620 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 

(http://www.usmayors.org/uscm)

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 801, 

Washington, DC 20036 (http://aceee.org)
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-5 Local Government Operations

3.2 PURCHASING PRACTICES THAT ENCOURAGE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND

POLLUTION PREVENTION

Local governments use numerous products to perform public services. Product manufacturing

(including raw material extraction), transportation, use, and disposal can generate byproducts that

stress local and global environmental resources, as well as pose health threats to product users

and the public. By incorporating environmental and health criteria into purchasing

specifications, local governments can avoid the use of potentially harmful chemicals, reduce the

risk of accidents and toxic releases, and more easily achieve regulatory compliance. Localities

are also discovering they can save money by reducing the amount of hazardous materials they

handle and by purchasing energy efficient equipment.

Presidential Executive Order 13101 (which strengthens Executive Order 12873) “Greening the

Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition,” has directed

federal agencies to increase their demand for recycled content products and other

environmentally preferable products and services. Many local and state governments have

voluntarily adopted policies that support the Executive Order and have increased their

procurement of recycled products and products that are less hazardous, non-toxic, energy

efficient, and that generate less waste.

3.2.1 Typical Products Purchased by Local Governments and Environmentally

Preferable Product Alternatives

The composition of wastes and the types of emissions generated by local governments is directly

affected by the products they purchase. Choosing environmentally-preferable alternatives to

products that are considered hazardous, or that contribute to wastes covered under environmental

regulations, is a preventative strategy available to any agency involved in product requisition. 

Please refer to the accompanying local government operations in this profile for specific wastes

generated and pollution prevention opportunities. 

Exhibit 3-1 presents products that may be purchased by local governments and includes

environmentally preferred alternatives to consider. This does not constitute an endorsement of

any particular products. All products should be researched and tested.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-6 Local Government Operations

Exhibit 3-1. Typical Products Purchased by Local Governments and EnvironmentallyPreferred Alternatives

Department/Operation Products Purchased Environmentally-Preferred

Alternatives

Construction/Property

Management

Construction Site Fill/Base

Material (stone, dirt, etc.)

Fill/Base Containing Recycled

Materials (recycled concrete, glass,

or asphalt)

Structural Building Materials Recycled Content Building Materials 

Electrical Equipment Energy-Efficient Equipment and

Building Design (low-mercury

fluorescent lights; energy efficient

HVAC)

Adhesives Vegetable-Based Adhesives 

Petroleum-Based Solvents and

Cleaners

Vegetable/Citrus-Based Solvents

Petroleum-Based Paints Water-Based Low VOC Paints

Vector/Pest Management Chemical Pesticides and

Herbicides

Integrated Pest Management

(mechanical, physical, and biological

pest control techniques; leasthazardous chemical options)

Public Safety Fire Response and Suppression Ozone-Safe Fire Extinguishers

Mercury Batteries Mercury-Free and Rechargeable

Batteries

Mercury Thermometers Mercury-Free Thermometers

Lead Bullets Ceramic Bullets (for firing range use

only)

Solid Waste

Management

Vehicle Fuel (gasoline, diesel

fuel)

Alternative Fuels (natural gas,

propane, solar generated electricity)

Recycling Bins and Residential

Trash Cans

Recycled Content Recycling Bins and

Trash Cans
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Department/Operation Products Purchased Environmentally-Preferred

Alternatives

January 1999 3-7 Local Government Operations

Wastewater

Management

Chlorine, Hypochlorite Ultraviolet Osmosis

Petroleum-Based Lubricants Vegetable-Based Lubricants

Petroleum-Based Solvents Vegetable/Citrus-Based Solvents;

Aqueous-Based Parts Washers

Vehicle/Equipment

Maintenance

Petroleum-Based and

Chlorinated Solvents (parts

washers, brake cleaners)

Aqueous-Based Cleaners; Microbial

Agents; Vegetable/Citrus-Based

Solvents; Aerosol-free Cleaners

Automotive Fluids Recycled Automotive Fluids (rerefined motor oil and recycled

propylene glycol antifreeze)

Tires Retread Tires; Tires with Maximum

Durability

Printing Petroleum-Based Inks Soy/Vegetable-Based Inks; WaterWashable Ink Systems

Perchloroethylene; Petroleum

Distillates (blanket washes)

Vegetable Ester Solvents; TerpeneBased Solvents

Administrative Activities Electronic Office Equipment Energy-Efficient Office Equipment 

Office Furniture Refurbished Furniture

Paper Supplies; Paper Use Post-Consumer Recycled Content,

Chlorine-Free Paper; Double-Sided

Copying; Reuse of Scrap Paper

Toner Cartridges Remanufactured Toner Cartridges

3.2.2 Top Pollution Prevention Opportunities

The following list highlights selected strategies for preventing pollution through purchasing

practices: 

• Pass a purchasing policy that promotes the integration of environmental and health

criteria in all product specifications.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-8 Local Government Operations

• Form an interdepartmental committee to investigate environmental purchasing

opportunities. 

• Educate the entire staff about health effects associated with chemicals commonly

contained in the products they use, or are exposed to, and provide information on

alternatives. Prompt users to choose environmentally preferable products.

• Involve product end-users throughout the decision-making process, request that vendors

perform product demonstrations for staff, and compare products.

• Choose one department/operation at a time to incorporate environmentally preferable

products. Review final product specifications with product user or operation supervisor

to ensure that their needs are satisfied.

• Review all purchases and product Material Safety Data Sheets for potential

environmental and health impacts associated with products being purchased. 

• Avoid purchasing products that are potentially harmful to the user, public, or environment

(e.g., contain known or suspected carcinogens and other toxic ingredients).

• Prevent the generation of hazardous wastes in operations by eliminating products that

contain hazardous ingredients. 

• Participate in cooperative purchasing ventures with other jurisdictions, your state, and

vendors to increase availability of environmentally preferable products and reduce

internal costs associated with the formal bid process.

• When researching environmental purchasing, utilize resources and expertise available

from vendors, manufacturers, government agencies, non-profit and other organizations.

• Consider environmental and health impacts associated with a product's life cycle prior to

drafting bid specifications (“product life cycle” includes raw material extraction or

development, product manufacturing, transportation to market, product use, and

disposal).

• Implement waste reduction activities (e.g., implement lease agreements that require

vendors to take responsibility for products as they become obsolete; require prospective
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-9 Local Government Operations

bidders to avoid excess paper and packaging in their bid and proposal submittals such as

avoiding plastic covers and dividers, using both sides of paper, and using post-consumer

recycled content paper; specify copiers and printers with double-sided printing

capabilities; etc.) 

• Begin an energy conservation program and invest in energy-efficient equipment and

building design (specify EPA "Energy Star" certified equipment and require equipment

installers to activate efficiency features upon product installation). 

Appendix C presents information on a local government that significantly reduced pollution by

implementing carefully chosen purchasing operations.

Resources

National Association of Counties (NACo) Environmental Purchasing Project, 440 First Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20001; phone: (202) 393-6226,

(www.naco.org/programs/environ/purchase.cfm).

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Listserve (EPPNET). Established and maintained by the

Northeast Recycling Council (802) 254-3636. To subscribe to EPPNET, send an e-mail

message to (lyris@aladdin.webrover.com) with SUBSCRIBE EPPNET <FIRST NAME>

<LAST NAME> on the subject line or in the body of the message.

U.S. EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program, U.S. EPA (7409), 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460 (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp).

U.S. EPA and DOE Energy Star Program, U.S. EPA (6202J), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20460 (888) 782-7937, (http://www.epa.gov/appdstar/buildings.html).

Office Green Buying Guide and Choose Green Reports: Green Seal, 1400 16th Street, NW,

Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036-2215; phone: (202) 588-8400, (www.greenseal.org).

Scientific Certification Systems, 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 400, Oakland, CA, 94612; phone: 

(510) 832-1415, (www.scs1.com/).
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-10 Local Government Operations

Toxic Turnaround - A Guide to Reducing Pollution for Local Governments, Environmental

Health Coalition, 1717 Kettner Blvd., Suite 100, San Diego, CA; phone: (619) 235-0281,

(www.environmentalhealth.org).

Sustainable Building Technical Manual - Green Building Design, Construction, and Operations,

Public Technology, Inc. (PTI), the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), U.S. DOE, and

U.S. EPA; printed copies available for purchase from PTI at (301) 490-2188, and from

USGBC at USGBC-SF, 90 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1001, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Environmental Purchasing Model Resolutions from Local Governments, National Association of

Counties, 440 First Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20001; phone: (202) 393-6226,

(www.naco.org/programs/environ/purchase.cfm).

"Pollution Prevention Questionnaire for Municipal Departments" and "Procurement 

Recommendations Applicable to Multiple City Departments and Agencies," Environmental

Defense Fund, 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1016, Washington, DC 20009; phone 

(202) 387-3500; contact Lois Epstein (Lois_Epstein@edf.org).

3.3 CONSTRUCTION/PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT

As shown in Exhibit 3-2, local governments

may be responsible for constructing and

maintaining roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings,

treatment plants, and landfills, as well as for

renovating and demolishing buildings. 

Construction and maintenance activities, which

typically involve planning, coordination, and

oversight by the local government, are essential to the infrastructure for transportation,

administration, public services (e.g., wastewater treatment), and, in some cases, housing. 

3.3.1 General Activities

Several administrative activities can affect the severity of environmental impacts, as well as

relevant regulatory burdens on the construction and maintenance of local government facilities. 

The following list presents some of these activities:
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-11 Local Government Operations

CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

Roads, Bridges,

and Tunnels

Traffic

Management

Maintenance

and Renovation

New

Construction

Buildings

New

Construction

Maintenance

and Repair

Renovation

and Demolition

Exhibit 3-2. Construction and Maintenance

C Zoning. Zoning decisions that allow an increase in the total impervious area of the local

government’s jurisdiction lead to increased storm water runoff, often causing increased

erosion, degraded water quality, and the need for the local government to install new

controls or best management practices (BMPs) to comply with its National Pollutant

Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit. By considering the

impacts prior to making the zoning decisions, the local government can either prepare for

the impact of those decisions (e.g., concurrently construct storm water catch basins while

allowing construction of a new commercial parking lot) or decide that the cost of the

zoning decision is greater than the benefit.

C Coordination. Many agencies within the local government are often required to directly

coordinate their efforts in order to comply with existing permits. BMPs included as part

of a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) NPDES permit condition for a combined

sewer system often require street sweeping on a regular basis. The POTW may be

ultimately responsible for permit compliance, but the local government street

maintenance department may be needed to ensure that the permit conditions are met (e.g.,

the streets get swept every 2 weeks). 

• Planning and Design. Whenever a local government is planning and designing a

construction project, a local government should apply the concept of an environmental
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-12 Local Government Operations

management system. That is, the local government should evaluate the environmental

aspects and impacts of the project and establish procedures to minimize the impacts.

• Monitoring Contractors. In many cases, local governments hire contractors to assist or

manage local government operations, such as monitoring or well sampling, solid waste

disposal, or vehicle maintenance. Local governments must develop reporting or

monitoring methods, therefore, to ensure that contractor operations comply with all

regulations that apply to the local government.

3.3.2 Roads/Bridges/Tunnels

Local government activities related to roads, bridges, and tunnels include new construction,

maintenance of existing infrastructure, and traffic management. Because these activities could

affect the environment, they may be subject to environmental laws and regulations, as indicated

in the following list. 

C New construction— Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Rivers and

Harbors Act, Clean Air Act (CAA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

C Maintenance and renovation— RCRA, CAA, and CWA

C Traffic maintenance— CAA

3.3.2.1 New Construction

Construction of new roads, bridges, or tunnels generally involves clearing land, constructing the

new structure, and disposing of construction waste. 

Clearing Land for Construction. Clearing land involves the removal of vegetation and existing

structures to prepare a site for construction. Clearing land can impact the environment by:

C Reducing the structural safety of land (e.g., making it more susceptible to erosion,

landslides, or floods)

C Harming aquatic resources (particularly wetlands) and endangered species 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-13 Local Government Operations

Endangered species are plants and

animals that, without special protection and

management, are in danger of becoming

extinct. Threatened species are likely to

become endangered in the foreseeable

future.

C Increasing soil erosion and sedimentation caused by the removal of vegetation

C Increasing the flow to storm sewer systems leading to increased potential for downstream

flooding and increased stream bank erosion in receiving waters.

Additional impacts of construction include dust/odors from construction traffic, air emissions,

noise, and vibration from construction equipment. 

New construction may directly affect wetlands through the placement of fill for grading purposes. 

Sediment from construction sites may also affect the hydrologic capacity of wetlands. Wetland

losses may increase downstream flooding and may impact a wide variety of aquatic and upland

species. If impacting aquatic areas, such as wetlands, and endangered species habitat, local

governments must obtain a special permit before beginning a construction project. The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates any dredging and general construction in, over, and

under navigable waters of the United States under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The

Corps also regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States,

which include wetlands. These wetland activities are regulated under Section 404 of the CWA

and may require a Section 404 permit. In addition, controlling construction site discharges

(particularly storm water runoff) is regulated under the storm water provisions of EPA’s NPDES

permitting program, as well as local erosion and sediment control programs. 

The ESA provides protection for federally listed

threatened and endangered species of plants,

animals, and their habitats. Local government

responsibilities under the ESA depend upon

whether the proposed activities occur with federal

government involvement. Federal government

involvement is triggered when a project seeks to cross public lands, receives public funds, or

requires a federal permit (e.g., Section 404 wetland permit). 

 

Any activities by local governments that involve new construction may be regulated under NEPA

(if they involve federal funds) or other state laws that require the preparation of an environmental

impact statement. Construction impacts on receiving waters may be regulated under the NPDES

storm water section of the CWA and may require the local government to obtain a permit and

implement certain controls. Air and noise impacts may be regulated under the CAA and state

and local ordinances. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-14 Local Government Operations

Construction Waste Disposal. Most of the

waste generated through construction activities

is nonhazardous solid waste. Typical wastes

generated at construction sites include

concrete, steel, wood, rubber, asphalt, soil, and

organic matter, such as stumps. 

The disposal of these wastes may be regulated

under a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Hazardous construction wastes are regulated

under the federal RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Many states and local governments have

regulations regarding the disposal of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris at special

construction waste landfills. Many states allow debris such as uncontaminated concrete and

asphalt to be used as fill material. 

3.3.2.2 Maintenance and Renovation

Maintenance and renovation of roads, bridges, or tunnels may include street sweeping,

maintenance of storm sewers, snow removal, and removal and disposal of lead-based paint.

Street sweeping involves using mechanical sweepers to remove dirt, grit, and solids from road

surfaces. Snow removal includes plowing streets and sanding and salting roads. Lead-based

paint may be removed and disposed of during bridge and tunnel maintenance. Maintenance and

renovation activities may impact the environment by removing materials that can enter storm

sewers (sweeping), adding materials that end up in storm sewers and are discharged to water

ways (salting, sanding, sandblasting), or emitting contaminated dust to the air (paint removal). 

Aspects of these activities may be regulated under the CWA, RCRA, and local solid waste

disposal requirements. 

Street Sweeping. Local governments may be required to sweep streets as a condition of their

NPDES storm water or combined sewer overflow (CSO) permit conditions. Street sweeping

reduces the concentration of pollutants in storm water runoff and improves street appearance.

Considered a BMP and an integral part of a storm water pollution control plan, street sweeping

also ensures the continued structural effectiveness of storm sewers.

Maintenance of Storm Sewers. Local governments may be required to maintain storm sewers as

part of their NPDES storm water or CSO permit. Maintenance of storm sewers may include

catch basin cleaning, litter removal from storm channels, and maintenance of storm water

detention facilities. Catch basin cleaning and litter removal from channels protect against street
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-15 Local Government Operations

flooding and remove potential pollutants from storm water. Publicly owned storm water

detention facilities and other pollutant removal structures, such as sand filters and oil and grit

separators, also require frequent maintenance. Disposal of materials generated during cleaning

may be regulated under local solid waste disposal requirements.

Snow Removal. To maintain road safety in the winter, local governments may apply salt and

abrasives (e.g., sand) and remove snow . Heavy applications of salts and abrasives may be

necessary at busy intersections and steep hills. These activities can negatively affect water

quality by increasing sedimentation and salinity in surrounding water bodies. If applied

frequently or improperly, salt may leach into the groundwater and contaminate drinking water

supplies.

To prevent such contamination, snow removal activities may be regulated under a local

government’s NPDES storm water permit. The permit may require or recommend that the local

government take steps to minimize the impact of snow removal activities. In addition, the permit

may require designation of sensitive areas (i.e., near public water supply facilities or high levels

of groundwater recharge) where pollution prevention practices must be followed. Some of these

practices include prohibiting dumping of heavily treated snow directly into water bodies or in or

around drinking water supplies or landfills, proper operation of salt storage facilities to reduce

potential salt-contaminated runoff, and use of alternative deicing materials.

Removal and Disposal of Lead-Based Paint. Lead-based paint is typically removed from

bridges by sandblasting or abrasive blasting prior to refurbishing and repainting. 

Sandblasting/abrasive blasting removes the existing paint off a bridge or tunnel with high

velocity sand or synthetic particles. This process could contaminate the air with lead dust and

soil and water during disposal or spills of lead-contaminated sand/abrasive and paint chips. 

Where possible, blasting takes place in areas with containment to prevent releases of leadcontaminated materials to the environment. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) regulations minimize worker exposure to lead dust, and RCRA regulates the disposal of

materials contaminated with lead-based paint. Prevention of lead dust releases may be regulated

by the CAA under the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

3.3.2.3 Traffic Management

Traffic management includes designing roads and bridges, access points, and traffic signals. 

Road designs, location of access points, and installation and scheduling of traffic signals affect

the environment by impacting motor vehicle emissions. Increased access points to major roads
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-16 Local Government Operations

generally lead to more traffic, while new traffic signals often lead to increased emissions from

engine idling. A local government’s traffic management plan must conform to the state’s SIP as

required under the CAA. In many areas, therefore, a local government’s traffic management

actions do not result in a net increase of air pollutants in the state. 

3.3.3 Buildings

Local government activities related to buildings include constructing new schools, public

housing, administrative facilities, and other government buildings; maintaining and repairing

those buildings; renovating old buildings; and demolishing unusable buildings. Because these

activities could affect the environment, they may be subject to environmental laws and

regulations, as indicated in the following list.

• New construction— CWA, ESA, Rivers and Harbors Act, CAA, and NEPA

• Maintenance and repair— CWA, RCRA, CAA, Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act (CERCLA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA), and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

• Renovation and demolition— RCRA, CAA, and TSCA

3.3.3.1 New Construction

As with the construction of roads, bridges, and tunnels, the construction of new buildings

involves clearing land, building the structure, and disposing of construction materials. The

impacts and regulations of these activities are similar to those discussed previously in Section

3.3.2.1 for roads, bridges, and tunnels.

Similar to new construction of roads, bridges, and tunnels, storm water runoff (which may

contain sediment and construction waste) from new building construction has the potential to

contaminate surface waters and must be controlled under the requirements of the NPDES storm

water program. As with other construction, most of the waste generated through building

construction activities is nonhazardous solid waste. The disposal of these wastes may be

regulated under a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Hazardous construction wastes are

regulated under the federal RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Many states and local

governments have regulations regarding the disposal of nonhazardous construction and
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-17 Local Government Operations

demolition debris at special construction waste landfills. Many states allow debris such as

uncontaminated concrete and asphalt to be used as fill material. 

3.3.3.2 Maintenance and Repair

Local governments are responsible for activities related to the maintenance and repair of

buildings, including operating boilers and cooling systems and applying pesticides. In addition,

indoor air quality is a concern, although local governments are not required to comply with any

regulations at present.

Indoor Air Quality–Radon. Over the past 40 to 50 years, exposure to indoor air pollutants has

increased in part because of construction of more tightly sealed buildings, reduced ventilation

rates to save energy, the use of synthetic building materials and furnishings, and the use of

chemically formulated personal care products, pesticides, and housekeeping supplies. In recent

years, comparative risk studies performed by EPA and its Science Advisory Board have

consistently ranked indoor air pollution among the top five environmental risks to public health. 

Radon is one particular indoor air pollutant of concern associated with this issue. Common

effects of indoor air quality problems on occupants include headache; fatigue; shortness of

breath; sinus congestion; coughing and sneezing; eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation; dizziness;

and nausea. 

Radon levels can vary from structure to structure. The average indoor radon level is estimated to

be about 1.3 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), and about 0.4 pCi/L of radon is normally detected in the

outside air. The U.S. Congress has set a long-term goal for indoor radon levels to be no more

than outdoor levels. While this goal is not yet technologically achievable in all cases, levels in

most structures today can be reduced to no more than 2 pCi/L. EPA recommends followup radon

testing or mitigation in buildings with levels of 4 or more pCi/L.

At this time, local governments are not required to enforce any standards for acceptable radon

levels in commercial or residential buildings, including schools. State and local governments

may pass legislation recommending radon mitigation to owners of buildings in which the radon

level is greater than 4pCi/L; however, this is not a required activity under the CAA or any other

major environmental law at present.

The federal government, as well as most state and local governments, do not have regulations or

established enforcement capabilities regarding indoor air quality in buildings, including schools.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-18 Local Government Operations

For some schools, assistance may be available from local or state departments of health or

environment. The federal or state OSHA office may also provide some help.

Boiler Operations. Local governments are often required to operate boilers to produce steam or

electricity to heat government buildings. Boiler operations include storing fuels and boiler

chemicals, operating the boiler, maintaining the boiler, and disposing of residuals from fuel

burning. Storing fuels and chemicals can affect the environment through spills that have the

potential to reach groundwater or surface waters. Operating boilers may impact the environment

through air emissions from fuel burning. Coal ash from fuel burning can contaminate waterways

if it contains heavy metals or other toxics and is not disposed of in a manner that prevents it from

coming in contact with water ways or rain water.

The storage of liquid boiler fuel (e.g., heating oil) may be regulated under the Spill Prevention,

Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) program of the CWA, which requires a facility to develop

spill prevention plans. The storage of chemicals may be regulated under EPCRA or Section

112(r) of the CAA (risk management plans), which requires the development of emergency plans

and reporting based on the quantity of chemicals stored. 

Disposal of residuals, such as coal ash, may be regulated under RCRA, depending on the metals

or other toxics contained in the ash. Air emissions from the boiler may be regulated under the

CAA, which requires the local government to obtain a permit and meet emissions standards

depending on the heat output of the boiler and date of boiler construction.

Emergency Release Notification (EPCRA Section 304).

A facility is required to notify the State Emergency

Response Commission (SERC) and Local Emergency

Planning Committee (LEPC) of a release equal to or

exceeding a predetermined amount of certain hazardous

chemicals. The chemicals covered by this requirement include EPCRA extremely hazardous

substances (EHSs), and hazardous substances identified in CERCLA. The emergency release

notification activates emergency plans and provides information to the LEPCs and SERCs, who

coordinate release response activity in order to prevent harmful effects to the public. 

Hazardous Chemical Inventory and Reporting (EPCRA Sections 311 and 312). Under

EPCRA, any facility that is required by the OSHA Hazardous Communication Standard (HCS) to

prepare or have available a material safety data sheet (MSDS) for a hazardous chemical is subject

Appendices A and B of 40 CFR Part

355 list the EPCRA EHSs and 40

CFR Part 302 lists CERCLA

hazardous substances.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-19 Local Government Operations

to EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 requirements if the chemical is present onsite at any one time in

excess of threshold levels. 

MSDS Reporting. Under Section 311 of EPCRA, a facility must submit a one-time

notification identifying the hazardous chemicals (including EPCRA EHSs and OSHA

hazardous chemicals) present at the facility in amounts equal to or in excess of threshold

quantities to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department (40 CFR 370.21). To meet the

notification requirement, a facility must submit either an MSDS (or copies of MSDSs), or a

list of the EPCRA EHSs and OSHA hazardous chemicals. After initial reporting, if a facility

determines that it has a hazardous chemical that is newly covered in amounts equal to or in

excess of the threshold level or there has been significant new information on an already

reported chemical, it must update the information reported under Section 311 within 3

months after discovery.

Tier Reporting. Under Section 312 of EPCRA, a facility must meet an annual reporting

requirement for OSHA hazardous chemicals and EPCRA EHSs in amounts equal to or in

excess of threshold levels. If equaling or exceeding the threshold levels at any time in the

preceding year, a facility must submit to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department an

“Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form.” This form must be submitted by

March 1 of each year. EPA publishes two types of inventory forms, Tier I and Tier II, for

reporting this information. While federal regulations require only the submission of a Tier I

form, EPA encourages, and some states require, the use of the Tier II form. 

LEPCs make this information available to the public, and fire departments and public health

officials use the information to plan for and respond to emergencies.

Cooling Systems. Local governments operate cooling systems to maintain temperature in

government buildings and to store food in government building cafeterias. Cooling systems

contain refrigerants, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) or ammonia. If released, CFCs have

the potential to harm the environment because they are ozone-depleting substances. The CAA

requires maintenance of cooling systems to be conducted by certified personnel who are using

certified equipment and following specified guidelines for reclaiming CFCs. The storage and use

of ammonia may require reporting under EPCRA or CAA Section 112(r).

Pesticide Application. Maintaining buildings includes applying pesticides to eliminate vectors

(e.g., insects, rodents) that spread disease, as well as plants and insects that can harm the

structural integrity of the building. Frequently used pesticides include herbicides, insecticides,
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-20 Local Government Operations

fungicides, and plant growth regulators. Pesticides are also used on building exteriors for

aesthetics. Improper indoor application of pesticides can harm human health, causing respiratory

and skin infections, and even death. Improper outdoor application can cause health problems in

humans, while also destroying flora and fauna and contaminating groundwater and surface water

supplies through infiltration and runoff. Section 3.4 of this profile describes pesticide

management activities. 

3.3.3.3 Renovation and Demolition

Renovation and demolition of buildings can impact the environment as materials trapped within

the building structure become exposed to the environment. The removal and disposal of asbestos

and the removal and disposal of lead paint can significantly affect both human health and the

environment.

Asbestos. Buildings owned by local governments may very well contain asbestos or asbestoscontaining materials (ACM). Used for insulation and as a fire retardant, asbestos and ACMs can

be found in a variety of building construction materials, including pipe and furnace insulation

materials, asbestos shingles, millboard, textured painted and other coating materials, and floor

tiles. When encapsulated, asbestos fibers do not impact human health or the environment. 

During renovation or demolition, however, asbestos fibers may be released. If inhaled or

ingested, these fibers can cause respiratory damage. Renovation and demolition activities are

regulated under the CAA, which requires local governments to contact EPA prior to renovation

or demolition, use only accredited trained personnel and appropriate equipment for asbestos

removal, and follow specified procedures for asbestos disposal.

Asbestos is recognized as the greatest environmental concern to schools. If a local government

owns or operates a school building constructed or insulated with asbestos, particularly if

renovations or demolitions occur that release fibers, then indoor air quality can be impaired and

people might suffer severe respiratory and other health problems. Local governments operating

schools could face enforcement actions pertaining to asbestos-related violations. 

In October 1986, Congress passed the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA),

which required EPA to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework within which local

governments would inspect, manage, plan, and conduct operations and maintenance (O&M)
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

1 U.S. EPA, EPA Study of Asbestos-Containing Materials in Public Buildings, A Report to Congress,

Washington, DC, February 1988, p. 1.

January 1999 3-21 Local Government Operations

activities and appropriate abatement responses to control ACM in schools. To this end, EPA

promulgated the asbestos-containing materials in schools rule in October 1987.1

Many states and local governments have since developed comprehensive asbestos management/

control programs and/or abatement contractor certification programs. In addition, EPA’s

National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for asbestos regulates

asbestos emissions during building demolition or renovation and the transport and disposal of

asbestos waste. Also, according to federal regulations, school building owners are supposed to

inspect school buildings for friable and nonfriable asbestos materials. Inspection activities

include reviewing building records, inspecting and sampling materials, and mapping the

locations of confirmed or suspected asbestos locations. 

Buildings built in the sixties are more likely to have asbestos-containing sprayed- or troweled-on

friable materials than other buildings. EPA banned the use of asbestos-containing materials in

the 1970s.

Lead-Based Paint. Lead-based paint is typically found on building interiors and exteriors of

buildings constructed prior to 1978. During renovation and demolition, paint removal has the

potential to impact human health and the environment as fibers, dust, and paint chips are

released. Paint chips and dust can cause indoor air contamination during renovation, and soil

contamination from demolition or improper disposal. Assessment of lead-based paint hazards

and removal of lead-based paint is regulated under TSCA. Disposal of any building materials

contaminated by lead-based paint is regulated under RCRA.

3.3.4 Outdoor Recreation Facilities 

(including stadiums and golf courses)

Local governments construct and maintain

outdoor recreation facilities, including

swimming pools, playing fields, and stadiums. 

Because these activities could affect the

environment, they may be subject to

environmental laws and regulations, as indicated in the following list.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-22 Local Government Operations

• New construction— CWA, RCRA, ESA, Rivers and Harbors Act, CAA, and NEPA

• Maintenance and renovation— CWA, RCRA, EPCRA, CERCLA, CAA, TSCA, and

FIFRA

3.3.4.1 New Construction

New construction of swimming pools, playing fields, golf courses, and stadiums has many of the

same impacts of constructing buildings, roads, bridges, and tunnels. New construction involves

clearing and grading land, landscaping, and building the structure. Section 3.3.2.1 describes

these impacts and the associated regulations. 

3.3.4.2 Facility Maintenance and Renovation

Facility maintenance and renovation are performed on playing fields and golf courses, stadium

buildings (including wastewater treatment plants), and swimming pools. 

Playing Field and Golf Course Maintenance. Playing field and golf course maintenance may

involve numerous activities, including mowing, irrigating (watering), fertilizing, resodding,

applying pesticides, spreading lime, and maintaining vehicles. Local governments may conduct

each of these activities to keep their playing fields in the desired condition for their designated

use. Mowing is typically done by gasoline powered mowers that can pollute the air with

particulates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and noise. While mowing activities are

generally exempt from EPA regulations, the mowers themselves are required to meet

specifications described in the mobile sources section of the CAA.

Activities such as irrigating, fertilizing, and applying pesticides may impact the environment

through irrigation or storm water runoff that may contaminate local waterways or cause soil

erosion. If playing field irrigation leads to a direct discharge (i.e., water is drained to a pipe that

leads to a surface water or a storm water system), the discharge may be regulated under the

NPDES program in the CWA. If the discharge drains to a municipal sewer system, the discharge

may be regulated under the pretreatment program in the CWA. Local governments that fertilize

their playing fields and golf courses with biosolids from a municipal wastewater treatment plant

must comply with the biosolids management section of the CWA. Pesticide application may be

regulated under FIFRA. Section 3.4 provides additional information on regulations concerning

the application of pesticides and fertilizers. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-23 Local Government Operations

Maintaining vehicles and equipment used for playing field and golf course maintenance may be

regulated under several environmental laws. Section 3.10 describes in detail these activities and

the applicable laws and regulations. Appendix D identifies numerous activities associated with

playing fields and golf courses that may have environmental aspects.

Maintaining Stadium Buildings. Maintenance of stadium buildings includes many of the

activities related to maintenance of other buildings that are described in this section. In addition

to operating boilers and cooling systems, maintenance of stadium buildings may include

operating a wastewater treatment plant during stadium events; operating a large electrical system

that includes capacitors and transformers; storing and using cleaning chemicals; sanding and

salting, as well as removing snow from stadium parking lots; and managing nonhazardous waste

streams, including food wastes. 

Large stadiums may have their own wastewater treatment plants to accommodate a relatively

large number of users during stadium events. Operation of a stadium wastewater treatment plant

has the potential to impact the environment in the same manner as a larger municipal wastewater

treatment plant, which is described in Section 3.7. Wastewater treatment plants may impact

surface waters through treatment plant discharges and contaminate the air through treatment plant

emissions, including odors. In addition, treatment plant chemicals can affect the air or

waterways if they are improperly stored or applied. Discharges from wastewater treatment plants

are regulated under the CWA, which may require an NPDES permit or compliance with local

pretreatment regulations. The storage of treatment plant chemicals may be regulated under

EPCRA, while disposal of spilled chemicals may be regulated under RCRA.

Stadiums that hold evening events often have extensive lighting and public address systems that

require capacitors and transformers to assure the necessary electrical current. Stadiums may also

have diesel fuel-fired generators for auxiliary power. Capacitors and transformers that contain

PCB oils are regulated under TSCA, which requires labeling of PCB-containing equipment. The

storage of oils, as well as spills of PCB oils and oils without PCBs, including diesel fuel, may be

regulated under the SPCC provisions of the CWA, depending on the total volume of oil stored at

the stadium.

Maintaining stadium parking lots may involve applying salt or sand to lots or removing snow. 

Each of these activities may be regulated under the CWA if the facility has an NPDES storm

water permit or under local ordinance if the facility does not have a permit. Stadiums use

chemicals for cleaning all aspects of the stadium, including restrooms, food service areas, and

seating areas. The storage and use of these chemicals may be regulated under the CAA, EPCRA
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-24 Local Government Operations

and CERCLA. Appendix D identifies numerous activities associated with maintaining stadiums

and other recreational facilities that may have environmental aspects.

Maintaining Swimming Pools. Many local governments operate outdoor recreation facilities

that include swimming pools. Swimming pool maintenance involves treating pool water through

filtration and the addition of chemicals. The use and storage of pool chemicals may be regulated

under EPCRA, and the disposal of unused or spilled pool chemicals may be regulated under

RCRA. Filtered materials are generally nonhazardous and may be disposed of according to state

and local nonhazardous solid waste regulations. Appendix D identifies numerous activities

associated with maintaining a swimming facility that may have environmental aspects.

3.3.5 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance

Local governments are responsible for maintaining all vehicles associated with construction and

property management activities according to the operations described in Section 3.10

3.3.6 Pollution Prevention in Construction and Maintenance

Local governments are responsible for construction and maintenance activities. Included in this

category are constructing and maintaining roads, bridges and tunnels, and building, maintaining,

renovating and demolishing structures. In some cases, these activities are conducted through

contractual arrangements. A simple building/construction cycle includes the following activities: 

C Pre-construction

C Construction

C Maintenance and repair.

3.3.6.1 Typical Wastes Generated

Pre-construction activities involve the preparation of a site for future development. During this

phase existing vegetation and structures may be removed, creating demolition waste including

asbestos, mercury, PCB, lead based paints, and dust. Other pre-construction impacts include

increased potential for storm water runoff and possible negative impacts on aquatic resources and

habitat. 

Construction activities may involve grading, drilling, and filling. These activities generally do

not generate substantial hazardous waste but may result in habitat loss through erosion,
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-25 Local Government Operations

sedimentation, and disruption of the natural environment. Building construction and

maintenance activities generate wastes from paints, thinners, grease, resins and sealers, glues,

cleaners, hydraulic oils, paint remover/stripper, soiled rags, and solder, as well as a host of solid

wastes including paper, plastic, scrap lumber, insulation, metals, gypsum, and roofing materials. 

Maintenance and repair activities involve the removal and replacement of worn or damaged

surfaces, structural members and lubricating or cooling fluids. This could result in the generation

of hazardous wastes such as lead based paint or asbestos, cleaning fluids, used lubricating oil,

and cooling system fluids. 

Pollution prevention begins long before the first nail is driven. Local governments can conduct a

baseline analysis of institutional issues that affect pollution prevention /green building

construction and maintenance policy implementation. Areas to examine include procurement

policies, zoning, building codes and standards, operations and maintenance policies, and

recycling policies. Throughout the construction and maintenance process, opportunities exist for

implementing pollution prevention. 

Construction and Demolition (C&D). A major opportunity in the construction and demolition

(C&D) industry is the expansion of the recovery and reuse of materials. Areas to examine include

the type of demolition process selected, labor costs, contracting constraints, project schedules,

material storage space, and marketability of materials.

Local governments should collaborate with the local stakeholders to understand local conditions

and issues. The key is to make material recovery a part of the planning and contracting process

and make waste management and recovery plans part of the contractual scope-of-work. Recovery

levels could be made an explicit factor in awarding contracts. Prevailing labor rates and local

market conditions will need to be considered since labor costs are viewed as the single most

important barrier to increasing C&D materials recovery.

Local planning and permit departments could consider the impacts of connecting permit

authorization with material recovery efforts. Educational outreach programs including

workshops, websites and informational packets are a critical source of encouraging greater

participation in C&D material recovery programs.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-26 Local Government Operations

3.3.6.2 Top Pollution Prevention Opportunities

• Adopt a resolution or policy to direct future building toward green practices.

• Use “first-in, first-out” materials management.

• Segregate waste streams.

• Reduce risks of spills by controlling access to storage areas and routinely inspecting 

containers.

• Recycle used cleaning, lubricating or cooling fluid.

• Use water-based paints and coatings to minimize the use of petroleum-based solvents and

the hazardous air emissions associated with such solvents.

• Avoid unnecessary grading and removal of vegetative cover to minimize road run-off into

surface water.

• Use waterborne or thermoplastic traffic paint.

• Consider deconstruction and reuse of existing buildings rather than demolition.

• Use high efficiency lighting and electronic ballasts to illuminate roadways and tunnels,

and install occupancy sensors to control lighting fixtures.

3.3.7 Success Stories

3.3.7.1 The Riverdale Deconstruction Case Study

This study fully documents the manual disassembly and salvage of a 2,000-square-foot, 4-unit,

residential building in an urban area of Baltimore County, Maryland. It addresses issues such as

the salvage of common building materials (i.e., brick, framing lumber, hardwood flooring,

windows, doors, and assorted fixtures), labor requirements and activities, total cost comparison,

and environmental benefits, among others. In addition this study also proposes recommendations

for the improvement of the deconstruction industry. For more information on this case study,
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-27 Local Government Operations

contact Peter Yost at (301) 249-4000, or read about this case study on the Internet at

http://www.smartgrowth.org/casestudies/casestudy_index.html.

3.3.7.2 Fort ORD Deconstruction Pilot Project Summary

The closure of Fort Ord, U.S. Army Military Reservation in 1994 left more than 28,000 acres and

over 7,000 buildings to be reused in the local community. Working collaboratively with the

University of California Santa Cruz Extension and the Presidio of Monterey Base Realignment

and Closure Office, the Fort Ord Reuse Authority established a specialized program for testing

the feasibility of a more environmentally effective approach to remove the substandard facilities,

abate the remnant hazards, and reuse the materials in new construction. Implementation began in

April of 1998, with four buildings selected for deconstruction, three for relocation, and one

concrete building for disassembly. Non-contaminated materials were offered at a public sale and

contaminated materials were stockpiled for future research. For more details on this project and

to receive a copy of the complete final report, call Standen Cook at (408) 883-3687, or read about

them on the Internet at http://www.fora.org.

3.3.7.3 City of Austin Smart Growth Initiative Summary

Early in 1998, the City of Austin, TX announced its kick-off of the Smart Growth Initiative. 

The ultimate goals of the initiative are to manage growth, protect the City’s quality of life and

assure the creation of a healthy economy. The Austin City Council created a special

subcommittee to overhaul the City’s Land Development Code to provide a foundation for the

Smart Growth initiative by:

C Establishing general planning principles, including land use and traffic planning

guidelines

C Developing a City of Austin-supported neighborhood-based planning framework

C Providing incentives and a viable mechanism for infill development and redevelopment

C Analyzing the provision, management and regulation of wastewater service

C Outlining a plan for the purchase of water conservation easements in the most

environmentally sensitive areas
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-28 Local Government Operations

C Creating a plain English version of the Land Development Code

C Simplifying the development process, providing project-based development guidelines,

clear expectations, and definitive expiration dates.

For more information on this initiative, contact Michele Middlebrook-Gonzalez at (512) 499-

2410, or read about it on the Internet at http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/smartgrowth/

smart_growth.htm.

Resources

"Hazardous Waste Minimization Checklist and Assessment Manual for the Building

Construction Industry," CA EPA, Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Office of Pollution

Prevention and Technology Development, May 1993, Sacramento, CA.

"Hazardous Waste Minimization for the Building Construction Industry," Fact Sheet, op. Cit.

"Building Construction Industry," Waste Audit Study, op. cit.

"Cooling Water Systems, Management Guidelines for Water Quality Protection," Palo Alto

Regional Quality Control Plant, Palo Alto, CA.

"Blueprint for a Clean Bay, Construction-related Industries," Santa Clara Valley Non-point

Source Pollution Control Program, 1992, San Jose, CA.

"Residential Construction Waste: From Disposal to Management," interim document, NAHB 

Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD.

"Environmental Handbook For Oregon Construction Contractors: Best Pollution Prevention

Practices," River City Resources Group, Inc., May 1994. (located in California EPA, Office

of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development Reference Library, (800) 700-5854).

"Environmental Handbook For Oregon General Construction Contractors: Regulatory

Guidance," Oregon Waste Reduction Assistance Program, Palermini And Associates, April

1994 (located in California EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology

Development Reference Library, (800) 700-5854).
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-29 Local Government Operations

"Construction And Demolition Waste Recycling Guide: Recycling Construction and Demolition

Waste In The Los Angeles Area," LA Network, August 1992 (located in California EPA,

Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development Reference Library,

(800)700-5854).

"Blueprint For A Clean Bay: Best Management Practices To Prevent Stormwater Pollution

From Construction-Related Activities," Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies

Association (BASMAA), 1995 (located in California EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention

and Technology Development Reference Library, (800) 700-5854).

"Pollution Prevention Training Instructors' Guide," Science Applications International

Corporation (SAIC), March 1996 (located in California EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Technology Development Reference Library, (800) 700-5854).

"Start at the Source: Residential Site Planning & Design Guidance Manual For Stormwater

Quality Protection," Tim Richman & Associates, January 1997 (located in California EPA,

Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development Reference Library, (800)

700-5854).

Barron, Thomas S., "Pollution Prevention In The Construction Industry: A Workbook Covering 

The Chemicals Used And Wastes Generated By Construction Trades," Construction industry

workshop, 1997 (located in California EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology

Development Reference Library, (800) 700-5854).

Gruder, Sherrie, "Construction Resources: A Waste Reduction And Recycling Guide for

Wisconsin Builders and Contractors," University of Wisconsin-Extension, Solid and

Hazardous Waste Education Center, 528 Lowell Hall, Madison, WI, Nov. 1997.

For more information, contact Isao Kobashi, Santa Clara County Pollution Prevention Program,

Phone: (408) 441-1195, Fax: (408) 441-0365, E-mail: isao_kobashi@qmgate.pln.co.scl.ca.us.

3.4 PESTICIDE/VECTOR MANAGEMENT

Local governments are responsible for pesticide/vector management, which includes applying,

storing, and disposing of pesticides to improve the health and appearance of their outdoor and

indoor properties. Exhibit 3-3 presents activities associated with pesticide management.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-30 Local Government Operations

PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT

Purchasing Application Storage Disposal Spill Response

Reporting/

Notification

Reporting/

Notification

Recordkeeping

Certification Indoor Outdoor

Exhibit 3-3. Pesticide Management

Because these activities could affect the environment, they may be subject to environmental laws

and regulations, as indicated in the following list. 

• Application— FIFRA, CWA and ESA

• Storage— FIFRA, EPCRA, CERCLA, and CAA

• Disposal— FIFRA, CWA, and RCRA

• Spill/Release Response— EPCRA, CERCLA, and CAA

In addition, although purchasing is not regulated, local governments can minimize environmental

impacts through their purchasing decisions.

3.4.1 Purchasing Pesticides

Purchasing includes the acquisition of pesticides and pesticide application equipment. Although

these purchases are not regulated directly by environmental laws, purchasing decisions could
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-31 Local Government Operations

impact the environment. The purchase of pesticides sold in recyclable containers that can be

returned to the dealer will, for example, prevent the local government from having to dispose of

the containers, which could be a regulated waste under RCRA. In addition, a local government

can purchase certain types of equipment that apply pesticides more efficiently, thereby

conserving resources, and reducing the environmental impacts of application.

3.4.2 Applying Pesticides

Pesticide application methods and practices depend largely upon the nature of the application. 

Pesticides may be applied indoors (e.g., housing units, schools, other publicly owned buildings)

or outdoors (e.g., solid waste management units, parks and other recreational areas, other

publicly owned land). Pesticide application ranges from household products, such as cockroach

sprays and insect repellents (which can be applied without training as long as the label

requirements are followed), to restricted use pesticides (which can only be applied by certified

individuals).

The hundreds of application methods available can be categorized into three major types:

• Sub-surface application methods, including injecting the pesticide into the ground to

control subterranean insects, such as termites, grubs, and nematodes, and other subsurface methods, such as incorporating the pesticide into the soil

• Surface applications, which include applying pesticides, repellants, disinfectants, or

mildewcides directly to the surface of something (e.g., applications to floorboards,

structures, animals or insects, crack/crevices)

• Aerial application, including aircraft applications, spray booms to apply pesticides to

trees, or fumigants to control mosquitoes and wood-boring insects, such as termites.

Pesticides can be applied in many forms, including gases, sprays, dusts, granulars, baits, and

dips. Pesticide application can impact the environment in several ways and is regulated under

federal and state environmental laws and regulations. Pesticide-related activities conducted by

local governments are primarily regulated under FIFRA, which specifies application in a manner

consistent with the label. All pesticide management operations must comply with pesticide use

requirements unless an emergency exemption has been granted by EPA (40 CFR 166). (It should

be noted that FIFRA implementation has been delegated by the federal government to the states.) 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-32 Local Government Operations

Excessive applications may also be regulated under the CWA if the local government develops

best management practices that are included in its storm water or wastewater discharge permit.

3.4.2.1 Applying Pesticides Indoors

Indoor applications occur in non-agricultural areas or any type of structural or industrial areas

requiring pest management. Applicators must follow label requirements for both general and

restricted use pesticides. Applicators applying pesticides indoors must follow guidelines listed

under 40 CFR 171, regulating the use of pesticides in, on, or around the following structures:

• Food-handling establishments 

• Human dwellings

• Institutions (e.g., schools and hospitals)

• Industrial establishments (e.g., warehouses and grain elevators, and any other structures

and adjacent areas, public or private). 

The potential environmental impacts from indoor pesticide application are air pollution and

contamination of personal items. Misuse of a pesticide could cause damage to non-target

species, such as humans, pets, or other animals and plants that come into contact with the

pesticide. Pesticide labels should be followed strictly to prevent indoor pollution and potential

hazards to humans and animals. The label controls when and under what conditions pesticides

can be applied, mixed, stored, loaded, or used. Labeling requirements establish worker

protection standards imposed under FIFRA, which include information on restricted entry

intervals after pesticide usage and personal protective equipment requirements.

3.4.2.2 Applying Pesticides Outdoors

The outdoor use of pesticides refers to the application of any pesticide outside enclosed

manmade structures. Local governments may be responsible for supervising the use of restricted

pesticides to control pests in the following areas:

• Public forests, nurseries, and forest seed producing areas

• Ornamental trees, shrubs, flowers, and turf producing areas
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-33 Local Government Operations

• Maintenance of public roads, electric power lines, pipelines, railway rights-of-way, or

other similar areas

• Recreation or other outdoor areas requiring pest management.

One of the most common methods of applying pesticides to outdoor areas is liquid spraying. 

Liquid spraying may be conducted by aerial spraying, tractor spraying, spray rigs, blasters, hand

spraying, or other liquid spray devices. The potential environmental impacts from outdoor

pesticide application are human exposure and air, soil, and water contamination. The application

of certain pesticides may destroy or have adverse effects on endangered or threatened species of

fish, wildlife, or plants and their habitats. Local governments must ensure that the use of

pesticides does not jeopardize the existence of these species or their habitats, as stated under 50

CFR 402. 

Outdoor pesticide activities are regulated under the label requirements and application provisions

of FIFRA. FIFRA establishes worker protection standards designed to protect agricultural

workers and pesticide handlers. This includes posting warning signs in areas where pesticides

have been applied. FIFRA also requires the certified applicator to maintain records regarding the

product name, amount, approximate date of application, and location of application of each

pesticide used for a 2-year period. 

3.4.2.3 Cleaning Application Equipment

There is no satisfactory way to completely remove all traces of any pesticide from application

equipment. At the end of each application, however, several steps can be followed to clean as

much pesticide as possible off of the equipment:

C Rinse the inside and outside of the tank three times with clean water.

C Put in a moderate amount of clean water and spray it out. A small amount of liquid

detergent added to the water will help clean the inside of the sprayer system.

C Clean the nozzles, nozzle screens, and suction screens with compressed air or a soft

brush.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-34 Local Government Operations

3.4.2.4 Certifying Applicators

Pesticides can be classified into two categories--general use and restricted use pesticides. 

General use pesticides are those that when applied properly will not cause adverse effects on the

environment and can be applied by anyone. Restricted use pesticides are those that when applied

may cause adverse effects on the environment, including injury to the applicator. Applicators

and supervisors of restricted use pesticides must be certified under Section 11 of FIFRA, which

outlines federal and state certification procedures for applicators. Applicators who use restricted

use pesticides must be certified to use pesticides by demonstrating competency in specified areas:

• Label and labeling comprehension

• Safety techniques

• Environmental awareness

• Pest identification

• Pesticide application

• Equipment use

• Application techniques

• Laws and regulations.

3.4.2.5 Keeping Records

Local governments who have staff or use certified pesticide applicators must keep and maintain

various restricted use pesticide records for 2 years. The records must include the types, amounts,

uses, dates, and places of application of all restricted use pesticides.

3.4.3 Storing Pesticides

Local governments are responsible for storing any unused or excess pesticides. The

recommended procedures and criteria for proper storage apply to areas where pesticides are

classified as highly toxic or moderately toxic and have written on their labels DANGER,

POISON, WARNING, or the “Mr. Yuk” symbol. FIFRA defines adequate storage as placing

pesticides in proper containers and in safe areas to minimize the possibility of accidental release

that could result in adverse effects on the environment. Storage sites should be in a dry, well

ventilated, separate area where fire protection is provided. Identification signs should be posted

to advise of the contents and hazardous nature of the pesticide. The potential environmental

impacts from pesticide storage are air, soil, and water contamination from accidental releases. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-35 Local Government Operations

At present, EPA has established a list of 140

regulated substances that fall under the Risk

Management Planning Regulations of the CAA. 

These substances were published in the Federal

Register on January 31, 1994; EPA amended the

list by rule, published on December 18, 1997. 

EPA may further amend the list in the future as

needed. 

Because pesticides are typically stored in large quantities for future use, accidental releases may

be large, causing immediate detrimental effects on the surrounding environment. 

Pesticides that cause adverse effects on the environment should be stored only in facilities where

special attention has been given to the hazardous nature of the pesticide. Temporary storage of

highly toxic or moderately toxic pesticides may occur at isolated sites and facilities where there is

unlikely contact with external conditions that may cause a release. Each container should be

stored with the label plainly visible, and the container should be inspected for corrosion and

leaks. The storage of pesticides must follow FIFRA guidelines under which all pesticides stored

by the local government must be registered or ruled exempt from the registration requirements

(40 CFR 152.15 through 152.30). FIFRA covers worker protection standards that must be

followed when personnel handle pesticides. In addition, FIFRA lists safety measures that must

be followed by personnel who are around pesticides and containers. 

If a local government stores or uses specified amounts of certain pesticides, it may be subject to

planning and reporting requirements of EPCRA and Section 112(r) of the CAA. These

requirements are described below.

3.4.3.1 Risk Management Planning (CAA Section 112(r))

Under Section 112(r) of the amended CAA,

facilities that have more than a threshold

quantity of any of the 140 regulated

substances in a single process are required to

develop risk management programs and to

summarize these programs in risk

management plans by June 21, 1999 (40 CFR

Part 68). Risk management plans, which are

intended to prevent accidental releases of regulated substances and to reduce the severity of those

releases that do occur, will be made available to state and local government agencies and the

public. EPA has been working with industry groups to develop model risk management

programs. To review the model program, refer to EPA’s Chemical Accident Prevention and Risk

Management Planning website at http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/acc-pre.htm#Model Plans/.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-36 Local Government Operations

3.4.3.2 Notification of a Canceled or Suspended Pesticide

Under FIFRA, EPA or a registrar can cancel or suspend the registration of a pesticide or of a

specific use of a pesticide. In such situations, EPA or the state regulatory agency would request

that all entities having supplies of that pesticide notify the state. If a local government has any

amounts of canceled or suspended pesticides, it must notify the state of the amount. The state

will respond with specific directions concerning the pesticide. 

3.4.4 Disposing of Pesticides

Pesticide management includes the disposal of excess pesticides that are not capable of being

stored for later use. Pesticide disposal can involve dilution with water, incineration, chemical

degradation, burial in a specially designated landfill, and well and soil injection. The potential

environmental impacts from pesticide disposal are air, soil, and water contamination from

releases. The environmental implications are the same as for the application process, except that

the concentration of the pesticide is typically stronger because of the quantity and mass of the

disposed pesticide. The disposal of pesticides is a critical process and if not properly conducted

can have immediate detrimental effects on the environment.

General and restricted use pesticide labels outline proper disposal guidelines. FIFRA, RCRA,

and the CWA regulate these practices. Disposal activities may require notifying EPA, the state,

or a local solid waste disposal facility (landfill or incinerator) that is complying with permit

provisions. Before disposing of excess pesticide, the local government should try two options:

• Store and reuse any leftover portion at the prescribed dosage rates

• Return any excess to the manufacturer or distributor for relabeling or reprocessing into

other materials.

3.4.5 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance

Local governments are responsible for maintaining vehicles and equipment associated with

pesticide management activities according to the operations described in Section 3.10.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-37 Local Government Operations

3.4.6 Pollution Prevention in Pesticide Management

Reduction in the use of pesticides in local government operations can be achieved by using

Integrated Pest Management (IPM). IPM utilizes regular monitoring to determine if and when

treatments are needed. It employs physical, mechanical, cultural, biological, and educational

tactics to keep pest numbers low. Least-toxic pest control methods are used as a last resort. 

Using these alternatives will result in decreased use of pesticides. Many of the tips listed in

Section 3.4.6.2 may not initially appear to be related to pesticide pollution prevention. The tips

will result in lowered reliance on pesticide use by making the plants healthier. Healthy plants are

able to withstand pest invasions much like healthy humans. Although IPM reduces reliance on

pesticides, some pesticide use may still be necessary. In these cases, use pesticides properly and

safely.

3.4.6.1 Typical Wastes Generated

The following lists presents typical waste generated during pesticide management and ways to

handle them:

• Empty containers including bags, drums, bottles, and cans. Containers should be triple

rinsed or "jet rinsed" prior to disposal. Tripled rinsed containers should be crushed or

punctured to prevent reuse. Containers can be reduced in quantity by buying in bulk;

however, never buy more than the amount needed. When possible, purchase in recyclable

containers that can be returned to dealers.

• Excess mixture (i.e., the diluted pesticide left over in the spray tank). The best disposal

method is to use it on a site.

• Excess product (i.e., the unused pesticide no longer needed due to a change in procedures

or because the pest problems are solved). The best disposal method is to find someone

who can use it.

• Rinse water from containers and application equipment. This rinse water can be added to

a tank and used.

• Expired pesticides resulting from poor inventory management or from improper storage. 

Contact the vendor to inquire if the manufacturer will take back the product.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-38 Local Government Operations

3.4.6.2 Top Pollution Prevention Opportunities

The following recommendations can help local governments achieve reductions in pesticide and

herbicide applications and maintain regulatory compliance associated with chemical use, storage,

and disposal. 

• Design for water conservation. Group plants with similar water needs together so they

can be irrigated together and water will not be wasted on plants that do not need it. 

Proper watering will reduce stress on plants and allow their natural resistance to

withstand pest attacks without the need for pesticides. 

• Employ Environmental Landscape Management (ELM). ELM is a common-sense

approach that starts with healthy growing space. Select pest resistant plants, use sound

planting techniques, and correctly manage the established landscape. Place the right

plants in the right place; choose plants according to soil characteristics (pH level,

moisture retention), rainfall, and sunlight conditions. Use more native plant species and

reduce the use of exotics. 

• Avoid monocultures. Monocultures (single-species planting, such as large areas of grass)

are very susceptible to infestation since most pests are host-specific. Growing different

species together prevents pests from readily spreading.

• Reduce water runoff by building retaining walls, which direct water to a dry well or other

areas to collect and percolate through soil. If pesticides are used, this will reduce the

likelihood of nearby water body contamination.

• Use proper mowing practices. Mow grass with sharp blades. A dull blade rips grass

making larger wounds and increasing susceptibility to disease pathogens. Sharp blades

also increase equipment efficiency and reduce wear on equipment. Never cut more than

one-third the height of the grass at any time.

• Scout the landscape regularly to learn which plants have problems. Most plants (except

grass) seldom have more than one major pest problem. By scouting, you will find

problems early and be able to solve them with IPM without resorting to pesticides.

• Use pesticides only when needed, not on a prescribed schedule. Use spot treatment

instead of treating the entire area.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-39 Local Government Operations

• Correctly identify insects prior to treatment. Less than 1 percent of all insects are harmful

to plants. Take care not to harm beneficial insects.

• Use least toxic pest control methods:

– Horticultural oils

– Insecticidal soaps

– Natural enemies such as:

< Pathogens, such as Bacillus thuringiensis, which infects and controls

caterpillars

< Predators, such as purple martins, praying mantis, lady beetles, beneficial

nematodes, and spiders

< Parasites, such as parasitic wasps

S Diatomaceous earth

S Boric acid

S Pyrethrins

S Insect growth regulators, which halt or interfere with the development of an insect

before it matures

S Pheromones, which disrupt normal mating behavior by stimulating breeding pests

and luring them into traps

S Insect traps

S Mechanical treatments, such as cultivating to control weeds; hand picking of pests

off plants, and sticky traps.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-40 Local Government Operations

• Buy pesticides only in small quantities and store carefully in labeled, airtight containers. 

Plan your purchases so pesticides do not expire.

• Understand that pest eradication is generally an unrealistic management objective. An

attempt to totally eliminate a pest is likely to result in excessive pesticide application.

• Outsource pest control services and write IPM requirements into the specifications.

• Keep clutter, excess water sources (e.g., drips or standing water in plants), and food waste

minimized to discourage pests from entering buildings. 

3.4.7 Success Stories

3.4.7.1 The City and County of San Francisco, California

In October 1996, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Chapter 39 of the

Administrative Code, mandating that City departments adopt IPM. Chapter 39 states, "The City,

in carrying out its operations, shall assume pesticides are potentially hazardous to human and

environmental health." IPM coordinators were assigned in each department to act as the primary

contacts for staff and the public on IPM. The IPM coordinators also file the department's IPM

Implementation Plan, keep records on pesticide application, and review and keep on file the

Inspection and Quality Assurance forms submitted by the IPM service providers. The IPM

Implementation Plan outlines pest management strategies that the City department uses to control

pests. The strategies emphasize preventive tactics and least-toxic approaches. For additional

information, contact Alan Hom, IPM Project Coordinator, at (415) 554-6399.

3.4.7.2 Westchester County, New York

Westchester County passed a local law (Chapter 690) to create a Pest Management Committee to

develop and implement pest management policies using the principles of integrated pest

management. They also created a requirement to use chemical pesticides only where feasible

alternatives are not available. For additional information, contact Katherine S. Carsky, Chair,

Board of Legislators Committee on the Environment, (914) 285-2846. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-41 Local Government Operations

3.4.7.3 Cape May County, New Jersey

In September 1992, the Cape May County Board of Chosen Freeholders unanimously passed

resolution 8199-92, formally adopting an IPM plan. The plan defined IPM and established

procedures to identify pest problems and control strategies. Routine applications of pesticides

were permanently discontinued. When chemicals are deemed necessary, an entomologist

determines the least toxic option. Cumulative savings to date amount to $44,551, and the use of

pesticides and herbicides has been reduced drastically. For additional information, contact Harry

E. Kehr, Director, Department of Facilities and Services, (609) 465-1296.

3.4.7.4 The City of Santa Monica, California

Because most pest control was performed by contractors, the City of Santa Monica changed its

pest control activities by changing their purchasing practices. The City drafted a request for

qualifications, request for proposals (RFP), and specifications for IPM contractors which

required contractors to provide detailed information on their IPM experience. The RFP required

vendors to rank pest management options in categories of “low,” “medium” and “high” risk to

human health and the environment. Santa Monica's specifications for IPM contractors included

utilization of non-pesticide methods whenever possible and mandated approval from the City

prior to applying or storing pesticides. For additional information, contact Debbie Raphael,

Environmental Programs Analyst, at (310) 458-2255.

Resources

Common Sense Pest Control, by William Olkowski, Sheila Daar, and Helga Olkowski, The

Tauton Press, 1991, Newtown, CT, pp. 715. 

"Biological Control of Insect and Mite Pests of Woody Landscape Plants: concepts, agents and

methods" by Michael J. Raupp, Roy G. Van Driesche, and John a. Davidson. Maryland

Cooperative Extension Service, 1993, pp. 39.

"Suppliers of Beneficial Organisms in North America" by Charles D. Hunter, California

Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Environmental

Monitoring and Pest Management Branch.

Cornell University World Wide Web site (http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/).
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-42 Local Government Operations

Handbook of Integrated Pest Management for Turf and Ornamentals, edited by Anne R. Leslie,

Lewis Publishers, 1989, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 660.

National Farm*A*Syst, B142 Steenbock Library, 550 Babcock Drive, Madison, WI 52706-1293,

Phone: (608) 262-0024, Email: farmasyst@macc.wisc.edu.

Integrated Pest Management/Cooperative State Research Service. Contact Dr. Robert C. Riley,

Dr. James R. Cate, or Dr. John M. Barnes. USDA Cooperative State Research Service, Plant

and Animal Sciences, Aerospace Building, Washington, D.C. 20250-2220. Telephone: (202)

401-4781, Fax: (202) 401-4888.

Integrated Pest Management/Cooperative Extension Service. Contact Michael S. Fitzner, USDA

Extension Service, Ag Box 0909, Washington, D.C. 20250-0909. Telephone: (202)

720-2471, Fax: (202) 720-4395. E-mail: mfitzner@esuda.gov. 401- 4939.

Integrated Pest Management Information, National IPM Network - Colorado State University,

http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/csuipm.html.

National IPM Network. http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/main.html 

For more information, contact Kay Gervasi, Pollution Prevention Manager, Broward County

Department of Natural Resource Protection, Phone: (954) 519-1257, Fax: (954) 765-4894,

Email: kgervasi@co.broward.fl.us.

3.5 PUBLIC SAFETY

As shown in Exhibit 3-4, local governments help ensure public safety by providing emergency

planning and response to releases of hazardous substances, fire protection, and police protection. 

Emergency planning and response activities include analyzing community hazards and

developing a local emergency response plan to prepare for and respond to chemical emergencies. 

While also involved in emergency planning, fire department activities include fire suppression

and hazardous materials response.

3.5.1 Emergency Planning

Local governments have the basic responsibility for

understanding risks posed by chemicals at the local level,
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-43 Local Government Operations

PUBLIC SAFETY

Emergency

Planning

Fire

Protection

and Emergency

Response

Police Protection

Fire Response

and Suppression

Hazardous

Materials

Response

Information

Dissemination to

the Public

Planning Photoprocessing Firing Ranges

Exhibit 3-4. Public Safety

managing and reducing those risks, and dealing with emergencies. Local governments must meet

requirements both as regulated entities and as regulators under EPCRA. EPCRA regulates both

emergency planning and the dissemination of information on certain chemicals to the public.

3.5.1.1 Planning

Under the emergency planning section of EPCRA, local governments must prepare for and

respond to emergencies involving hazardous substances. Local governments and fire

departments are expected to participate in the local emergency planning efforts under EPCRA. 

LEPCs, appointed by SERCs for every local emergency planning district, are broadly

representative of their communities and generally include representatives of elected local

officials; law enforcement officials, civil defense workers, and firefighters; first aid, health,

environment, and transportation workers; owners/operators of facilities; and community group

representatives. 

LEPCs must analyze community hazards and develop local emergency response plans to prepare

for and respond to chemical emergencies. The focus for emergency planning for LEPCs is the

list of 366 “extremely hazardous substances” identified by EPA as having immediate health

effects and hazardous properties, but plans also address all hazardous materials in the community
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-44 Local Government Operations

that present risks to public health and safety. These substances are found in some widely used

insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, photographic chemicals, and solvents, as well as in

wastewater treatment and drinking water treatment processes. 

Local emergency response plans delineate potential local hazards, response capabilities, and

procedures to follow in an emergency. An emergency plan must include the identity and location

of hazardous materials, procedures for immediate response to a chemical accident, ways to notify

the public about actions it must take, names of coordinators at industrial plants, and schedules

and plans for testing the plan. Initial plans were required by October 1988. The LEPC

publicizes the plan through public meetings or newspaper announcements. In addition, the LEPC

updates the plan at least annually based on chemical information reported by local industries and

the public. 

In addition to requirements imposed by federal law, local governments must comply with all

applicable state and local right-to-know laws. State and local emergency response committees

are permitted to impose requirements in addition to those imposed by EPCRA.

3.5.1.2 Providing Chemical Information Dissemination to the Public

Under EPCRA, LEPCs receive hazardous chemical inventory and emergency release information

submitted by facilities and have access to toxic chemical release information supplied by

facilities to EPA. LEPCs can provide this information to local officials, community leaders, and

the public to aid in preparing for emergencies and managing chemical risks. The following

describes the EPCRA reporting requirements for chemicals:

C Hazardous Chemical Reporting. Under EPCRA, LEPCs receive hazardous chemical

inventory information submitted by facilities and make it available to the public upon

request. Facilities with chemicals that are present in excess of certain amounts are

required to submit either actual copies of MSDSs or lists of MSDS chemicals to the

LEPC, the SERC, and the local fire department. This reporting requirement has been in

effect since October 1987. In addition, these facilities must submit annual inventories on

the same hazardous chemicals to the LEPC, the SERC, and the local fire department. 

These inventory forms are due on March 1 of each year. LEPCs make this information

available to the public, and fire departments and public health officials use the

information to plan for and respond to emergencies. Local governments also are subject

to the reporting requirements if they have or use any of the specific chemicals in excess of

the threshold amounts.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-45 Local Government Operations

C Emergency Release Notification. Under EPCRA, LEPCs receive emergency release

information submitted by facilities and make it

available to the public upon request. A facility

is required to immediately notify the

community and the state (i.e., the LEPC and

the SERC) of the release of more than a

predetermined amount of certain hazardous

chemicals. Chemicals covered by this

requirement include not only the 366

“extremely hazardous substances,” but also more than 700 hazardous substances subject

to the emergency notification requirements of the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup

law. The emergency release notification activates emergency plans, and the information

on emergency releases is considered in the LEPC planning process. Local governments

are also subject to this notification requirement.

C Toxic Chemical Release Reporting. LEPCs, as well as the public, have access to an

EPA database called the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which contains information on

annual toxic chemical releases submitted by certain facilities. Under EPCRA, specific

facilities must estimate and report each year the total amount of toxic chemicals that they

release into the environment, either accidentally or as a result of routine plant operations,

or transport as waste to another location. EPA compiles this information into the

database. The annual release data are used, along with the other information the LEPC

receives, to put together a more complete picture of the hazardous substances in each

district. 

3.5.2 Fire Protection and Emergency Response

Local governments may be responsible for providing fire protection services to their

communities. Fire protection services and responsibilities include fire response and suppression

(i.e., firefighting), salvage (e.g., pumping water out of basements), investigation of fires, repair

and maintenance of equipment, and fire prevention. 

To provide appropriate fire protection, a city is usually divided into a number of fire districts

with at least one fire station in each district, depending upon various factors (e.g., population

density, topography, and the nature of buildings and building materials). Each station has teams

or companies for one or more fire trucks (ladder, hose, engine company). Smaller communities

are likely to have only one firefighting company. Many states allow counties and towns or
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-46 Local Government Operations

townships to carry out fire protection functions. Fire departments receive financial assistance

through local governments, fund raising, and state loans, although these funds may not be enough

to fully staff and equip a district. Thus, many areas use volunteer firefighters. In small towns

and villages, which often depend entirely on volunteers, local governments usually contribute

part of the money for trucks and other equipment (except in the smallest communities). A

volunteer fire department may fall under the jurisdiction of a local government (which is

sometimes required by state law), or it may be incorporated as an independent fire company,

which is self-governing and owns its own station and equipment.

3.5.2.1 Fire Protection

As discussed above, fire departments are typically responsible for emergency planning and

emergency mitigation, including fire response and suppression (i.e., firefighting) and hazardous

materials response. In this role, fire departments attempt to safeguard lives and property against

the injurious effects of accidents or uncontrolled hazards, fire, explosion, or hazardous materials. 

Because fire protection activities can affect the environment, they may be subject to

environmental laws and regulations, as indicated in the following list.

• Emergency planning— EPCRA

• Fire response and suppression— CAA and EPCRA

• Hazardous materials response— RCRA and CWA

3.5.2.2 Emergency Planning

As discussed, firefighters may be appointed to LEPCs under the emergency planning provisions

of EPCRA. Section 3.5.1 presents more information on this topic.

3.5.2.3 Fire Response and Suppression

Agents used for fire suppression vary based on the location and type of fire. Halons, which are

low toxicity, chemically stable compounds, have been used for fire and explosion protection

throughout this century. Halons are now known to contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer

and have been phased out of production. Effective January 1, 1994, the production and

importation of new halons (1211, 1301, or 2402) were banned in the United States. Recycled

halon is now the only source of supply. The environmental impacts of halon use in firefighting

are primarily damaging to the ozone layer.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-47 Local Government Operations

Response techniques: 

- Mechanical containment and 

 recovery

- Chemical and biological methods

- Physical methods.

Firefighters use a number of traditional fire extinguishing agents, including water, carbon

dioxide, dry chemicals, and foam, that are good alternatives to halons for many fire protection

applications. Recent research has led to the commercialization of new agents and technologies: 

halocarbon compounds, inert gas mixtures, water-mist or fogging systems, and powdered

aerosols. The potential environmental impacts from firefighting activities using water are soil

and water contamination from runoff. Many conventional synthetic foams contain solvents

regulated under EPCRA. 

3.5.2.4 Hazardous Materials Response

Hazardous materials can be located anywhere at any time. In the event of a spill, the public

safety agency (e.g., fire department, local hazardous materials response team) having jurisdiction

where the discharge occurred is responsible for taking the actions necessary to protect public

health and safety and the environment. Based on the nature of the hazard presented by this

discharge, public safety personnel may be obliged to stand by until the hazard is controlled.

The public safety agency may bill the responsible party (i.e., the property owner or whoever

caused the spill) for the expenses incurred to protect the public and the environment. In addition,

safety personnel may use materials to control a spill, protect the environment, and mitigate the

hazard. These materials and personnel costs may be charged to the responsible party.

Depending on the type of hazardous material released,

various response techniques may be used to control the

spill and minimize the impacts on human health and the

environment. The key to effectively combating spills is

careful selection and proper use of the equipment and

materials most suited to the type of spill and the

conditions at the spill site. The types of response techniques include:

C Mechanical containment or recovery, such as booms, barriers, and skimmers, as well as

sorbent materials, that are used to capture and store the spilled material until it can be

disposed of properly.

C Chemical and biological methods (e.g., dispersants and gelling agents for oil spills).
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-48 Local Government Operations

C Physical methods, such as natural processes (e.g., evaporation, oxidation, and

biodegradation). Depending on the type of material spilled, this may not be the best

response technique available. 

Sorbents contaminated with hazardous materials must be disposed of according to the hazardous

waste provisions of RCRA.

3.5.3 Police Protection

Police protection involves law enforcement, traffic safety, and other activities related to law

enforcement and preservation of order. Local governments, rather than states or the national

government, have primary policing responsibilities:

C Patrol. A patrol officer is responsible for investigating complaints, reporting accidents,

making arrests, and maintaining peace and order.

C Investigative/detective force. The investigative/detective force concentrates on

specialized work involved in the detection and apprehension of criminals (e.g., vice,

intelligence, narcotics, homicides, bomb threats). 

C Traffic regulation. Traffic regulation involves traffic control, engineering, and

enforcement.

C Crime prevention. A crime prevention unit often works with an investigative unit and

focuses on youth investigation, safety education, and other evidence collection and

identification activities.

To support these units, police departments may participate in various activities including the

development of photographs (i.e., photoprocessing) from arrests and shooting range practice at

either police department or publicly owned facilities. Because these activities could affect the

environment, they may be subject to various environmental laws and regulations, as indicated in

the following list.

• Photoprocessing— RCRA, CAA, and CWA

• Firing ranges— RCRA, CERCLA, and EPCRA

• Laboratory operations— RCRA, EPCRA, CERCLA, and CWA
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-49 Local Government Operations

3.5.3.1 Photoprocessing

Police departments may have their own photoprocessing laboratories or contract out this activity

to commercial photoprocessing laboratories. Processing photographic film requires the use of

various chemicals to develop and produce finished goods. The photosensitive medium used for

black and white processing is an emulsion of fine silver halide crystals in a matrix of gelatin,

which is applied in a thin layer on either paper or clear plastic film. The film used for color

photography consists of three separate layers of photosensitive emulsion with intermediate layers

which are coated on a clear film base. Each emulsion is sensitive to either red, green, or blue

light due to the presence of selective dyes in the emulsion.

The wastes generated from photoprocessing vary widely according to the type and volume of

processing. Exhibit 3-5 presents examples of typical photoprocessing wastes. Wastes generated

during photoprocessing are primarily aqueous effluents. The disposal of wastewater from

photoprocessing may be regulated under the pretreatment or NPDES program of the CWA. 

Exhibit 3-5. Examples of Typical Photoprocessing Wastes

Wastewater Hazardous Waste Air Emissions Solid Wastes

Used, treated fixers

Used developers

Used activators/

stabilizers

Rinse water

Chrome-based system 

cleaners

Non-empty aerosol

cans

Discarded, unused, or 

outdated chemicals

Used, untreated fixers

Used shop towels

contaminated with 

hazardous waste

Volatile organic 

compounds or toxics

emitted from:

– Film cleaners

– Solvents

Empty containers

Developed or outdated film

Out-dated materials

Used, empty aerosol

cans

Used shop towels

Photoprocessing solutions may be too acidic or alkaline to meet local wastewater discharge

limits. Fluids disposed of or spilled in floor drains or otherwise released from the facility

property are regulated under the NPDES, pretreatment, or storm water provisions of the CWA. 

These provisions require notifying EPA, the state, or a local treatment plant; complying with

permit provisions; and preventing untreated fluids from reaching surface waters. The storage
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-50 Local Government Operations

and disposal of hazardous wastes (e.g., non-empty aerosol cans; discarded, unused, or outdated

chemicals; solvent-contaminated rags) are regulated under the hazardous waste provisions of

RCRA. Air emissions from the various chemicals used in photoprocessing (e.g., volatile organic

compounds or toxics emitted from film cleaners, solvents) may be regulated under the CAA.

3.5.3.2 Firing Ranges

Most police departments require their police officers to practice

firing accuracy at local indoor or outdoor firing ranges. If

conducted at outdoor firing ranges, this activity may contaminate

the soil (and possibly the groundwater) with lead from the

birdshot, bullets, and bullet fragments, as well as produce airborne

lead dust.

Despite the likely contamination, EPA’s current position is that the deposition of lead from lead

shot, bullets, and bullet fragments at firing ranges is considered to be within the normal and

expected use pattern of the manufactured product, and the resultant contamination is not subject

to the RCRA regulations. The bullets and bullet fragments are not characterized as “hazardous

wastes” because they have not been discarded. Where an imminent and substantial

endangerment to health or the environment may have been created by expended shot or debris,

however, remedial requirements may apply under RCRA. In addition, the remediation of leadcontaminated soil at a firing range, either for maintenance or site closure, is regulated under the

hazardous waste provisions of RCRA and/or CERCLA. Under the provisions of EPCRA, fire

ranges must report releases of lead dust transported by the wind. A release is reportable when

more than 1 pound of lead particles smaller than 0.004 inches in diameter is released beyond the

boundaries of the site or facility. 

Notwithstanding the above, EPA encourages the use of alternative approaches that ranges can

take to reduce the possibility of lead contamination. These include installing devices that can

intercept and collect the shot and bullets for recycling and substituting less hazardous materials

(e.g., plastic and steel shot) for the lead shot. To reduce and/or eliminate lead pollution, many

indoor and outdoor firing ranges use bullet “traps.” Bullet traps have a rubber media that capture

bullets and contain them, as well as a filter system that eliminates airborne lead dust. These traps

prevent the lead pollution of air and soil, which would normally occur from bullet impact with

metal, sand, or the ground. Most local firing ranges hire salvage companies to recover, clean,

and recycle the bullet traps and filter systems. The disposal of bullets and bullet fragments

recovered from a bullet trap may be regulated under the hazardous waste provisions of RCRA.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-51 Local Government Operations

3.5.3.3 Laboratory Operations

Chemicals used in the laboratory include acids (e.g., sulfuric, hydrochloric, nitric), bases (e.g.,

sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium azide solution), and others (e.g., chlorine, ferric

salts, carbon disulfide, and benzene). The quantity of wastes generated depends on the number

and types of tests performed. Disposal of lab wastes down the sink or drain may be regulated

under the pretreatment or NPDES program of the CWA. The storage and disposal of some

wastes generated from laboratory activities may be regulated under the hazardous waste

provisions of RCRA. 

3.5.4 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance

Local governments are responsible for maintaining all vehicles associated with public safety

activities according to the operations described in Section 3.10.

3.5.5 Pollution Prevention and Public Safety

Public safety operations, especially emergency planning and response activities, can involve a

variety of different local government agencies, local industry and other community

representatives. Within the public safety arena, local governments have responsibilities as a

regulated entity, an enforcement agent, a generator of various waste streams, and a provider of

quality services to the constituents they serve. Pollution prevention strategies can help local

governments efficiently and effectively meet the regulatory requirements associated with public

safety operations, provide value added services, and implement a proactive approach to

protecting their community from chemical emergencies. The three primary functions associated

with public safety are emergency planning, fire protection and emergency response, and police

protection. The opportunities for pollution prevention within these three primary functions can

best be realized by examining both a list of the wastes generated and the specific services

provided through each of these functions. 

3.5.5.1 Emergency Planning

Services

C Understand and manage risks associated with specific chemicals and facilities in their

community.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-52 Local Government Operations

C Prepare for and respond to emergencies involving hazardous substances.

C Provide chemical information to the public.

Waste Streams. There are no significant wastes associated with emergency planning other than

any wastes created by the clean up of a specific release. Usually these types of clean ups involve

state and often federal oversight. 

Pollution Prevention Opportunities. LEPCs, and Local Emergency Coordinators and Planners,

are in an excellent position to promote pollution prevention through their relationships with both

the facilities that store and release chemicals in their community and the general public they

serve and protect. With guidance and assistance from state and regional pollution prevention

programs, local agencies involved in emergency planning and response can use pollution

prevention as a tool to better manage the risks in their communities by working with facilities to

reduce and eliminate the chemicals posing the risk. Through EPCRA, communities are provided

valuable information regarding the presence, quantities, and release of chemicals in their

environment. This information can be used to identify local prevention priorities and establish a

basis for local officials, citizen groups, and state pollution prevention officials to target and

approach specific facilities. 

Top Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

• Encourage facilities which are required to develop risk management plans to consider

pollution prevention strategies to meet or avoid this regulation.

• Establish a pollution prevention task force or subcommittee through the LEPC to

investigate ways to access state and regional pollution prevention resources to address

chemical concerns and priorities.

• Incorporate pollution prevention requirements into Right-to-Know and other local

enforcement actions. 

• Sponsor and/or co-sponsor pollution prevention workshops and other educational events

for industrial facilities. 

 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-53 Local Government Operations

3.5.5.2 Fire Protection and Emergency Response

Services

C Fire response and suppression

C Hazardous materials response

C Fire code inspections

C Employee training

C Vehicle and equipment maintenance

 

Waste streams. A majority of the waste associated with fire response and suppression and

hazardous materials response operations is a product of the specific nature of the release or the

fire that takes place. Fire protection services usually involve vehicle and equipment maintenance

activities similar to those associated with public works and other local government operations. 

For specific guidance regarding pollution prevention opportunities for vehicle maintenance

operations, please refer to Section 3.10.

Top Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

• Safeguarding lives and property, the primary objective of this service can not be

jeopardized. There are pollution prevention strategies which can be incorporated through

training and response protocols that will minimize the waste generated and long-term

environmental impacts associated with the response incident without compromising

human health and property.

• Incorporate strategies within emergency and fire response protocols and responder

training courses to maximize the containment of spilled materials and contaminated fire

suppression run-off and to prevent migration to waterways, sewers, and permeable

surfaces. 

• Incorporate the use of reusable absorbent booms and pads for materials containment to

replace clay and other absorbent materials that can only be used once. Reusable booms

and pads can provide the opportunity to recover a percentage of the material released and

significantly reduce the amount of waste generated.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-54 Local Government Operations

• Consider the use of halon free suppression materials where appropriate and develop a

specific protocol for using halon suppressants only for situations where a suitable

alternative is not available. 

• Review training exercises and other drill activities for opportunities to substitute less

hazardous and non-hazardous materials, and incorporate water reuse and conservation

measures where and when the effectiveness of the training is not compromised.

• Promote site specific pollution prevention strategies through fire code inspections and

enforcement activities.

3.5.5.3 Police Protection

Services

 

C Patrol/surveillance to maintain peace and order 

C Investigation of crimes, and detection and apprehension of criminals

C Traffic regulation enforcement and traffic control 

C Crime prevention, safety outreach, and education

Waste Streams

C Photoprocessing wastes (fixers, developers, film cleaners, etc.) 

C Vehicle maintenance wastes

C Gun cleaning wastes (solvents, rags) 

C Shooting range wastes (spent casings, lead slugs, lead dust emissions)

C Batteries

C Office paper and other solid wastes 

Top Pollution Prevention Opportunities

• Consider the use of digital cameras to eliminate and/or reduce the need for

photoprocessing. 

• Consider the use of contracted photoprocessing services through a vendor that recycles

photo wastes to eliminate the generation of photo wastes in house.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-55 Local Government Operations

• Most liquid photoprocessing wastes can be recycled through a large commercial

photoprocessing company or metals reclaimer.

• Consider the use of ceramic or other non-lead bullets for training where the effectiveness

of the training is not compromised. Where alternatives to lead bullets are not suitable, the

use of traps and other devices should be employed at both indoor and outdoor shooting

ranges to capture bullets and bullet fragments for recycling. 

• Consult Section 3.10 for pollution prevention opportunities associated with vehicle and

fleet maintenance.

• Implement a recycling program for office paper, cardboard and other significant solid

waste streams.

Resources

"Preventing Industrial Toxic Hazards: A Guide for Communities," M. Wise and L. Kenworthy, 

INFORM.

"Risk Management Planning: Will It Lead to Inherently Safer Operations?" by Carol J. Forrest; 

Pollution Prevention Review/ Summer 1997.

"Accidents Do Happen: Toxic Chemical Accidents in the United States," December 1996,

National Environmental Law Center. "Too Close to Home," National Environmental Law

Center. 

For more information, contact Tom Hersey, Coordinator - Pollution Prevention Programs, Erie

County Department of Environment and Planning, Phone: (716) 858-7674, Fax: (716) 858-7713,

Email: hersey@cdbg.co.erie.ny.us.

3.6 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Local governments may be responsible for managing solid waste created by households and

businesses within the community. Proper management of solid waste is critical to public health,

as well as to the aesthetics of a community. Exhibit 3-6 presents activities associated with solid

waste management. Because these activities could affect the environment, they may be subject

to environmental regulations as indicated in the following list.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-56 Local Government Operations

RCRA defines solid waste as any garbage

or refuse; sludge from a wastewater

treatment plant, water supply treatment

plant, or air pollution control facility; and

other discarded material, including solid,

liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous

material resulting from industrial,

commercial, mining, and agricultural

operations, and from community activities.

The main constituent of the latter group is

municipal solid waste (MSW), which

includes paper and paperboard, yard

waste, wood, metal, glass, food waste,

plastics, rubber, leather, textiles, household

hazardous waste, and miscellaneous

inorganic waste.

• Collection and storage— CWA

• Composting— EPCRA, CERCLA, and CAA

• Disposal— RCRA, CWA, and CAA

Household hazardous waste collection and storage

programs are not regulated by federal statutes. 

3.6.1 Collecting and Storing Municipal Solid

Waste

Solid waste management begins with the collection

and storage of solid waste. Collection involves

either picking up the waste at curbside or backdoors or gathering it from drop-off locations. 

Storage is basically maintaining the waste at an interim site prior to recycling or final disposal.

3.6.1.1 Collection

Depending on the demographics, geographic environment, and/or state law, every local

government has some type of service in which solid waste is collected from residents. A local

government can use its own employees and equipment, a private firm(s) through an established

contract(s) with the local government, or a private service that has contracted directly with

residents.

Local governments use an array of methods for collecting solid waste, including the following:

C Curbside or alley collection

C “Backyard set out-set back” or “backyard carry,” in which containers are carried from

backyards by collection crews to the curbs for collection

C Drop-off stations, where residents deliver solid waste to a specified site, such as a transfer

station, local dumpster, or the disposal site itself.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-57 Local Government Operations

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Collection and

Storage Disposal

Household

Hazardous Waste

Collection/

Storage

Municipal Waste

Combustor Transfer Stations Landfill Operation VehicleMaintenance

Recycling and

Composting

Exhibit 3-6. Solid Waste Management

Most activities undertaken during collection are not regulated by any particular environmental

statute. Federal guidelines for the collection and storage of residential, commercial, and

institutional solid waste are given at 40 CFR Part 243, but are not binding on state and local

governments. There may be local ordinances or state health laws that pertain to the frequency of

collection, depending on the community.

3.6.1.2 Storage/Operation of Transfer Stations

Once a local government has collected the solid waste, it may have to store the waste at an

interim location prior to recycling or final disposal. If necessary, such storage usually occurs at a

transfer station. A transfer station is a facility where wastes are transferred from smaller

collection vehicles to larger transport vehicles, such as tractor trailers, railroad gondola cars, or

barges. These vehicles then transport the waste to its final destination.

Not all local governments have transfer stations. In small communities in which the nearest

landfill is within 10 to 15 miles, compactor trucks take solid waste directly to the landfill. If

stations are used, collection crews take waste to the transfer stations where it is weighed and

either temporarily stored or moved directly into a larger vehicle. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-58 Local Government Operations

These activities may impact the environment if waste is not contained and kept from leaving the

transfer station by wind or storm water runoff. In addition to basic local building and health

codes, the operation of transfer stations may be regulated under the local government’s NPDES

storm water or CSO permit conditions. Storage should be on a short-term basis only and should

prevent the waste from being released to the environment. In some conditions, improper storage

could be deemed disposal and could trigger more stringent regulation of the waste.

3.6.2 Recycling and Composting

3.6.2.1 Recycling

Many local governments have established recycling programs as part of their integrated waste

management strategy. Recycling reduces the amount of waste ultimately being disposed of,

conserves natural resources, and, in some situations, generates revenue for the local government. 

A local government recycling program usually includes the following activities:

C Collecting recyclables

C Separating recyclable from nonrecyclable materials

C Processing the recyclable materials

C Marketing the “final” product.

Collection of recyclables is extremely similar to collection of municipal solid waste. Specially

designed vehicles collect recyclables either at curbside or from designated drop-off locations.

Separating recyclables from nonrecyclable materials depends on the collection method. 

Basically, three categories of collection drive separation activities:

C Source separation by type of recyclable (e.g., glass, paper, aluminum) either by the

generator (i.e., the resident) or by the collector at curbside

C Commingled collection (i.e., generator separates recyclables from nonrecyclables)

C Mixed collection, in which there is no separation.

In source separation, segregated recyclables are usually stored by the local government until the

amount is sufficient to send to a processor or market. Private recyclers or dealers usually further

process (e.g., can flattening, glass pulverizing) the recyclables in small communities. During
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-59 Local Government Operations

commingled collection, the local government transports the recyclables to a materials recycling

facility where the recyclables are segregated. Most segregation occurs by hand, but some

automated systems are being used. In mixed collection, all waste is collected together and taken

to a central processing facility. The mixed waste is shredded and magnets and air separators

segregate out the recyclable materials in a process known as front-end processing.

Processing recyclables generally includes activities that prepare the material for final shipment to

the recycler or dealer. Once segregated, recyclables may need further processing to make them

more dense or package them in a way that is appropriate for final shipment. For example, bottles

may be crushed, metals flattened, and paper baled. Such activities reduce storage area, facilitate

handling, and reduce transportation costs.

By definition, recycling does not occur until someone uses the recycled product to make new

products. If there is no market for the recycled materials, there is no recycling. The local

government is responsible for locating markets for its recycled materials. This process is similar

to marketing any product or commodity and involves four distinct steps: 1) determining the

possible uses of the end product, 2) identifing potential markets, 3) marketing the product, and 4)

developing a distribution system. Failure to effectively market the product may ultimately result

in more waste being landfilled. 

The major environmental impact associated with recycling is the volume of waste diverted from

landfills or incineration. This diversion extends the life of landfills and limits the volume of

wastes being combusted, thus reducing environmental impact.

Federal environmental statutes do not directly regulate the recycling of typical solid wastes (e.g.,

paper, plastic, glass, aluminum). However, the recycling of used oil is regulated under 40 CFR

Part 279, which establishes standards for used oil generators, collection centers, transporters and

transfer facilities, processors and re-refiners, burners of off-specification used oil, used oil fuel

marketers, the use of used oil as a dust suppressant, and used oil disposal. Used oil generated by

households is exempt from these requirements. Like federal environmental law, most state laws

that address solid waste recycling typically do not focus on the recycling process itself, but may

specify source separation requirements or recycling/recovery goals.

3.6.2.2 Composting

Composting is a process of aerobic biological decomposition of organic materials to produce a

stable and usable organic topsoil that does not require disposal. Resources used to create the
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-60 Local Government Operations

final compost product originate from the roughly 70 percent of the municipal solid waste stream

that is organic material (i.e., food waste/scraps, yard and lawn clippings).

Three primary activities are associated with composting:

C Collecting/receiving wastes for composting

C Processing the wastes (e.g., decomposition)

C Marketing.

A local government can collect or receive wastes for composting from a variety of sources. The

local government may have active yard waste collection programs, complete with trucks that

vacuum up leaves. Many communities have separate yard waste pickup as a part of recycling

programs or drop-off stations for yard wastes. Significant composting wastes also result from

recyclable material separation and processing. Once recyclable materials are removed from the

solid waste stream, the remaining wastes may be suitable for composting.

During the processing or decomposition stage of composting, the local government may need to

adjust the physical and chemical properties of the waste to make it more amenable to

composting. For example, it may shred or grind the waste into a smaller particle size, alter the

carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, or add water to the waste. All of these activities are designed to

facilitate decomposition. Depending on the types and amounts used, chemicals added to alter the

properties of the composted waste may be regulated under EPCRA or Section 112(r) of the CAA

(risk management plans). Composting that occurs outside may create nuisance odors. Local

ordinances may address odor problems.

A key aspect of composting programs is the concept of biosolids recycling. Sewage sludge

biosolids are solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic

sewage in a wastewater treatment plant. Composting of household organic materials is not

regulated by any major federal statutes, although many states do establish composting standards. 

However, the requirements for land application of biosolids at 40 CFR Part 503 pertain to

materials derived from biosolids (e.g., biosolids that have undergone a change in quality through

treatment, such as composting, or by mixing with other materials, such as wood chips, municipal

solid waste, or yard waste). These regulations specify pollutant limits, management practices,

operating standards, monitoring requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. As

with recycling, the local government is responsible for locating a market for its compost. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-61 Local Government Operations

3.6.3 Source Reduction

Local governments often encourage programs that are directed at conserving resources and

reducing the amount of solid waste generated in the first place, thereby helping to mitigate the

burden of collection, processing, and disposal practices. In many states, source reduction is the

topic of legislation directed at government procurement and purchasing requirements (e.g., local

governments can model their own policies after state directives to use recycled paper, doublesided copies), labeling guidelines, and product reuse (e.g., “bottle bills”). Many states have

waste reduction goals that require 25 to 50 percent reduction in the solid waste stream before a

particular year.

Local governments can perform waste audits to assess the flow of materials through their

systems. In doing so, disposal costs are quantified, unnecessarily disposed materials are identified

and quantified, cost savings are estimated, and new programs are initiated and monitored. These

audits can help managers to determine the most appropriate and effective source reduction

programs for their community. 

3.6.4 Disposal

Local governments must dispose of solid waste that is not recyclable, compostable, or considered

household hazardous waste. The two primary types of disposal practices are landfilling and

municipal waste combustion, or incineration, which may employ conventional techniques or a

“waste-to-energy” approach.

3.6.4.1 Landfill Operation

Local governments often own and operate solid waste landfills for final disposal of the majority

of solid waste generated within their jurisdictions. Solid waste landfills provide an engineered

facility for the long-term containment of solid waste and involve the following activities:

C Receiving and depositing solid waste into the landfill

C Controlling disease vector populations

C Managing/monitoring landfill gas production, leachate, and storm water

C Recordkeeping.

Most landfills include a large disposal area that contains numerous smaller cells. Solid waste is

deposited in these cells daily, compacted using specially designed bulldozers, and then generally
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-62 Local Government Operations

covered with either a thin layer of soil or some alternative cover. The local governments control

the flow of solid waste into the facility to exclude materials such as hazardous waste or other

materials that should be managed elsewhere or could be recycled to make the landfill safer and

preserve capacity. Once a cell is full, it is covered with a final cover designed to limit infiltration

and vector populations, as well as to provide a base for cover vegetation.

Local governments must monitor groundwater in close proximity to the landfill and employ a

system of pipes that collect methane gas generated as a byproduct of decomposition. Methane

gas has been identified as a significant greenhouse gas. Facilities that generate sufficient

quantities of methane can recover the landfill gas for use as an energy source. Storm water

runoff associated with landfills may be regulated under the CWA storm water provisions.

Landfill operations are subject to the minimum criteria for municipal solid waste landfills given

at 40 CFR Part 258. These criteria address location restrictions, operating criteria, design

criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements, closure and post-closure

care requirements, and financial assurance criteria. If a municipal solid waste landfill subject to

this rule does not meet these requirements, it is considered an open dump, which is prohibited

under Section 4005 of RCRA.

A local government could be subject to state permit provisions if it has developed its own solid

waste permit program under delegated authority from EPA. Under the CAA, landfills are subject

to air emission guidelines (40 CFR Section 60.30c), and EPA is developing NESHAPs for

emissions from landfills as a long-term action. In addition, landfills may be regulated under

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), nonattainment area (NAA) provisions, and new

source performance standards (NSPS) programs.

3.6.4.2 Municipal Waste Combustion

An alternative method of managing solid waste is through combustion. Solid waste combustion

involves the incineration of all or a portion of the solid waste stream in specially designed solid

waste combustion facilities and the disposal of the residual ash in landfills.

When choosing to employ municipal combustion, local governments can either retrofit existing

facilities, build new facilities, or enter into regional partnerships. If they are building new

facilities, they must site, design (incorporating elaborate air pollution controls), permit, and

construct the combustion facility. Once a combustion facility is in place, the local government

must ensure its proper operation, provide a relatively constant flow of waste as a feed stream, and
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-63 Local Government Operations

Common Household Hazardous

Wastes

Oil-based paint and varnish, paint and

varnish remover, pesticides,

insecticides, herbicides, motor oil,

brake fluid, fuels, antifreeze, oven

cleaners, drain cleaners, bleach,

solvents, pool chemicals, mothballs,

dye, nail polish, photo chemicals, toilet

cleaners, fertilizer, metal polish, floor

cleaners, wood strippers, muriatic

acid, creosote, sealants, and both

household and automotive batteries

manage and dispose of the residual ash. Most new incinerators have the capacity to recover and

reuse the energy released during combustion (the“waste-to-energy” process).

Municipal waste combustion is regulated primarily under the CAA (40 CFR Part 60), which

establishes guidelines and standards of performance for municipal waste combustors, as well as

standards of performance for incinerators. Regulations under RCRA would only apply if the

facility receives and burns hazardous waste. Other CAA regulatory programs to which

combustion may be subject are PSD, NAA provisions, NESHAPs, and NSPS.

The disposal of residual ash from the combustion of municipal waste, including fly ash and

bottom ash, is regulated under RCRA and state law. Generally, these two types of ash are

combined and then disposed of either at a municipal landfill or a special ash landfill. Under

RCRA, each facility must determine whether the combined ash constitutes a hazardous waste

and, if so, the ash must be managed as a hazardous waste. If the ash is not a hazardous waste, it

can be managed under state law, which may allow disposal in a solid waste landfill or provide for

disposal in an ash monofill (or impose other special requirements).

3.6.5 Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Storage

Local governments may sponsor basic household hazardous waste collection programs. These

programs may be single-day or continuous events that provide for the safe collection,

identification, sorting, storage, and disposal or reuse of

household hazardous waste. Such programs may be

operated by the local government or administered

under a contract with a waste management firm. The

materials collected during a household hazardous

waste collection program may be recycled (e.g., used

oil), used as a waste fuel (e.g., solvents), or disposed of

properly at hazardous waste facilities.

Under the regulations that implement RCRA,

hazardous waste generated by households is exempt

from federal hazardous waste regulations.

Nevertheless, these wastes can and do pose an

environmental and health risk when they are managed improperly. These products may contain

toxic substances that can be released when they are poured down the sink, sewer, onto the
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-64 Local Government Operations

ground, or when they are landfilled or incinerated. Thus, many state and local governments have

established household hazardous waste collection, storage, and disposal programs. 

Under federal regulation, the collection, transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal of

household hazardous waste are exempt from the regulations applicable to commercial hazardous

waste. In addition, resource recovery facilities that manage municipal solid waste are not subject

to hazardous waste regulations (with the exception of ash that exhibits a hazardous characteristic,

such as toxicity) if they meet specified conditions. 

3.6.6 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance

Local governments are responsible for maintaining all vehicles associated with solid waste

activities according to the operations described in Section 3.10.

3.6.7 Other Operations That May Be Regulated

Another operation associated with solid waste management is pesticide application. Pesticides

may be used in solid waste management activities to control weed growth and control vectors. 

Activities related to pesticide use and storage may be regulated under the provisions of FIFRA,

EPCRA, or CAA Section 112(r). Section 3.4 provides more information on pesticide

management.

3.6.8 Pollution Prevention in Solid Waste Management Operations

Numerous opportunities exist for pollution prevention in solid waste management operations. As

the lead municipal department with responsibility of "putting waste in its place," solid waste

operators have a responsibility to demonstrate their commitment to waste reduction by ensuring

that their operations prevent pollution and are in compliance with existing environmental

regulations. With a diverse range of activities, solid waste managers provide a range of services

with polluting possibilities. These can generally be categorized as follows:

C Source reduction

C Collection and storage

C Processing— recycling and composting

C Disposal

C Household hazardous waste (HHW).
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-65 Local Government Operations

With the exception of source reduction, each of these categories generates wastes as described

below.

3.6.8.1 Typical Wastes Generated

Curbside collection is provided for solid waste and recyclables, with drop off facilities for other

materials and special wastes. Key wastes generated by collection operations include used motor

oil and filters, antifreeze, parts washer solvent, used hydraulic oil, tires, used vehicles and vehicle

parts, and air emissions.

The processing of recyclables at material recovery facilities, solid waste at transfer stations, and

yard waste at compost sites often generates waste. Key wastes include dust from compost sites,

hydraulic oil, site runoff, recycling residues, electrical transformers, and spilled fuels. 

Waste disposal includes landfill and waste-to-energy facility operations. Key landfill wastes

include leachate and air emissions. Key waste-to-energy facility wastes include bottom ash, fly

ash, bulky materials, air pollution control residues, air emissions, and wastewater.

Household hazardous waste collection programs are frequently operated by a local government as

a service to the citizens, where the local government typically assumes generator status for

household materials upon acceptance at the collection point. Problematic wastes generated

internally by solid waste management operations include PCBs and mercury from fluorescent

ballasts, paints, and CRTs (cathode ray tubes) from computer monitors.

3.6.8.2 Top Pollution Prevention Opportunities

Overall

Perform a waste audit - understand your waste stream in order to identify high priority items for

source reduction and reuse (e.g., textiles, yard waste, construction and demolition material).

Collection

• Establish "take back" program with motor oil suppliers to provide re-refined oil.

• Use in-line oil filters to reduce frequency of oil filter disposal.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-66 Local Government Operations

• Capture and recycle on site spent antifreeze.

• Convert parts washer to aqueous-based systems.

• Convert fleet to natural gas as feasible.

• Maximize collection efficiency (minimize trips) by using route management software and

multi-purpose vehicles.

• Recycle tires and utilize retread tires where appropriate.

• Specify tires for maximum durability.

 

Processing

• Establish a preventative maintenance program for all major pieces of equipment to

minimize potential fluid discharges.

• Capture and recycle spilled hydraulic oil using oil absorbent material.

• Minimize recycling residues through on-going education of customers, limits on

compaction equipment, and employee training.

• Maximize acceptability of compost products by minimizing heavy metal content of

source materials, including pretreatment requirements for industrial contributors and

increased frequency of street sweepings.

Disposal

• Minimize landfill site runoff by capturing and recirculating leachate and development of

effective storm water management plans.

• Capture and reuse methane gas generated at landfill sites.

• Minimize hazardous nature of incinerator ash by implementing battery recycling and

household hazardous waste collection programs.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-67 Local Government Operations

Household Hazardous Waste

Educate HHW participants to "use it up," provide a waste exchange for unopened materials, and

bulk containerize latex paint for reuse or resale.

Other

• Establish preventative maintenance program for electrical equipment and require

equipment vendors to take back all devices with mercury switches or PCB transformers.

• Replace underground storage tanks with above ground tanks with proper containment

systems.

• Minimize pesticide usage through litter prevention and site management programs.

3.6.8.3 Success Story

The City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works provides solid waste and recycling

collection and processing services for more than 600,000 people. In 1990, the department began

a review of its operations to determine what types of pollution prevention efforts could be

implemented. 

As a result of waste audits at numerous facilities, the city has implemented the following:

C Encouraged residents to leave grass clippings on their lawns by launching the "Just Say

Mow" campaign.

C Designed, tested, and added 45 split body packers for multi-purpose collection.

C Developed and implemented a GIS-based routing program to minimize trip times.

C Replaced fuel stations with state-of-the art fueling facilities, including pump emission

controls and containment.

C Implemented storm water management plans for each of its facilities.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-68 Local Government Operations

Defining “Municipal” Sewer Systems

EPA uses a broad definition of “municipal” in

defining municipal sewer systems. Municipal

systems are defined as conveyances that are

owned or operated by a state, city, town, borough,

county, parish, district, association, or other public

body having jurisdiction of disposal of sewage,

industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes,

including special districts under state law such as a

sewer district, flood control district or drainage

district, or other similar entity, or an Indian tribe or

an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a

designated and approved management agency

under Section 208 of the CWA.

C Improved fleet maintenance by use of re-refined motor oil and paint booth improvements.

C Discouraged drop off of latex paints and educated public to reduce and reuse materials.

Resources

EPA Office of Solid Waste Management - www.epa.gov/osw.

Azimi and Saphire, Rethinking Resources: New Ideas for Community Waste Reduction -

http://www.informinc.org/rethinking.html.

Comprehensive Municipal Pollution Prevention Project: Inventory Phase, Regional Municipality 

of Hamilton-Wentworth, April, 1995.

For more information, contact Steve Brachman, Waste Reduction and Management Specialist,

UW-Extension, Phone: (414) 227-3165, Fax: (414) 227-3165, E-mail: brachman@uwm.edu.

3.7 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

Local governments are responsible for designing, planning, constructing, financing, operating,

and maintaining wastewater treatment plants. They are also responsible for the conveyance

systems that transport wastewater to the treatment plant and discharge storm water runoff to

nearby water bodies. A publicly owned treatment works (POTW) consists of the wastewater

treatment plant and a collection system that

transports sanitary sewage to it. A

collection system can be either of two types

(or some combination of the two):

• Separate sanitary sewer systems are

designed to convey only municipal

sanitary sewage and industrial

wastewater.

• Combined sewer systems are designed

to convey storm water runoff in

addition to municipal sanitary sewage

and industrial wastewater.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-69 Local Government Operations

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

Collection

System Operation

and Maintenance

Municipal Separate

Storm Sewer

System

Combined Sewer

System

Sanitary Sewer

System

Treatment

Pretreatment

Program

Compliance

Chemical Storage/

Hazardous

Materials

Management

Laboratory

Operations

Biosolids

Management and

Disposal

NPDES Permit

Compliance

Exhibit 3-7. Wastewater Management 

A third type of conveyance system— a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)— conveys

storm water runoff directly to nearby waters rather than to a POTW.

Overall, POTWs are responsible for collecting, treating, analyzing, and discharging wastewater

received from separate sanitary or combined sewer systems, as well as for disposing of sewage

sludge, or "biosolids," generated during the treatment process. A POTW must comply with its

NPDES permit, including requirements for industrial pretreatment, compliance monitoring, and

proper use or disposal of biosolids. A POTW is also responsible for laboratory operations,

chemical storage and hazardous materials management, and vehicle and equipment maintenance. 

Exhibit 3.7 presents common operations for wastewater management.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-70 Local Government Operations

What part of the sanitary sewer

system is most likely to leak?

Sanitary sewer capacity is reduced by

ground water seepage through leaky

pipes and storm water flow through

leaky and missing manhole covers and

domestic and industrial roof drains. 

While much of the leakage occurs in

main trunk sewers, more than 50

percent of groundwater seepage in

certain areas may come from holes in

pipes on private property. 

3.7.1 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEWER

SYSTEMS

The system through which water is conveyed can be

one or more of three types, any or all of which a local

government may be responsible for operating and

maintaining. The three types are separate sanitary

sewer systems, combined sewer systems, and

municipal separate storm water systems. These

systems may be regulated under the NPDES,

pretreatment, or storm water provisions of the CWA.

3.7.1.1 Sanitary Sewer Systems

Local governments design, construct, operate, and maintain sanitary sewer systems to convey

wastewater from homes and businesses to wastewater treatment plants. Local governments

install new sewer lines, clean blocked lines, repair leaky lines, maintain root control, repair

manholes, operate and maintain pump stations, and conduct all maintenance activities necessary

to prevent overflows and ensure that wastewater is conveyed to the treatment plant. 

Maintaining sanitary sewer systems is a significant responsibility for local governments. Leaks

or the infiltration of wastewater into the sewer system can occur through cracks and improperly

sealed pipe joints.

Overall, this "infiltration and inflow" (I/I) raises the volume of wastewater in sewers and lowers

their capacity. During excess rainfall events, the sewer system cannot carry the excess

wastewater, and flooding can occur. Diluted and untreated sewage can back up through

manholes and into basements, spill into storm drains and creeks, and wash up onto public

beaches. To ensure maximum system capacity and to prevent these "sanitary sewer overflows"

(SSOs), local governments must undertake active monitoring and preventive maintenance

programs to identify and repair leaky sewer lines, as well as conduct any major upgrades or

restorations. 

Local governments that operate POTWs are required to report all overflows and flooding from

either sanitary or combined sewage systems so that repairs and preventive action can be taken to

minimize the extent of environmental and human health impacts.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-71 Local Government Operations

SSOs, whether caused by excessive I/I, inadequate capacity, blockages, or equipment failure,

impact the environment through the discharge of raw sanitary sewage. These discharges often

result in direct human exposure to raw sewage, as well as discharge of sewage to surface and

ground waters. SSOs are unpermitted, illegal discharges under the CWA and may subject the

local government to enforcement action by the regulatory authority.

3.7.1.2 Combined Sewer Systems

Approximately 950 communities, mostly in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions, have

combined sewer systems (CSSs) that are designed to carry both sanitary sewage and storm water

runoff to the POTW for treatment. In periods of heavy rainfall or snowmelt, the wastewater

volume in a CSS can exceed the capacity of the system. CSSs, therefore, are designed to

overflow occasionally and discharge excess wastewater directly to nearby water bodies. These

discharges are called combined sewer overflows (CSOs).

Communities with CSSs have operation and maintenance responsibilities similar to those for

separate sanitary sewer systems, such a installing new sewer lines, cleaning blocked lines, and

inspecting for and fixing leaks and infiltration. Their most important activity, however, is

controlling CSOs, which contain not only storm water but also untreated human and industrial

waste, toxic materials, and debris.

EPA's CSO Control Policy describes numerous options available to communities with CSOs,

recognizing that completely eliminating these discharges is neither necessary nor affordable in

many cases. All CSO communities are expected to implement nine minimum controls, such as

maximizing the use of the collection system for storage, controlling the discharge of solid and

floatable materials, and eliminating CSOs during dry weather periods. CSO communities are

also expected to develop long-term CSO control plans that identify which additional controls,

including capital projects, will be developed to help meet water quality standards.

CSO control requirements are included as conditions in NPDES permits and enforcement orders. 

Due to the site-specific nature of CSO problems and the flexibility in the CSO Control Policy,

local communities should coordinate actively with their permitting and water quality standards

authorities to develop long-term control plans and permit requirements that will provide

meaningful environmental benefits within the community's financial capability.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-72 Local Government Operations

3.7.1.3 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems

Local governments also are responsible for operating and maintaining separate storm sewers. 

MS4s are designed to convey storm water from impermeable areas to bodies of water. In

conveying storm water directly to streams, rivers, and lakes, MS4s also transport oil, grease,

pesticides, herbicides, dirt and grit, all of which have the potential to reduce water quality. Local

government operations related to operating and maintaining storm sewer systems include

clearing blocked sewer lines, preventing contaminants from entering the storm sewer system,

constructing storm water controls, and sampling and analyzing storm water discharges. In

addition, local governments reduce the volume of silt and solids being transported to the sewer

systems and reduce water contamination by cleaning streets, removing wastes, and cleaning

screens. 

EPA's NPDES storm water regulations require local governments to apply for an NPDES storm

water permit, characterize storm water discharges, implement management procedures to prevent

contaminated storm water from discharging to waterways, and monitor storm water discharges.

3.7.1.4 Water Line Repair/Replacement

Separate, combined, and storm sewer systems require repair to eliminate conditions that interfere

with their ability to convey sewage and storm water flows. Sewers and other collection system

components, such as manholes, pump stations, and siphons, must be repaired or replaced to

address structural failure, infiltration (leakage of groundwater into pipes), exfiltration (leakage of

sewage out of pipes), and blockages. In combined sewers, regulators must be repaired when they

fail to divert combined wastewater flows at the intended flow rates. Portions of a sewer system

may need to be replaced to address inadequate capacity, which can result in separate sewer

system overflows during periods of high flow. Repairs may involve replacing individual pipe

sections, replacing entire sewer segments, or repairing existing sewers. Grouting leaking joints,

lining existing sewers, and rebuilding or lining manholes and other structures all may be

necessary.

Separate and combined sewer system repairs can impact the environment through the discharge

of raw sewage that may occur as a result of the need to bypass sewage around the line or system

component being repaired. Repairs of separate, combined, and storm sewers also can affect the

environment through erosion and sedimentation, which take place as a result of excavation,

stockpiling, and backfilling, or through the discharge of sediment-laden water from the repair
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-73 Local Government Operations

excavation. Guidance on sewer maintenance activities is often included in a local government

POTW's NPDES permit.

3.7.2 Wastewater Treatment

Local governments may be responsible

for the final system through which water

is conveyed and treated. WWTPs are

responsible for the treatment, analysis,

and discharge of wastewater received

from sanitary or combined sewer

systems, and the disposal of sludge

generated from the treatment process. 

Activities at a WWTP may include:

C Operating and maintaining the plant to ensure that discharges meet the facility’s NPDES

permit requirements and limitations

C Overseeing a pretreatment program to prevent industrial discharges from causing

interference or pass through, sludge contamination, or the plant to violate its permit

C Sampling and analyzing wastewater and sludge prior to discharge or disposal to meet

NPDES monitoring requirements

C Managing biosolids from the treatment processes by landfilling, land application, surface

disposal, incineration, or composting

C Maintaining records and submitting discharge monitoring reports (DMRs).

Because these activities could affect the environment, they may be subject to environmental

regulations as indicated in the following list.

• Wastewater treatment process— CAA

• NPDES permit compliance— CWA

• Laboratory operations— CWA and RCRA

• Pretreatment program— CWA
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-74 Local Government Operations

• Biosolids management and disposal— CWA, RCRA, and CAA

• Chemical storage/hazardous materials management— EPCRA, CERCLA, and CAA

3.7.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Process

Municipal wastewater (sewage) treatment is defined by the extent of pollutant

removal and the mechanisms (physical, biological, or chemical) used for

removal. Wastewater treatment is classified as primary, secondary, and tertiary

treatment. Primary treatment consists primarily of physical processes (settling or

skimming) that remove a significant percentage of the organic and inorganic

solids from wastewater. Secondary treatment depends on biological action to

remove fine suspended solids, dispersed solids, and dissolved organics by

volatilization, biodegradation, and incorporation into sludge. In addition, secondary treatment

satisfies much of the oxygen demand of the pollutant(s). Advanced wastewater treatment uses a

variety of biological, physical, and chemical treatment approaches to reduce nutrients, organics,

and pathogens.

Local governments can use “biogas,” a product of anaerobic digestion, either offsite or within the

plant to improve energy efficiency of wastewater treatment processes. Biogas, a gas composed

of methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and other minor gaseous compounds, has about 60

percent of the heat value of natural gas. If the gas is not reused, it can be flared, which may be

regulated under the CAA.

3.7.2.2 NPDES Permit Compliance

Local governments are responsible for complying with federal regulations, for both wastewater

plant operation and the collection system (sanitary or combined) that conveys wastewater to the

WWTP. Proper operation and maintenance are critical for sewage collection and treatment

because the environmental impacts from these processes can severely degrade water resources

and, ultimately, human health. For these reasons, POTWs receive NPDES permits to ensure

compliance with federal regulations. 

NPDES permits, issued by either EPA or a delegated state (EPA has authorized 42 states to

administer the NPDES program), establish effluent limits on the kinds and quantities of

pollutants that POTWs can discharge and the pollutant monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements. Each POTW that intends to discharge into the nation’s waters must obtain an

NPDES permit prior to initiating its discharge.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-75 Local Government Operations

To comply with the NPDES permit, local governments are responsible for implementing an

NPDES monitoring program at their POTWs. To comply with the program, POTWs must

collect samples of effluent discharges at the required frequencies and locations as specified in

their permits and submit monitoring reports to the state or EPA. Sampling and analysis are

conducted to verify that the amounts and types of pollutants discharged from wastewater

treatment systems meet the NPDES permit limits. The NPDES permit specifies the parameters

that must be monitored. These parameters vary by plant. The primary parameters in NPDES

permits for POTWs include biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), pH, fecal coliform, residual

chlorine, and suspended solids. An NPDES permit may include other parameters, such as

bioassay toxicity tests and metals. 

If a POTW meets the NPDES permit limits, the systems usually are operating properly. Failure

to comply with these requirements can result in permit suspension, increased monitoring

requirements, and/or issuance of fines or other penalties by EPA or the relevant state regulatory

agency. 

3.7.2.3 Laboratory Operations

Some POTWs analyze wastewater samples and sludge at onsite laboratories. Laboratory

procedures must comply with approved methods and meet NPDES monitoring requirements.

Chemicals used in the laboratory include acids (e.g., sulfuric, hydrochloric, nitric), bases (e.g.,

sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium azide solution), and others (e.g., chlorine, ferric

salts, carbon disulfide, and benzene). The quantity of wastes generated depends on the number

and types of tests performed. The storage and disposal of some wastes generated from laboratory

activities may be regulated under the hazardous waste provisions of RCRA. 

POTWs are responsible for operating the wastewater laboratory safely. To prevent laboratory

accidents, chemicals should be stored in a properly ventilated and well lit room. All bottles and

reagents should be clearly labeled and dated. Volatile liquids that can escape as a gas, such as

ether, must be kept away from heat sources, sunlight, and electrical switches. Cylinders of gas

being stored should also be capped and secured to prevent rolling or tipping. 

3.7.2.4 Pretreatment Program

Under the pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 403), POTWs are required to develop and

implement local pretreatment programs. Through this program, the POTW is directly
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-76 Local Government Operations

What are biosolids?

Biosolids (or sewage sludge)

are defined as solid, semisolid, or liquid residue

generated during the

treatment of domestic

sewage in a treatment works.

responsible for the regulation of certain industrial users discharging to the wastewater treatment

system. See Section 3.11 for more information.

3.7.2.5 Biosolids Management and Disposal

Local governments are responsible for managing and disposing

of sewage sludge (i.e., biosolids). Biosolids are a primary

organic solid product produced by wastewater treatment

processes that can be beneficially recycled. (The fact that

biosolids can be recycled does not preclude their disposal.) 

Local governments must follow the federal sludge management

program (40 CFR Part 503), which establishes requirements for

the final use or disposal of biosolids when biosolids are:

C Applied to land to condition the soil or fertilize crops or other vegetation grown in the

soil

C Placed on a surface disposal site for final disposal

C Fired in a biosolids incinerator. 

A fourth disposal option is landfilling. If biosolids are placed in a municipal solid waste landfill,

the local government is responsible for ensuring that the biosolids meet the provisions of 40 CFR

Part 258.

For the most part, the requirements of 40 CFR Part 503 are self-implementing and must be

followed even without issuance of a permit. In most cases, Part 503 requirements will be

incorporated over time into NPDES permits issued to POTWs. The sludge program includes

other facilities (e.g., sewage sludge incinerators, composting facilities, sewage sludge surface

disposal sites) that have not been part of the NPDES program because they were not point

sources of discharge to U.S. waters.

The following provides more information on final use and disposal options for biosolids:

C Land Application. Land application, defined as the spreading of biosolids on or just

below the surface of the land, is the most widely employed use of biosolids. Part 503

specifies the biosolids quality, pollution limits (metals), pathogen reduction and vector
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-77 Local Government Operations

attraction requirements, application rates, and environmental conditions under which land

application is permitted. Representative samples of biosolids must be collected and

analyzed for inorganic pollutants and pathogens according to methods specified in the

Part 503 rule. In addition, the regulations specify recordkeeping requirements for land

application facilities. 

C Surface Disposal. Surface disposal is defined in the Part 503 regulations as an area of

land that contains one or more active biosolids units. A unit is an area of land on which

only biosolids are placed for final disposal. Under the provisions of Part 503, facilities

using surface disposal must comply with pollutant limits, management practices, and

operational standard(s), as well as other requirements related to the frequency of

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The regulation established limits for three

inorganic pollutants (i.e., arsenic, chromium, and nickel) for active biosolids units that do

not contain a liner and leachate collection system. In addition, site-specific limits can

apply in certain situations.

When placing biosolids on a surface disposal site, local governments must follow

management practices, some of which are given below: 

S Threatened or Endangered Species. Biosolids cannot be placed in a

surface disposal site if it is likely to adversely affect a threatened or

endangered species (under Section 4 of the ESA) or its designated critical

habitat. 

S Wetlands. An active biosolids unit cannot be located in a wetland unless a

permit is issued under Section 402 (NPDES permit) or Section 404

(dredge and fill permit) of the CWA. If the owner/operator of a surface

disposal site suspects that all or some portion of an active biosolids unit is

in a wetland, he or she should contact the local Corps of Engineers district

office to request a wetland delineation. 

S Methane Gas Concentrations. Methane, an odorless and highly

combustible gas, is generated at surface disposal sites. When biosolids are

covered by soil or other material either daily or at closure, established

limits on methane gas concentrations in air must be met because of the

gas’s explosive potential. The gas can migrate and be released into the

environment. To protect site personnel and the public from risks of
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-78 Local Government Operations

explosions, air must be monitored for methane gas continuously within

any structure on the site and at the property line of the surface disposal

site.

S Incineration. Incineration of municipal biosolids is regulated under the

CAA. National ambient air quality standards apply to six pollutants,

including total suspended particulates. Biosolids incinerators contribute

primarily to ambient particulate loadings. Pathogens and toxic organic

chemicals are destroyed during biosolids incineration. However, metals,

such as cadmium and lead, are not destroyed during incineration and are

associated with the ash and fine particulates in the stack emissions. The

emission of mercury and beryllium from sludge incinerators and drying

equipment is regulated under 40 CFR 61. This regulation rarely causes

concern, however, since most biosolids have low concentrations of these

elements. 

Incinerators constructed or significantly modified since June 11, 1973, are

subject to additional regulation under the NSPS, which limit particulate

discharges. These standards apply to any incinerator that burns more than

10 percent wastewater sludge at a rate of more than 1,000 kg per day (40

CFR 60). Usually, incinerators will have to use high-pressure scrubbers to

meet these requirements, but some incinerators have been able to meet the

standard solely through strict operating practices. SIPs may require a

facility to demonstrate that air quality impacts will be within acceptable

limits. 

S Landfilling. Landfilling is a biosolids disposal method in which sludge is

deposited in a dedicated area alone or with solid waste and buried beneath

a soil cover. Landfilling is primarily a disposal method, with no attempt to

recover nutrients and only occasional attempts to recover energy from the

biosolids. If biosolids are placed in a municipal solid waste landfill, the

local government is responsible for ensuring that the biosolids meet the

provisions of 40 CFR Part 258.

– Impact of Biosolids Composition on Disposal/Use Options. The

composition of biosolids can limit a local government’s choice of

biosolids use/disposal options or make certain options more appealing. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-79 Local Government Operations

Appendices A and B of 40 CFR

Part 355 list EPCRA EHSs and 40

CFR Part 302 lists CERCLA

hazardous substances.

The most important constituents are the organic content, nutrients,

pathogens, toxic organic chemicals, and metals. Biosolids may contain

varying amounts of heavy metals and inorganic ions (e.g., cadmium,

copper, lead, mercury, silver) that at high concentrations may be toxic to

humans, animals, and plants. The metals concentrations in biosolids are

among the foremost considerations in land application because of their

potential to damage crops and, in the case of cadmium, to enter the human

food chain. Metals may also be a concern in landfilling, if conditions are

acidic and promote leaching of metals, and in incineration, if improper

design or operating procedures result in the release of metals into the

atmosphere.

Under the hazardous waste provisions of RCRA, biosolids from municipal

wastewater treatment plants are neither excluded nor specifically listed as

hazardous waste. Biosolids from POTWs with highly industrialized areas,

however, may need to be evaluated for characteristics that would result in

designation as hazardous waste. The test most appropriate for these

biosolids is the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP). If the

biosolids fail the TCLP test, they must be handled as a hazardous waste

according to the RCRA requirements. 

3.7.2.6 Chemical Storage/Hazardous Materials Management

If storing or using specified amounts of certain hazardous chemicals, a local government may be

subject to planning and reporting requirements of EPCRA and Section 112(r) of the CAA. 

Hazardous chemicals may be used in various wastewater collection and treatment operations,

such as disinfection as part of the treatment process or cleaning and other maintenance activities. 

Specifically, chlorine and sulfur dioxide are commonly used in the disinfection

(chlorination/dechlorination) process. Additional chemicals may be used in laboratory

procedures to analyze wastewater samples. Facilities must submit hazardous chemical inventory

and emergency release information as follows:

C Emergency Release Notification (EPCRA

Section 304). A facility is required to notify the

SERCs and LEPCs of a release equal to or

exceeding a predetermined amount of certain

hazardous chemicals. The chemicals covered by
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-80 Local Government Operations

this requirement include EPCRA extremely hazardous substances (EHSs), as well as

hazardous substances identified in the CERCLA. The emergency release notification

activates emergency plans and provides information to the SERCs and LEPCs, who will

coordinate release response activity in order to prevent harmful effects to the public. 

C Hazardous Chemical Inventory and Reporting (EPCRA Sections 311 and 312). 

Under EPCRA, any facility that is required by OSHA’s Hazardous Communication

Standard to prepare or have available an MSDS for a hazardous chemical is subject to

EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 requirements if the chemical is present onsite at any one

time in excess of threshold levels. 

MSDS Reporting. Under Section 311 of EPCRA, a facility must submit a one-time

notification identifying the hazardous chemicals (including EPCRA EHSs and OSHA

hazardous chemicals) present at the facility in amounts equal to or in excess of threshold

quantities to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department (40 CFR 370.21). To meet the

notification requirement, a facility must submit either an MSDS (or copies of MSDSs) or

a list of the EPCRA EHSs and OSHA hazardous chemicals. After initial reporting, if a

facility finds that it has a hazardous chemical that is newly covered in amounts equal to or

in excess of the threshold level or there has been significant new information on an

already reported chemical, it must update the information reported under Section 311

within 3 months after discovery.

Tier Reporting. Under Section 312 of EPCRA, a facility must meet an annual reporting

requirement for OSHA hazardous chemicals and EPCRA EHSs in amounts equal to or in

excess of threshold levels. If equaling or exceeding the threshold levels at any time in the

preceding year, a facility must submit to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department an

Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form. This form must be submitted by

March 1 of each year. EPA publishes two types of inventory forms, Tier I and Tier II,

for reporting this information. While federal regulations require only the submission of a

Tier I form, EPA encourages, and some states require, the use of the Tier II form. 

LEPCs make this information available to the public, and fire departments and public

health officials use the information to plan for and respond to emergencies.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-81 Local Government Operations

At present, EPA has established a list of 140

substances that are regulated under the CAA. 

These substances were published in the Federal

Register on January 31, 1994; EPA amended the

list by rule, published on December 18, 1997. 

EPA may further amend the list in the future as

needed. 

C Risk Management Planning (CAA

Section 112(r)). Under Section

112(r) of the amended CAA,

facilities that have more than a

threshold quantity of any of the 140

regulated substances in a single

process are required to develop risk

management programs and to summarize these programs in risk management plans by

June 21, 1999 (40 CFR Part 68). Risk management plans, which are intended to prevent

accidental releases of regulated substances and to reduce the severity of any releases that

do occur, will be made available to state and local government agencies and the public. 

EPA has been working with industry groups to develop model risk management

programs. To review the model program, refer to EPA’s Chemical Accident Prevention

and Risk Management Planning website at http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/accpre.htm#Model Plans/.

3.7.3 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance

Local governments are responsible for maintaining plant vehicles according to the operations

described in Section 3.10, as well as for maintaining equipment (e.g., pumps, standby generators)

at the POTWs. Equipment maintenance is necessary for optimal equipment operation, which

helps ensure high performance at a plant. Most POTWs maintain an onsite spare parts inventory. 

Many large plants have fully equipped machine shops staffed by competent mechanics. Smaller

plants often have to rely on machine shop facilities in the community. In addition, most pump

manufacturers maintain pump repair departments where pumps can be fully reconditioned.

3.7.4 Other Operations That May Be Regulated

In addition, POTWs may be regulated for pesticide management. POTWs may use pesticides,

particularly herbicides, onsite to control weed growth and maintain the plant site. Activities

related to pesticide use and storage may be regulated under the provisions of FIFRA, EPCRA, or

Section 112(r) of the CAA. See Section 3.4 for more information on pesticide management.

3.7.5 Pollution Prevention in Wastewater Management 

A substantial amount of the pollution generated by the practices and processes used to collect and

treat wastewater can be prevented. In preventing pollution, wastewater treatment plants can
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-82 Local Government Operations

serve as role models for their residential, commercial, and industrial customers and to help or

require dischargers to reduce their own toxic discharges to sewers through education, on site

assistance, and regulatory programs. 

3.7.5.1 Typical Wastes Generated

Sewer line and wastewater treatment operations and maintenance is key to ensuring proper

treatment of wastewater and protection of the environment. Losses include leaks from pipes,

unintended discharges to water ways, and others.

The wastewater treatment process involves treating both the liquid and solid factions of waste

water. In doing so, various chemicals may be added to either the solids or the liquids to produce

an appropriate product meeting discharge requirements. Sample of losses include lab waste,

methane flare, bar screen waste, and grit chamber material. 

Other elements of a wastewater collection and treatment system may include such things as

wetlands, storage tanks, pesticide and herbicide use, use of well water, and purchasing practices. 

Spills and leaks from containers or purchasing a hazardous chemical over an alternative

non-toxic chemical, etc. contribute to losses that increase pollution in the environment.

The proper maintenance of vehicles and equipment is key to wastewater treatment. Potential

wastes found in this area are emissions from vehicle use and spill/leaks/drips from equipment.

3.7.5.2 Top Pollution Prevention Opportunities

• Keep harmful chemicals out of the sewer lines and protect line workers, the plant, and the

public's investment. Work closely with assistance programs at the local and state level,

such as pollution prevention programs, economic development commissions and

pretreatment programs.

• Institutionalize a preventative maintenance program to predict problems before they occur

instead of reacting to them after their occurrence.

• Design, implement, and evaluate sewage acceptance procedures including provisions for

spill prevention, discharge limitations, hauler performance guarantee, and enforcement or

permit revocation.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-83 Local Government Operations

• Explore, evaluate and implement alternatives to existing wastewater treatment processes,

such as ultraviolet radiation or osmosis, to avoid toxic chemicals, such as chlorine and

hypochlorite.

• Reuse or recycle solids (e.g., primary scum) and secondary screenings in areas such as

landscaping. Check local and state regulations for any special requirements.

• Post and track statistical control tools to inform all employees of the plants target

operating level and the actual operating level.

• Establish a screening mechanism for procuring chemicals that evaluates non-toxic

alternatives, and reduces chemical dependence thereby lowering hazardous waste and the

hazardous waste generator status.

• Be innovative in use and reuse of energy, such as fuel cells operating from methane,

participating in DOE's Green Lights Program, using variable speed pumps, and using

heating/air conditioning controls and room sensors in buildings.

• Create a gain share program whereby employees benefit from reduced pollution and for

sharing ideas. (Labor unions embrace pollution prevention as a health and safety issue

for their members.)

• Use alternative transportation, such as bicycles, at the facility. Offer transit subsidies,

telework, and flex-schedules for employees.

3.7.6 Success Story

The City of Portland, Oregon's, Environmental Services operates and maintains the collection

and treatment systems of two wastewater treatment facilities for 550,000 people in the greater

Portland area. Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant's average annual day flow is 80

MGD, whereas Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant's average flow ranges from 5 to 17

MGD. Each facility provides primary and secondary treatment. Using self-directed work teams

and participating in a Pollution Prevention Program field project, each facility has accomplished

great results in prevention. These include:

C Implementing a chemical pre-screening program
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-84 Local Government Operations

C Participating in the Green Lights Program, thereby saving $28,465 per year in energy

costs

C Testing a new fuel cell that converts methane and produces power for use by the

treatment plant

C Reducing hazardous waste generator status from large quantity generator to conditionally

exempt small quantity generator

C Reusing treated effluent to water facility grounds.

Resources

“Promoting Pollution Prevention Among Dischargers to POTWs,” Lois N. Epstein and Steven A.

Skavroneck, WEF conference, Miami, FL, October 25, 1995. Available from the

Environmental Defense Fund, 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, #1016, Washington, D.C.

20009.

For more information, contact Margaret Nover, Pollution Prevention Program, City of Portland,

Oregon, Phone: 503-823-7623 Fax: 503-823-5565, E-mail: margaret@bes.ci.portland.or.us

3.8 WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Water resources include surface waters (i.e., coastal bays, lakes, rivers, and streams) and

groundwater. These water resources may be used to supply drinking water, industrial process

water, or water for recreational opportunities. For each of these uses, local governments are

primarily responsible for ensuring that the water is safe and available in sufficient quantities to be

used for its intended purpose. Activities related to water resources management include

protecting and managing surface waters (including reservoirs), and protecting groundwater

drinking supplies. Water resources management programs protect these waters from storm water

runoff, direct wastewater discharges, and direct discharge of materials that can cause

contamination. In contrast to the previously described local government operations, the

implementation of water resources management activities has a minimal negative impact on the

environment. Rather, the activities themselves are designed to reduce the environmental impact

on water resources. For this reason, considering water resources management through land use

planning is an important component of protecting the water supplies. Section 3.11 of this profile

provides more information on land use planning.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-85 Local Government Operations

Local governments may be responsible for managing the water resources within their borders as

part of their efforts to meet requirements in their NPDES storm water or CSO control program

permit conditions. While many water resource management activities will overlap these permit

requirements, local governments may elect to develop water resources management programs

whether or not they are required by regulations. 

3.8.1 Surface Water Protection

Local governments may be responsible for protecting surface waters for designated uses

including drinking water, habitat preservation, or recreation. Surface waters are generally

protected through implementation of storm water management plans that include BMPs, effluent

or watershed monitoring, and in some cases, reservoir management. These activities can reduce

contamination of water sources and increase opportunities to use those sources for their intended

purposes. 

3.8.1.1 Best Management Practices

BMPs may be structural (e.g., storm water detention/retention ponds) or nonstructural (e.g., street

sweeping) and may include managing existing sources or conduits of contamination such as

roads, bridges, and storm water systems. These activities help a local government protect its

water supply and comply with its storm water permit.

Structural BMPs are designed to prevent, inhibit, or slow the rate at which storm water runoff or

spilled contaminants reach a body of water. BMP structures, including extended retention ponds,

wet ponds, and constructed wetlands, prevent contaminants from reaching surface waters by

capturing runoff and allowing it to filter through the soil or evaporate, rather than directly

flowing to a water body. Additional filtering structures include sand filters, oil and grit

separators, and infiltration basins. Containment structures may require periodic maintenance to

remove accumulated sediment, while filtering structures may require maintenance to remove

debris and ensure the filters are working efficiently. Each of these structures helps remove

contaminants (sediment, oils and greases, pesticides, fertilizers, debris) from rain water to protect

the surface water for its intended use.

3.8.1.2 Nonstructural BMPs

Nonstructural BMPs include various operational activities such as sweeping streets, and

maintaining or preserving grassed swales, vegetative buffer areas, and wetlands. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-86 Local Government Operations

While many local governments may sweep the streets to improve community aesthetics or as part

of their NPDES combined sewer or storm water permits, street sweeping is also an effective tool

in protecting water resources. Contaminants typically found on streets include the following:

C Particulates from local soil erosion

C Nitrogen and phosphorus from local plants and soils

C Phenolic compounds from wear of asphalt street surfaces

C Grease, petroleum, n-paraffin, and lead from vehicle leaks and spills

C Lead, zinc, and asbestos from tire wear

C Asbestos, lead, chromium, copper, and nickel from clutch and brake lining wear

C Chlorides from deicing compounds.

Street sweeping protects surface waters by removing such solids as sand, debris, and litter that

would otherwise be transported to the surface water during a rain event. Street sweeping also

prevents contaminants that may be absorbed by sand and debris from reaching surface water. 

Vegetative buffer areas are physical active controls designed and maintained to filter and

infiltrate pollutants thereby preventing them from reaching surface waters, and are essential in

maintaining surface water quality. These areas complement passive control, such as land use or

zoning laws, that prevent activities (e.g., paving, pesticide use) that could increase surface water

contamination.

Wetlands are used to help break down contaminants before they reach open bodies of water. 

Local governments may actively manage marsh areas by adding new plants and removing

accumulated sediment. 

Watershed Monitoring. Watershed monitoring programs complement implementation of BMPs

by providing the local government with a comprehensive tool to measure the effectiveness of the

BMPs. Watershed monitoring programs include collection and observation of water, insects,

aquatic plants, and fish from locations throughout the watershed. Chemical analysis is performed

to determine whether specific contaminants have infiltrated a water body, and biological analysis

is conducted to evaluate the impact of contaminants on various plant, animal, and insect species. 

Samples taken for chemical analysis (e.g., phosphorus, metals) are generally analyzed in a

laboratory, while physical attributes (e.g., turbidity, temperature, color) are analyzed in the field. 

Biological monitoring evaluates the health of a water body by determining the number and type

of plant, fish, and insect species found in the water body. Samples for biological analysis may be

analyzed in the field or in a laboratory. By allowing local governments to measure the
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-87 Local Government Operations

effectiveness of various BMPs, and the relative health of a water body over time, watershed

monitoring programs can promote the use of effective activities to protect surface waters. For

communities that are unable to undertake comprehensive watershed monitoring programs,

periodic monitoring of storm water discharges can provide useful information for developing

controls for storm water and nonpoint pollution.

The following highlights some other types of monitoring that may be included in a watershed

monitoring program: 

Identification of Major Outfalls. Surveying and mapping all major storm water outfalls is vital

for developing monitoring regimes for characterizing runoff and ambient water body conditions. 

Treatment or diversion of these outfalls may be necessary.

Detection of Illicit Discharges. Outfall identification is also imperative for determining if

wastes or wastewater from non-storm water sources are being improperly discharged from a

separate storm sewer system. Many of these discharges occur during dry weather and are often

the result of improper connections into the storm system or via spills or infiltration at drains. A

plan to detect and address these illicit discharges is vital to a storm water management program.

Public Outreach and Education. A concerted effort to inform the public of the hazards of

improper waste disposal and illegal connections is also vital to a storm water management

program. This effort could include storm drain stenciling, encouragement of citizen reporting of

illicit discharges and improper waste disposal, and outreach programs covering potential

contaminants like motor oil, antifreeze, fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides.

Reservoir Management. Protecting reservoirs is a key component to a local government’s

surface water protection program. Keeping reservoirs clean and free from contamination helps

ensure a safe supply of drinking water. In addition, preventing debris, sedimentation, litter,

chemicals or other pollutants from entering a reservoir reduces the amount of treatment necessary

for the water to meet drinking water standards. While managing reservoirs includes many of the

BMPs described previously, it also includes establishing security around the reservoir and

creating buffer zones.

Reservoir security involves controls to prevent direct litter, dumping, or inappropriate use. 

Security measures may include fencing at the water line or fencing of a larger surrounding area. 

Dumping, litter, or inappropriate use of reservoirs can also be limited through indirect means,

such as providing limited access roads or trails in the reservoir vicinity. While not preventing
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-88 Local Government Operations

contamination, limiting access roads and trails can prevent large-scale dumping, limiting

pollution to litter or human waste, while allowing hiking or cycling opportunities for community

residents. 

Managing reservoirs also includes creation of buffer zones to prevent off site contamination from

reaching the reservoir. While these buffer zones are similar to those used for protecting other

surface waters, local governments may pay special attention to the zones of vegetation that filter

or prevent off site spills and runoff from reaching the reservoir. These zones may be created by

direct purchase and planting of vegetation on adjacent land, or through zoning laws that prohibit

or limit development (thus using the land’s natural existing vegetative filters). Buffer zones may

also include structural controls such as storm water retention basins, which are discussed above. 

Pollution Prevention. In addition to the activities described previously, local governments may

be responsible for implementing or overseeing pollution prevention activities designed to prevent

surface water contamination. These activities include limits or prohibitions of certain activities

in protected areas, requirements for new construction, and public education. These activities are

useful for both surface water and groundwater protection, and are described in more detail below. 

3.8.2 Groundwater (Wellhead) Protection

Local governments that provide or maintain underground drinking water supplies within their

boundaries may be responsible for developing wellhead protection programs to prevent

contamination of the supplies. Similar to surface water protection programs, wellhead protection

programs generally involve implementation of management practices on government and private

land. In contrast to surface water protection programs, wellhead protection programs often focus

more on management practices and oversight by the local government, rather than building new

structures. A local government may conduct some of the necessary activities for wellhead

protection. Private landowners, however, participate in many of the protection activities, as well,

under the direction of and in accordance with ordinances established by the local government. 

The following list highlights selected wellhead protection activities:

C Zoning and subdivision ordinances

C Site plan reviews

C Design standards for new construction and operating standards for ongoing land use activities

C Source prohibitions within protected areas

C Property or easement purchases

C Public education
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-89 Local Government Operations

C Groundwater monitoring

C Household hazardous waste collection.

Zoning and subdivision ordinances. Zoning and subdivision ordinances are designed to direct

or limit development in a wellhead protection area. Zoning ordinances may also restrict or

regulate land uses within the protected area. Subdivision ordinances are designed to limit the

division of land for sale or development. By limiting the creation of new subdivisions, local

governments can limit the number of potential sources of contamination.

Site plan reviews. Site plan reviews require developers to submit for approval plans for

development occurring within a given area. Site plan reviews help minimize the impact on a

protected area by requiring compliance with protection ordinances and giving the local

government an opportunity to review and approve development activities prior to

implementation. 

Design and Operating Standards. Local governments can establish design standards for new

construction and operating standards for ongoing land use activities. Design standards can

ensure that new buildings or structures placed within a wellhead protection area do not pose a

threat to the water supply. Operating standards minimize threats from ongoing activities, such as

application of fertilizers and pesticides or storage and use of hazardous materials. These

standards may also include prohibition of potential pollutant sources within protected areas. 

Property or Easement Purchases. Local governments can purchase property or property

easements on land within the protected areas. These purchases can prevent future development

and give the local government land on which to maintain vegetative buffers to help prevent

contaminants from reaching the protected area. 

Public Education. Public education for wellhead protection programs is similar to educational

programs that a local government may implement as part of a storm water pollution prevention

plan or the combined sewer system nine minimum controls. Public education includes

distributing press releases, newsletters, or brochures about wellhead protection activities; posting

signs around protected areas; and establishing wellhead protection committees. 

Household Hazardous Waste Collection. As part of their wellhead protection programs, local

governments may establish household hazardous waste (HHW) collection programs. HHW

collection programs provide an opportunity for safe disposal of oils, fertilizers, gasoline, or other

household chemicals that residents might otherwise dispose of on the ground or in a landfill

designed to accept only nonhazardous solid waste. By collecting and safely disposing of these
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-90 Local Government Operations

materials, local governments prevent them from potentially reaching underground drinking water

supplies. Section 3.6 presents more information on operating HHW collection centers. 

Groundwater Monitoring. As part of wellhead protection programs, local governments may

monitor the groundwater within and leading to a drinking water aquifer. In addition, owners of

businesses that have the potential to contaminate groundwater may be required to monitor

groundwater as it leaves their property. EPA regulations may require monitoring in particular

circumstances (e.g., underground storage tank monitoring), and local governments may request

property owners who participate in particular activities (e.g., agricultural fertilizer application) to

periodically monitor groundwater to determine whether it is becoming contaminated. 

Activities associated with groundwater monitoring that could affect the environment include

collecting samples, preserving samples, and analyzing samples. Collecting samples generally has

a minimal impact on the environment; however, spilled sample preservation chemicals can

contaminate an aquifer. In addition, if wells are improperly drilled and a contaminated aquifer is

located above an uncontaminated aquifer, groundwater from the contaminated aquifer can seep

into the uncontaminated aquifer.

3.8.3 Pollution Prevention and Water Resources Management

The best way to protect water quality is to avoid polluting the water in the first place. When

pollution reaches surface or underground waterways, it can have many adverse effects, including

impacts on drinking water sources. Water resource management approaches vary from

community to community depending on various factors such as the source of water, size and

population of the community, needs of the population, and the water supply system integrity. For

example, water conservation may be a very high priority in some locales, while other areas may

enjoy an abundance of source water. But in all cases, there is a need to protect and manage water

resources wisely. Some water resource management entities have an opportunity to act as

pollution prevention role models for others. 

As with other local government activities, by incorporating pollution prevention criteria into the

decision making processes, public policy makers and water resource managers can:

C Help prevent and reduce waste and pollution

C Prevent and reduce potentially harmful chemical exposures to employees and citizens

C Reduce risks of accidents and releases

C Prevent or reduce potential liabilities and regulatory compliance burdens while providing

service delivery and cost savings to their organizations, customers and communities. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-91 Local Government Operations

Programs that focus on municipal and industrial pollution prevention help prevent or reduce

water pollution. Development of local source water management programs can help achieve

CWA and SDWA goals. 

3.8.3.1 Typical Wastes Generated or Losses Contributing to Pollution

Overall (affecting surface and ground water)

• Releases into storm water sewer systems of hazardous substances such as used oil or

household or yard chemicals.

• Industrial site releases.

• Runoff of excessive pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides. 

• Lack of education, awareness, and participation (public and private sector) in local

collection, recycling and disposal of household hazardous waste materials.

• Lack of education, awareness, and participation (public and private sector) in local water

protection and conservation activities.

Additional Surface Water

• Lack of residential and commercial development storm water management controls.

• Flood control projects that impair water quality.

• Soil runoff from construction and other sites.

3.8.4 Top Pollution Prevention Opportunities

3.8.4.1 Pollution Prevention Outreach and Promotion 

Overall (surface and ground water)

• Develop local storm water management NPDES and pollution prevention programs.

• Develop local groundwater (wellhead) protection programs.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-92 Local Government Operations

• Develop household hazardous waste collection initiatives.

• Require pollution prevention BMPs as a permit condition under the CWA. Agencies

could design BMPs on a case-by-case basis or develop generic BMPs that would be

applied to all facilities in a given industrial category. 

• Set protective limits for reduction of discharges to wastewater treatment plants.

• Set protective limits for discharges of hazardous substances and petroleum storage. 

• Adopt landscaping codes (e.g., institute irrigation restrictions, implement increasing

block pricing or time of day pricing.)

• Investigate reduced water use projects (i.e., ultra-low flush “toilet voucher programs,”

low flow shower heads, sprinkler systems that are sensitive to rainfall, etc.)

• Establish low-income resident programs to conduct in-home water audits, leak repairs,

and subsidized retrofits with water conserving fixtures.

Additional Surface Water

• Develop local surface water protection programs.

• Develop erosion and sediment control programs.

• Set protective discharge limits for storm water controls.

Additional Ground Water

• Develop groundwater monitoring programs.

• Limit or exclude industrial discharges to septic systems through design review.

3.8.4.2 Internal Local Government Operations

Overall (surface and ground water)

• Conduct leak detection programs.

• Perform plumbing fixture retrofits.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-93 Local Government Operations

• Upgrade water meters to ensure accurate readings (use water inventory meter and retrofit

programs).

• Develop BMPs for local government internal operations, in order to lead by example.

• Integrate water conservation into new facility design

• Set protective limits for reduction of internal discharges to wastewater treatment plants.

• Set protective limits for internal discharges of hazardous substances and petroleum

storage.

• Limit or exclude internal discharges to septic systems.

• Investigate a new source water potential: water recycling for golf courses, parks, roadway

landscaping, schools, firefighting, fountains, street sweeping, vehicle washing, and

irrigation projects.

• Investigate U.S. EPA’s Water Alliances for Voluntary Efficiency (WAVE) program

which will soon be expanded to schools, hospitals, and other public facilities. EPA also

encourages municipalities, local, and regional water resource boards; water districts; and

water utilities to join the WAVE program as supporters.

Additional Surface Water

• Reconstruct or upgrade wastewater treatment plants.

• Investigate wetland mitigation banking opportunities.

• Set protective internal discharge limits for storm water controls.

Additional Ground Water

• Plug free-flowing Artesian wells.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-94 Local Government Operations

3.8.5 Success Stories

3.8.5.1 The City of New York/Multi-County Partnership, New York*

New York City, which operates as a city/county consolidated government, and the counties of

Delaware, Greene, Schoharie, Sullivan, Ulster, Putnam, and Westchester in New York State,

have signed a watershed protection agreement that will protect the source of these communities’

drinking water supply. The partnership also includes the agricultural community, watershed

municipalities, and the state and federal governments. Benefits to the City include a filtration

waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, saving billions of dollars in capital

costs. Upstate communities benefit from higher property values resulting from environmentally

sound agricultural practices and planned sustainable development.

Components of the Watershed Protection Agreement That Are Currently Under Way:

• Upgrading the nine City-owned upstate sewage treatment plants

• Rehabilitating and upgrading City-owned dams and water supply facilities in the

watershed

• Implementing the Watershed Agricultural Program

• Constructing or upgrading public and privately owned wastewater infrastructure,

including failing septic systems

• Acquiring hydrologically sensitive lands in high priority areas near reservoirs, streams

and wetlands

• Establishing the Catskill Fund for the Future, an economic development bank to support 

responsible, environmentally sensitive projects in the watershed

• Extensively reviewing proposed developments and other projects to ensure compliance

with watershed regulations and standards and the protection of water quality

• Monitoring water quality in streams, reservoirs, and the distribution system

• Forming the Watershed Protection and Partnership Council
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-95 Local Government Operations

• Establishing the Sportsmen’s Advisory Councils to review and recommend possible

public recreational uses of City-owned lands in the watershed.

* This case study contains excerpts from “Innovative City/County Partnership - A Report from

the Joint Center for Sustainable Communities.” For further information, contact Joel A. Miele,

Sr., P.E., Commissioner, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Phone: 

718/595-6565.

3.8.5.2 Cincinnati Water Works Wellhead Protection

In April 1998, Judy Suzurikawa, a member of the Cincinnati Water Works Wellhead Protection

Team, presented a paper at the "Source Water Assessment and Protection '98" conference in

Dallas, Texas. Ms. Suzurikawa's paper, "Data base and Geographic Information System (GIS)

for Management of a Multi-Jurisdictional Wellhead Protection Area," discussed various

management tools, a geographic information system, and computer data bases used by the

Hamilton to New Baltimore Groundwater Consortium to track water quality issues in the Great

Miami Buried Valley aquifer. The Hamilton to New Baltimore Groundwater Consortium

consists of Cincinnati Water Works and five other public and industrial water suppliers. The

purpose of the Consortium is to monitor the quantity and quality of groundwater and to

implement a comprehensive groundwater protection program. The Consortium's

multi-jurisdictional Wellhead Protection Plan was fully endorsed by the Ohio EPA in January

1998. The Consortium has cost-effectively avoided duplication of effort by its members while

promoting a unified, consistent groundwater management program for the region. The

Consortium's web site, listed in the references below, describes the Consortium's purpose and

programs. The web site also describes and illustrates examples of groundwater contamination

and many preventive measures. The City of Cincinnati was designated a Groundwater Guardian

Community at the end of 1997 by the Groundwater Foundation of Lincoln, Nebraska. Cincinnati

Water Works has been actively involved since 1990 in the joint development of a Groundwater

Protection Program for the Charles M. Bolton wellfield and adjacent wellfields in the Greater

Hamilton/Fairfield area in Ohio.

Resources

“$mart Investments for City and County Managers: Energy, Environment and Community 

Development,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and 

Evaluation, EPA 231-R-98-004, April 1998.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-96 Local Government Operations

“Preventing Pollution in Our Cities and Counties: A Compendium of Case Studies,” NPPR, 

NACo, NACCHO and U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1995.

“Database and Geographic Information System (GIS) for Management of a Multi-Jurisdictional 

Wellhead Protection Area,” Cincinnati Water Works, 1998, Proceedings, NWRI Source 

Water Assessment and Protection 98 Conference, Dallas, TX.

“When it Rains, It Drains-What Everyone Should Know About Storm Water,” Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Division.

“Innovative City/County Partnerships - A Report from the Joint Center for Sustainable

Communities,” The United States Conference of Mayors and National Association of

Counties, 1998.

U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

20460 (http:www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2home).

International City/County Management Association, Smart Growth Network (SGN):

http://www.smartgrowth.org; 202/962-3591; email Noah A. Simon nsimon@icma.org.

“Drinking Water - The Safe Drinking Water Act vs. the Small Systems ‘How Safe is Safe,’” 

EMGT 850, 1996.

“Building State and Local Pollution Prevention Programs,” U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of the Administrator, EPA-130-R-93-001, December 1992.

Local Government Environmental Assistance Network (LGEAN), contact: David George at 

International City and County Management Association (ICMA) at 202/962-3531; email

dgeorge@icma.org.

Water Efficiency Program; San Jose/Santa Clara Valley Water District and Water Pollution 

Control Plant, 3025 Tuers Road, San Jose, CA 95121.

South Bay Water Recycling, 2540 North First Street, Suite 316, San Jose, CA 95131; 408/232-

0832.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-97 Local Government Operations

The U.S. EPA’s WAVE Program: EPA Office of Water, Contact: John Flowers, WAVE 

Program Director, Phone: 202/260-7288; EPA’s WAVE Technical Support Hotline: 

800/993-WAVE.

The Hamilton to New Baltimore Groundwater Consortium’s web site: www.gwconsortium.org.

“Beyond Delineation and Assessment: Community Action to Protect Source Water Using

Farm*A*Syst\Home*A*Syst”: http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/Abstracts/Castelnuovo.html.

“Cryptosporidium and Water” by the CDC Working Group on Waterborne Crypto, provides 

guidance on setting-up a local task force to deal with the threat to drinking water: 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/crypto/crypto.htm.

The Lincoln-Lancaster Health Department (NE) developed a guide and checklist for septic and

wells that was implemented through citizen volunteers. For information, contact the Lincoln

Lancaster Health Department at 402/441-8000. 

“Tools for Drinking Water Protection” Video Workshop - The League of Women Voters

developed this excellent video on local government and citizen action on water quality issues. 

Their resources are listed on the web at http://www.lwv.org/pubweb/resources.html

For more information, contact: J. Bruce Suits, City of Cincinnati, Office of Environmental

Management. Phone: 513/352-6270; Fax: 513/352-4970; E-mail: bruce.suits@cinems.rcc.org

3.9 WATER SUPPLY

Local governments may be responsible for operating

public water systems. Public water systems are defined

as the central systems or networks of facilities that supply

drinking water to the public. Public water systems are

designed to provide and maintain a reliable, high-quality

water source (e.g., groundwater or surface water). The

operations necessary to provide and maintain reliable

drinking water include water treatment, residuals

management, and water distribution. (See Exhibit 3-8)
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-98 Local Government Operations

WATER SUPPLY

Treatment

Laboratory

Operations

Residuals

Management

Chemical Storage/

Hazardous

Materials

Management

Distribution

SDWA

Compliance

System

Operation and

Maintenance

 Exhibit 3-8. Water Supply

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA regulates chemical, physical, radiological,

and bacteriological substances in drinking water that pose a health risk to the public. EPA

develops drinking water regulations to protect public health and welfare, and individual states

enforce the regulations for public water systems. Public water systems, therefore, must provide

water treatment, as required; ensure drinking water quality through monitoring; and provide

public notice of violations or possible contamination.

3.9.1 Water Treatment

Because water treatment operations include several activities that could affect the environment,

they are regulated under U.S. environmental laws and regulations. These activities include the

treatment process itself, laboratory operations, management of residuals, and storage of

chemicals and hazardous materials management. Typical steps in the treatment process include:

C Screening and Presedimentation. Screening captures large debris, such as leaves, logs,

plastic bottles, sticks, and fish, at the intake where water is drawn into the treatment plant. 

Presedimentation allows removal of settleable solids in the water by gravity prior to

additional treatment.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-99 Local Government Operations

C Coagulation/Flocculation/Sedimentation. These three processes commonly are used

together to remove suspended solids, dissolved chemical substances, and impurities from

raw water supplies. The removal of suspended solids and other substances improves the

appearance and taste of drinking water and helps remove some of the chemical and

microbiological contaminants that might be harmful to humans.

C Filtration. Filtration is another commonly used step in removing solids and fine

particles. In slow-sand filtration, source water passes through granular materials, such as

sand, where particles are trapped and removed. In rapid-sand filtration, solids remaining

after the coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation processes are removed.

C Disinfection. Disinfection is the process by which pathogens in the water are inactivated

or rendered harmless by the use of chemicals, such as chlorine and ozone.

C Softening. Water softening is a process used to remove minerals (primarily calcium and

magnesium) that cause hardness of water.

The SDWA regulates the treatment of drinking water. Specifically, SDWA regulations (40 CFR

141) require filtration and disinfection for water systems that use surface water as their source of

water. In addition, other treatment activities, may be regulated under environmental laws and

regulations, as indicated in the following list.

• Chemical storage/hazardous materials management— EPCRA, CERCLA, CAA, and

CWA

• Laboratory operations— RCRA and CWA

• Residuals management— RCRA and CWA

More detail on the specific activities related to water treatment are provided below.

3.9.1.1 Chemical Storage/Hazardous Materials Management

If a local government stores or uses specified amounts of certain hazardous chemicals, it may be

subject to planning and reporting requirements of EPCRA and Section 112(r) of the CAA. 

Hazardous chemicals may be used in various water treatment operations, such as disinfection, or

other maintenance activities. Specifically, chlorine is commonly used in the disinfection process. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-100 Local Government Operations

The list of EPCRA EHSs can be

found at 40 CFR Part 355,

Appendices A and B; the list of

CERCLA hazardous substances

can be found at 40 CFR Part 302. 

Additional chemicals are used for laboratory procedures used to analyze water samples. 

Facilities must submit hazardous chemical inventory and emergency release information as

follows:

Emergency Release Notification (EPCRA Section 304).

A facility is required to notify the SERCs and LEPCs of a

release equal to or exceeding a predetermined amount of

certain hazardous chemicals. The chemicals covered by

this requirement include EPCRA EHSs, as well as

hazardous substances identified in CERCLA. The emergency release notification activates

emergency plans and provides information to the LEPCs and SERCs, who will coordinate release

response activity in order to prevent harmful effects to the public. 

Hazardous Chemical Inventory And Reporting (EPCRA Sections 311 and 312). Under

EPCRA, any facility that is required by the OSHA Hazardous Communication Standard (HCS) to

prepare or have available an MSDS for a hazardous chemical is subject to EPCRA Sections 311

and 312 requirements if the chemical is present onsite at any one time in excess of threshold

levels. 

• MSDS Reporting. Under Section 311 of EPCRA, a facility must submit a one-time

notification identifying the hazardous chemicals (including EPCRA EHSs and OSHA

hazardous chemicals) present at the facility in amounts equal to or in excess of threshold

quantities to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department (40 CFR 370.21). To meet the

notification requirement, a facility must submit either an MSDS (or copies of MSDSs) or

a list of the EPCRA EHSs and OSHA hazardous chemicals. After initial reporting, if a

facility determines that it has a hazardous chemical that is newly covered in amounts

equal to or in excess of the threshold level or there has been significant new information

on an already reported chemical, it must update the information reported under Section

311 within 3 months after discovery.

• Tier Reporting. Under Section 312 of EPCRA, a facility must meet an annual reporting

requirement for OSHA hazardous chemicals and EPCRA EHSs in amounts equal to or in

excess of threshold levels. If equaling or exceeding the threshold levels at any time in the

preceding year, a facility must submit to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department an

“Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form.” This form must be submitted by

March 1 of each year. EPA publishes two types of inventory forms, Tier I and Tier II,
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-101 Local Government Operations

At present, EPA has established a list of 140

substances that are regulated by the Risk

Management Planning regulations of the CAA. 

These substances were published in the Federal

Register on January 31, 1994; EPA amended the

list by rule, published on December 18, 1997. 

EPA may further amend the list in the future as

needed. 

for reporting this information. While federal regulations require only the submission on a

Tier I form, EPA encourages, and some states require, the use of the Tier II form. 

LEPCs make this information available to the public, and fire departments and public

health officials use the information to plan for and respond to emergencies.

Risk Management Planning (CAA Section

112(r)). Under Section 112(r) of the

amended CAA, facilities that have more than

a threshold quantity of any of the 140

regulated substances in a single process are

required to develop risk management

programs and to summarize these programs

in risk management plans by June 21, 1999

(40 CFR Part 68). Risk management plans, which are intended to prevent accidental releases of

regulated substances and to reduce the severity of any releases that do occur, will be made

available to state and local government agencies and the public. EPA has been working with

industry groups to develop model risk management programs. To review the model program,

refer to EPA’s Chemical Accident Prevention and Risk Management Planning website at

http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/acc-pre.htm#Model Plans. 

Exhibit 3-9 presents selected process chemicals used in water supply operations.

Exhibit 3-9. Chemicals Used in Water Supply Activities

Activity Process Chemicals Utilized

Coagulation, flocculation, and

sedimentation

Alum (aluminum sulfate), ferrous sulfate, ferric chloride, cationic

polymers, calcium hydroxide, and sodium aluminate

Filtration Cationic polymers, anionic polymers, calcium carbonate, and calcium

hydroxide

Disinfection Chlorine (gas or liquid), sodium hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite,

chloramines, chlorine dioxide, and ozone

Softening Lime and calcium carbonate 

Residuals management Lime and calcium carbonate

Water main repair/replacement Sodium hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite, and liquid chlorine

Pump maintenance Petroleum-based lubricants and grease
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-102 Local Government Operations

Water supply facilities are responsible for operating the laboratory safely. To prevent laboratory

accidents, chemicals should be stored in a properly ventilated and well lit room. All bottles and

reagents should be clearly labeled and dated. Volatile liquids that could escape as a gas, such as

ether, must be kept away from heat sources, sunlight, and electrical switches. Cylinders of gas

being stored should also be capped and secured to prevent rolling or tipping. 

3.9.1.3 Residuals Management

Residuals management includes managing the wide variety of waste products generated from the

treatment of drinking water using screening, presedimentation, coagulation/flocculation/

sedimentation, filtration, disinfection, and softening processes. The residuals may be organic and

inorganic compounds in liquid, solid, and gaseous forms, depending on the source of raw water

and the type of treatment processes. Key residuals include the following: 

C Sludges from coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation operations

C Sludges from softening operations

C Sludges from iron and manganese removal operations

C Solids in rapid-sand filter backwash water 

C Solids from screening and presedimentation, slow-sand filtering, and other processes. 

The primary aspect of residuals that may impact the environment is solid materials that, if

discharged to waterways, could lead to increased suspended sediment levels in the water column

and deposition at the bottom. Additional aspects include metals and chemical residuals that

attach to the solids. The environmental impacts of these depend on the management method,

which include dewatering and landfilling, as well as discharge to a POTW.

Sludge that is dewatered and placed in a landfill or properly applied to land has minimal

environmental impact. Excessive land application, however, can lead to sludge runoff during

rain events, thereby increasing sedimentation in water bodies. Liquid sludge discharged to a

wastewater treatment plant may affect the integrity of the sewer system through excessive

buildup of solids in the system. Liquid sludge discharged to a water body can increase

sedimentation in that water body. Land application or land disposal of sludge may be regulated

under RCRA solid waste regulations or state guidelines; liquid disposal to a treatment plant or

directly to a waterbody is regulated under the CWA pretreatment and NPDES programs

respectively. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-103 Local Government Operations

3.9.2 Water Distribution System Operation and Maintenance

The operation and maintenance of the water distribution system includes upkeep of the pipes,

storage tanks, and pumps that convey water from the water treatment plant to the customers. 

Because activities could affect the environment, they are regulated under environmental laws and

regulations, indicated in the following list. 

C Water pipe flushing— CWA and EPCRA

C Water main repair/replacement— CWA, EPCRA and CAA

C Storage tank maintenance— RCRA and CAA

C Pump maintenance— RCRA

In addition, cross contamination and backflow can contaminate waste distribution systems and,

therefore, are subject to various building codes and regulations.

3.9.2.1 Cross Connection Control and Backflow Prevention

Cross connection control and backflow prevention are operational programs that a public water

system and its customers must implement to prevent contaminants and non-potable water (e.g.,

wastewater, storm water, process water) from being drawn into the public drinking water system. 

Cross connections are physical, piped connections between potable water and an unsafe or

polluted water source. Cross connections can threaten water quality and public health through

the backflow of such hazardous substances as antifreeze, boiler water, and sewage. Backflow is

a reverse flow of water from the customer or service connection into the water distribution

system. Backflow typically occurs when distribution system pressure drops due to a water main

break or due to firefighting demands. Cross connection control programs consist of building

codes and other regulations that prohibit cross connections and require backflow prevention

devices on particularly high risk service connections (e.g., a wastewater treatment plant). 

Education, inspection, and enforcement are also necessary to ensure compliance with the

building codes and regulations.

3.9.2.2 Water Pipe Flushing

Water pipe flushing is performed on distribution systems to remove any accumulated sediments

or other impurities that have been deposited in the pipe. Water pipe flushing also improves the

flow of water through the distribution system, allowing it to work at capacity. Flushing is

performed by isolating sections of the distribution system and opening flushing valves or more
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-104 Local Government Operations

commonly fire hydrants to cause a large volume of flow to pass through the isolated pipeline and

suspend the settled sediment. Water mains may also be mechanically cleaned through the use of

swabs or pigs, which are pulled through a section of line to scrape the accumulated debris off the

inside of the pipe. The major environmental aspect of water pipe flushing is the discharge of

flushed water, which may be high in suspended solids and other contaminants that can harm

water bodies. The negative impacts of the discharge may be minimized by discharging the flush

water into a sanitary sewer with adequate capacity or by discharging the flush water into a

separate storm sewer system with storm water management measures, such as a detention pond,

where solids can settle before the water is discharged. The discharge of water from flushing may

be regulated under an NPDES permit. 

3.9.2.3 Water Main Repair/Replacement

Water main repair/replacement must be performed to water systems to replace or repair broken,

corroded, or leaking sections of pipe. The broken pipe section is either replaced or, as is often

the case, a repair sleeve is placed around the outside of the broken pipe section and clamped into

place. Following the repair of the pipe, the line is typically flushed and then disinfected with a

chlorine solution. The chlorine solution is usually mixed onsite with powdered calcium

hypochlorite or sodium hypochlorite. Pipe repair and replacement could affect the environment

through:

C Erosion and sedimentation, which take place as a result of excavation, stockpiling, and

backfilling 

C Discharge of sediment laden water in the excavated area from groundwater and rainfall

C Discharge of sediment laden flush water and highly chlorinated disinfecting solution. 

These impacts can be minimized through control measures. Sediment and erosion control

measures that can be implemented for the excavation of the trench include stockpiling the

excavated soil on the uphill side of the trench or installing silt fences on the downhill side of the

excavation. The impacts associated with discharges from trench dewatering, pipe flushing, and

pipe disinfecting can be reduced by discharging into storm water management facilities, such as

detention ponds, where solids can settle and chlorine compounds can dissolve. The discharge of

water from these activities may be regulated by the facility’s NPDES permit, and storage and use

of chlorine may be regulated under EPCRA or the CAA. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-105 Local Government Operations

3.9.2.4 Storage Tank Maintenance

This activity includes frequent inspection and may require occasional repairs. The most frequent

types of repairs are repainting the tanks and replacing screens over vents and other points of

access to insects, birds, and rodents. Most tanks are made of steel and, therefore, subject to

corrosion. To prevent corrosion, the tanks are painted on a regular basis. Tank painting can

generate sandblasting residue, which results from preparing the tank’s surface for receiving paint. 

This impact can be minimized by containing the area to be sandblasted and collecting and

recycling the sandblasting residue. Sandblasting activities may be regulated under the State

Implementation Plans developed under the CAA. Disposal of paint chips and dust, if they are

determined to be hazardous, may be regulated under RCRA.

3.9.2.5 Pump Maintenance

Pump maintenance must be performed to ensure that booster and other distribution system

pumps stay in working order. Maintenance of the pumps involves checking the pumps regularly

for excessive vibration or noise, providing grease and lubrication regularly, and checking the

pump bearings and packing glands. Using and storing the necessary petroleum-based grease and

lubricants could affect the environment through spills to water or land. Disposal of these

products may be regulated under the RCRA used oil regulations. Spills of oil that reach

waterways may be required to be reported under the SPCC regulations of the CWA. 

3.9.2.6 Safe Drinking Water Act Compliance

Local governments are responsible for complying with SDWA regulations, both for water

treatment and the distribution system. As part of those regulations, water supply facilities are

required to sample and analyze the water for specific chemicals to ensure they do not exceed the

maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for those chemicals. If and when MCLs are exceeded,

local governments must notify the state within 48 hours. In addition, local governments are

required to provide public notice of the exceedance. All local government water supply facilities

also must maintain records, including bacteriological and chemical analyses, actions taken to

correct violations, sanitary surveys of the system, and variances or exemptions granted to the

system.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-106 Local Government Operations

3.9.3 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance

Local governments are responsible for maintaining all vehicles associated with water supply

activities according to the operations described in Section 3.10.

3.9.4 Pollution Prevention in Water Supply

The collection, treatment and distribution of water is one of the largest and most expensive tasks

of local governments. Water supply systems vary from community to community depending on

various factors such as the source of water, age and infrastructure integrity, size and population

of the community, and the needs of the population. For example, water conservation may be a

very high priority in some locales, while other areas may enjoy an abundance of source water;

both have a need to protect their water sources. Moreover, while the various water supply,

treatment, and distribution methods and their related operations have their clear health and

economic benefits, these processes also bring the potential to pollute. Some municipal water

supply facilities have an opportunity to act as pollution prevention role models for other private

water facilities and for their residential, commercial, and industrial customers. As with other

local government activities, incorporating pollution prevention criteria into their decision making

process, public policy makers and water supply operations managers can help prevent and reduce

waste and pollution. Preventing and reducing potentially harmful chemical exposures to

employees and neighbors will reduce risks of accidents and releases, as well as prevent or reduce

potential liabilities and regulatory compliance burdens.

3.9.4.1 Typical Wastes Associated with Water Supply

• Solvent cleaners and paints, mercury switches and lamps, lubricants and other wastes

from operations, and facility maintenance activities.

• Disinfection by-products (e.g., trihalomethanes).

• Corrosion by-products

• Leaking or broken lead from service lines, goose neck or service connections.

• Radon in wells.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-107 Local Government Operations

• Pesticides in rinse waters and containers.

• Industrial, commercial, and household chemical discharges.

3.9.4.2 Top Pollution Prevention Opportunities

• Investigate alternatives or reductions (e.g., GAC, ozone treatment, ultraviolet) to chlorine

water disinfection.

• Investigate reduced risk storage and handling of chlorine and other chemicals.

• Install plant dehumidification systems to reduce rusting/corrosion of plant equipment. 

• Use lead-free solder, retrofitting the service lines with PVC instead of metal.

• Know your waste stream in order to identify high priority (or "low hanging fruit") for

source reduction, reuse or recycling opportunities.

• Strategically plan for SDWA compliance through source protection and source selection

strategies, operational strategies, collaborative arrangements, purchased-water

transactions, or institutional restructuring.

• Perform self-evaluations regularly.

• Install water conservation devices (e.g., low-flow showerheads, low-flush toilets, motion

sensing faucets.)

• Implement water conservation strategies (e.g., use grey water for irrigation), consider

xeriscape (i.e., native, low water requirement) landscaping, consider pervious material for

walkways and driveways.

• Look for energy efficiency improvements in designing or re-designing water pumping and 

treatment systems.

• Use national and local events to promote the pollution prevention ethic to employees and

the public.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-108 Local Government Operations

• Connect with local, state, national or international organizations to share information,

techniques and approaches to continuous improvement through pollution prevention.

• Perform consistent and proper monitoring.

3.9.4.3 Success Story

The Cincinnati (Ohio) Water Works, a municipally owned and operated utility, was purchased by

the City of Cincinnati from a private owner in 1839. The service area of the Cincinnati Water

Works has grown and now includes the entire City of Cincinnati, approximately 90 percent of the

rest of Hamilton County and three additional service areas in the adjacent counties of Butler and

Warren. The City of Cincinnati and the great majority of Hamilton County are served on a retail

or metered basis. The City of Cincinnati is responsible for the complete administration,

operation, maintenance, and capital planning for the entire service area. The Cincinnati Water

Works now supplies approximately 46 billion gallons of water a year through 2,742 miles of

water main to more than 221,028 residential and commercial accounts representing more than

900,000 consumers in the Greater Cincinnati area. 

The City of Cincinnati and the Cincinnati Water Works have taken steps to prevent and reduce 

pollution. The City has recently implemented a Pollution Prevention Program which seeks to

identify pollution before it occurs and substitute a non-polluting process or material for that

which would pollute. In other words, prevent or eliminate the source or cause of pollution so the

environment does not have to be cleaned up later. Cincinnati has the only granular activated

carbon (GAC) filtration plant of its kind in the nation and one of largest such plants in the world. 

Ninety percent of the water supplied by the Cincinnati Water Works is filtered through carbon

filters. The other 10 percent is provided from the Water Works' well-water treatment plant in

Butler County. The GAC removes organic substances from Ohio River water, which is

Cincinnati's primary water source. The state-of-the-art GAC treatment process, installed in 1992,

ensures that customers will receive high quality water and is considered a pollution prevention

technology because the facility uses only one third the amount of chlorine as would otherwise be

used in the treatment of water. The process enables Cincinnati Water Works to be in compliance

not only with present Ohio and federal safe drinking water regulations, but allows Cincinnati to

be prepared for future regulations. 

The Natural Resource Defense Council called the Cincinnati Water Works GAC facility the

"crown jewel" of the utility's treatment process. The Milwaukee Journal describes the Cincinnati
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-109 Local Government Operations

Water Works as a "model" water utility because of its treatment processes and aggressive

research to find additional ways to improve its water quality. 

In another area of pollution prevention, as a "covered" facility that will need to meet the CAA

112(r) (Risk Management Planning) requirements by June 21, 1999, the construction of the

California chlorination facility may be considered pollution prevention. This is because risk of

release and exposure has been reduced significantly by the creation of a containment building

and the modification from four 55-ton chlorine storage tanks to 48 1-ton tanks. 

Additionally, Cincinnati Water Works recently identified three pilot projects that may help

prevent pollution. They include use of electric power mowers to maintain grounds, use of

biodegradable antifreeze for facility vehicles and use of environmentally friendly ice and snow

removal techniques, such as sand and nontoxic chemicals.

Resources

"For Your Information - Message from the Cincinnati Water Works," Issue 1, 1996.

"Preventing Pollution in Our Cities and Counties: A Compendium of Case Studies," NPPR, 

NACo, NACCHO and U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1995.

U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 

20460 (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2home).

Smart Growth Network: 202/260-2750; http://www.smartgrowth.org.

U.S. EPA Design for the Environment (DfE): 202/260-1678; http://es.inel.gov/dfe.

"Safe Water from Every Tap - Improving Water Service to Small Communities" National 

Academy Press, 1998.

DRAFT "Pollution Prevention in Enforcement - Village of South Charleston, Ohio" Office of 

 Pollution Prevention, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1998

"Conservation Improvement Projects through Soil and Water Conservation Districts," 

Cooperative Extension Service The Ohio State University.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-110 Local Government Operations

Local Government Environmental Assistance Network (LGEAN) through the International 

County and City Managers Association; Contact: David George at 202/962-3531; email: 

dgeorge@icma.org.

"Setting Standards: Risk Assessment Issues," edited by, Frederick W. Pontius, Denver CO., 

AWWA Journal, July 1995, pp10-16, 114.

"Safe Drinking Water From Small System: Treatment Options," edited by, James A. Goodrich, 

Cincinnati, OH. , AWWA Journal, May 1992, pp.49-55.

“Tools for Drinking Water Protection” Video Workshop - The League of Women Voters

developed this excellent video on local government and citizen action on water quality issues. 

Their resources are listed on the web at http://www.lwv.org/pubweb/resources.html

"Chemicals Versus Microbial in Drinking Water: A Decision Sciences Perspective," edited by, 

 Susan W. Putman, Boston MA, AWWA Journal, March 1993 pp 57-61.

“Drinking water, Pollution Prevention and Public Health” (8pp) - EPA/742/F-97/004

“Incentives and Disincentives for Adoption of P2 Measures Under EPA's Water Program” 

(94pp) - EPA/742/R-94/006 

American Water Works Association Small System Hotline

U.S. EPA Drinking Water Hotline/National Drinking Water Clearinghouse

National Rural Water Association

Rural Community Assistance Corporation

State Drinking Water Primacy Agency

For more information, contact J. Bruce Suits, City of Cincinnati, Office of Environmental

Management Phone: 513/352-6270; Fax: 513/352-4970; E-mail: bruce.suits@cinems.rcc.org
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-111 Local Government Operations

FLEET OPERATIONS

Fueling

Fuel

Dispensing

Spilled

Fuel

Disposal

Gasoline

Storage

Repair

Battery

Repair

Parts

Washing

Vehicle

Shop

Washing

Painting

Fluid

Changes

Air

Conditioner

Repair

Exhaust

Repair

Outdoor

Material

Storage

Purchasing

Clean Fleet

Solid Waste

Generation

Minimizing

Impact of

Purchasing

Exhibit 3-10. Vehicle Maintenance Activities

3.10 VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE

Local governments are responsible for operating, maintaining, and purchasing motor vehicles

and equipment to perform government services. Vehicles range from school buses, fire engines,

snow plows, and heavy construction equipment to automobiles used by building inspectors,

police departments, and government officials. Equipment may include pumps, tools, and boilers. 

As shown in Exhibit 3-10, local government fleet operations include vehicle repair shops, fueling

stations, and purchasing operations. (Note: While this section specifically discusses vehicle

maintenance, many of the regulated activities apply to equipment maintenance.) 

3.10.1 Vehicle Repair Shops

Because vehicle repair shops conduct several activities that could affect the environment, these

activities are regulated under environmental laws and regulations, as indicated in the following

list.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-112 Local Government Operations

Exhibit 3-11. Vehicle Repair Shop Activities

(photo from CCAR-Greenlink)

• Fluid changes— RCRA and CWA

• Parts washing — RCRA, CAA, and CWA

• Battery maintenance— RCRA and CWA

• Air conditioner repair— CAA

• Vehicle and shop floor washing— CWA

• Exhaust system repair and replacement— CAA

• Painting— RCRA and CAA

• Outdoor material storage— CWA

Exhibit 3-11 illustrates some repair shop activities.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-113 Local Government Operations

3.10.1.1 Changing Vehicle Fluids

Changing vehicle fluids includes oil, transmission, and break lubrication, as well as antifreeze

changes. Changing fluids also involves storing both new and waste fluids and managing or

disposing of waste fluids. Fluids generally are drained from the vehicle to a pan or bucket

placed below the vehicle. Full pans or buckets are then dumped into a larger container, such as a

55-gallon drum, UST, or aboveground storage tank, prior to off-site disposal. The potential

environmental impacts from fluid changes are soil and water contamination from spills or

improper disposal. Storage of new materials may be regulated under the SPCC provisions of the

CWA, which require development of a spill prevention plan that generally includes providing

secondary containment for all tanks and drums. Storage, recycling, and disposal of waste fluids

are regulated under the used oil provisions of RCRA. The used oil provisions require used oil to

be stored in structurally sound containers labeled with the words “used oil only” and ultimately

recycled or burned for heat. Fluids disposed of or spilled in floor drains or surface drains or

otherwise released from the facility property are regulated under the NPDES, pretreatment, or

storm water provisions of the CWA. These provisions require notifying EPA, the state, or a local

treatment plant, complying with permit provisions, and preventing untreated fluids from reaching

surface waters. Fluids stored in underground tanks are regulated under the UST provisions of

RCRA, which require that the tanks maintain spill prevention and leak detection devices and be

made of specified structurally sound materials. 

3.10.1.2 Washing Vehicle Parts

Washing vehicle parts consists of immersing the small parts, such as nuts, bolts, or carburetor

pieces, into a solvent bath of chemical or water-based solvent or spraying them with a chemical

or citrus-based solvent. Washing vehicle parts also may include spraying shop rags with solvent

and rubbing the solvent on the part to clean it. Chemical solvent washers often consist of a metal

sink attached to a 20-gallon drum of solvent. When the solvent is no longer usable, the drum is

replaced. Water-based solvent washers consist of an enclosed bath with high pressure sprayers. 

The use of chemical solvent washers is regulated under the cold solvent bath section of the CAA,

which requires sink lids to be kept closed and specifies additional practices to minimize the

release of hazardous air pollutants. The disposal and recycling of used chemical solvent are

regulated under RCRA, which specifies disposal methods. The disposal of wastewater from

water-based solvent washers may be regulated under the pretreatment program or NPDES

programs of the CWA. The disposal of solvent-contaminated rags may be regulated under

RCRA.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-114 Local Government Operations

3.10.1.3 Maintaining Vehicle Batteries

Maintaining vehicle batteries includes testing, changing, storing, and disposing of new and used

vehicle batteries. The storage of batteries may be regulated under the NPDES storm water

provisions of the CWA, which require that batteries be contained and covered to prevent

potential leaks from coming in contact with storm water. Disposal of batteries may be regulated

under RCRA, which requires that batteries either be returned to a supplier or recycler or meet

stringent disposal requirements. 

3.10.1.4 Repairing Air Conditioners

Repairing vehicle air conditioners includes adding, removing, and recycling CFC refrigerants, as

well as performing general maintenance on vehicle air conditioners. These activities are

regulated under the CAA, which is designed to prevent ozone depletion by requiring the capture

and recovery of used refrigerants, the use of certified recycling equipment, and the training and

certification of all operators.

3.10.1.5 Washing Vehicles and Shop Floors

Washing vehicles and shop floors includes spraying water and detergent on vehicles and floors

and discharging the washwater through a drain to a septic tank, POTW, or waterway. Some

facilities may dump used washwater on the ground outside of the facility. Washing vehicles and

shop floors may be regulated under the pretreatment program or NPDES program of the CWA. 

These sections may require the facility to obtain permits, install oil and water separators, or

comply with other provisions designed to prevent contaminated wastewater from reaching the

environment. 

3.10.1.6 Repairing or Replacing Exhaust Systems

Repairing or replacing exhaust systems consists of repairing or replacing catalytic converters. 

Any work that affects vehicle emissions is regulated under the CAA, which requires that records

be kept of all converter repair and replacement, and specifies procedures for ensuring that

removed converters are properly replaced.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-115 Local Government Operations

3.10.1.7 Painting Vehicles

Vehicle painting includes overall body painting, touch up, paint and thinner mixing, and

unusable paint and thinner disposal. Vehicle painting often is conducted in an enclosed room or

booth that has positive pressure ventilation to ensure that paint fumes leave the room, rather than

being inhaled by the painter. To minimize air pollution, air filters are placed in the vents and

changed regularly. Vehicle painting also includes changing and disposing of these filters. If

significant quantities of paints containing hazardous materials are used or if the local government

is located in a designated geographic area, air emissions from painting operations may be

regulated under the CAA, which may specify the type of ventilation system and the frequency for

changing the filters. The disposal of air filters used to filter emissions from paints containing

hazardous materials, disposal of many unusable paints, and disposal of spent thinners is regulated

under RCRA. Preparing a vehicle for painting (e.g., stripping, sanding) may also be regulated

under RCRA because such activities may result in a hazardous waste.

3.10.1.8 Storing Materials Outside

Due to space and safety concerns, many vehicle repair shops store drums of used and new fluids,

hazardous materials, batteries, vehicle parts, or other wastes outside of the shop. The storage of

any materials that could reach waterways through spills or storm water runoff are regulated under

the NPDES direct discharge or storm water discharge provisions of the CWA, which require that

the facility prevent these materials from coming in contact with storm water.

 

3.10.2 Fueling Stations

Local governments operate and maintain vehicle fueling stations to provide fuel to their vehicles. 

Because these activities could affect the environment, they are regulated under environmental

laws and regulations, as indicated below. 

• Fuel storage— CWA and RCRA

• Fuel dispensing— CAA

• Disposal of spilled unusable fuel— RCRA

3.10.2.1 Fuel Storage

Vehicle fuels, including gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel, are stored in underground or

aboveground storage tanks that are connected by piping to the fuel dispensing unit. The
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-116 Local Government Operations

operation and maintenance of these tanks may be regulated under the SPCC section of the CWA

which requires development and implementation of spill prevention plans and secondary

containment for aboveground tanks and/or under the UST section of RCRA, which specifies

structural, monitoring, and leak detection requirements for underground tanks.

3.10.2.2 Fuel Dispensing

Fuel dispensing units used at local government facilities are similar or identical to those used at

retail service stations and could emit organic vapors to the atmosphere. In some areas,

dispensing is regulated under the CAA which may require the dispensing units to have vapor

recovery systems at the point of fueling and at the location where the aboveground or

underground fuel storage tanks are filled. In addition, fuel dispensing units are required to

dispense fuel at a prescribed gallons per minute rate to prevent spills.

3.10.2.3 Disposal of Unusable Fuel

In the course of fueling or fuel loading operations, fuel may be spilled. Fuel that cannot be

dispensed into a vehicle for use must be disposed. The disposal of this fuel may be regulated

under RCRA, which sets requirements for handling, storage, and ultimate disposal of hazardous

wastes. A repair shop may be required to report any spill to local authorities. 

3.10.3 Purchasing

Purchasing includes the acquisition of vehicles, equipment, and materials. The only purchasing

activity that is regulated directly by environmental laws is the purchasing of clean fuel vehicles

for local governments with large vehicle fleets, which is regulated under the CAA. Local

governments that purchase new vehicles for certain size fleets are required to purchase a

specified certain percentage of clean fuel vehicles each year that vehicles are purchased. Other

purchasing decisions, such as the purchase of hazardous or water-based solvent, can directly

impact whether the fleet operations are subject to additional environmental requirements.

3.10.4 Pollution Prevention in Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance

Pollution prevention opportunities abound in vehicle and equipment maintenance. Usually, three

factors contribute to the level of success of a pollution prevention plan. The first factor involves

auditing current procedures, researching pollution prevention opportunities, and committing to

make appropriate and beneficial changes. This step requires researching alternative products and
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-117 Local Government Operations

funding equipment purchases. The second factor is funding. Generally, present funding can be

reappropriated in a phased plan to purchase new equipment, products, and/or contract services. 

The third factor deals with the regulatory requirements and contract services available based on

the facility’s location. Some facilities base their decisions for a pollution prevention plan on the

regulatory requirements contained in RCRA, OSHA, and/or local regulations. Pollution

prevention technology implemented under this approach will enhance the safety of workers,

improve regulatory compliance, and may lower the operating costs of the facility. There are

many options for pollution prevention depending on the waste stream’s characteristics and

regulatory requirements. Some of the best ideas for pollution prevention can come from

mechanics who peform the tasks every day, but changing old habits is the key to pollution

prevention success. The most important item to remember is that pollution prevention can play

an important role in any plan as long as appropriate research and planning are performed. The

remainder of this section highlights pollution prevention options by waste stream.

3.10.4.1 Typical Wastes Generated

C Cleaning solvents

C Anti-freeze/coolant

C Used/soiled shop rags

C Unrecovered Freon from air conditioners

C Oil/lubricants

C Scrap metal

3.10.4.2 Parts Cleaning Systems

There are many different types of parts cleaning systems. Some utilize a pump to circulate

cleaning solvent/solutions. These machines can be managed by the facility or contracted to a

service that maintains the system and hauls away any generated wastes. The type of system and

the solvent/solution (e.g., organic based, aqueous, citrus based) used in the system will determine

the applicable regulatory management requirements and pollution prevention opportunities. 

Some systems have a distiller to clean the solvent and a reservoir tank to hold the waste that is

“cooked” out, while others utilize filters to extract impurities. Protecting the integrity of the

cleaning solvent/solution in order to extend its life and reduce disposal quantities is pollution

prevention. For example, by managing your own system that utilizes filters, you can change the

filters based on the system’s use before they reach a regulated threshold and not because of a preset contracted service. Also, there are aqueous, semi-aqueous, and citrus-based systems that

offer unique opportunities for pollution prevention. With any of these types of systems, it is
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-118 Local Government Operations

important not to introduce any non-compatible solvents/solutions into them that would cause

them to become regulated hazardous waste. 

 Some Factors to Consider in a Filtered System

C Utilizes non-chlorinated solvents in the system.

C Has a high flash point solvent of more than 143 degrees.

C Can meet all regulatory requirements regarding disposal of filters.

C Has a closing lid for when the system is not being used to reduce evaporation and air

emissions.

C Meets OSHA safety requirements.

 Some Factors for Aqueous Solution Systems

C The system cleans to the standard required for the part to function properly.

C There will be minimal regulatory restrictions if disposal of the solution is required.

C A balance can be maintained for the bioremediation in the system to work properly.

Key Tips

Maintain the solution/solvent integrity to extend its life and increase frequency of filter

replacement to reduce disposal costs of solvent/solution. Let the part sit in the wash basin and

drip dry to reduce solvent “drag out” loss. Choosing aqueous systems may reduce regulatory

requirements all together. 

3.10.4.3 Pressurized/Aerosol Cleaners

Chlorinated solvents/solutions should not be used in any application to clean parts. Avoid using

any aerosol cleaning products that are not RCRA approved. The use of these types of

solvents/solutions can cross contaminate fluids and make them regulated under RCRA and

increase OSHA requirements. Solvent/solutions purchased in bulk and applied with selfpressurizing applicators will reduce the use of the product and waste containers. Pre-cleaning

with a putty knife and wire brush and utilizing recyclable shop rags will also reduce disposal cost

and excess use of solvents/solutions. Verify compatibility of the solvent/solution with the parts

washer’s solvent/solution. Aqueous solutions may be the best option when utilized properly. 

There are pre-cleaning solvents/solutions that can affect the parts washing tank if, after use,
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-119 Local Government Operations

further cleaning of a part is required in that system. Eliminate overuse and set standards on the

amount of cleaning required for the particular part to function properly. 

Some Factors to Consider in a Self-pressurizing System

C Use of non-chlorinated solvents.

C Solvent/solution is compatible with the parts washer.

C Solvent/solution content affect on RCRA/OSHA regulatory requirements.

C Does the manufacturer/supplier offer system product support and/or training? 

Key Tips. Utilizing a scraping device and/or wire brush, recyclable shop towels, and a nonregulated RCRA solvent/solution will reduce usage and hazardous waste regulatory

requirements. Solvents/solutions with low VOC and low toxic contents produce less emissions

that are harmful to the employee.

3.10.4.4 Anti-freeze/Coolant 

Using manufacturer-specified antifreeze/coolant is required to maintain warranties and extend

the life of the vehicle/equipment. Antifreeze/coolant can be recycled in various ways, to

manufacture specifications and for reuse on site. The facility should verify that the

vehicle/equipment warranty will be honored if this reused antifreeze/coolant is utilized. One

method to recondition used antifreeze/coolant is to utilize a mobile service to perform onsite

recycling at your facility. Verify that the service is licensed and has a neutral third party

laboratory’s test results to demonstrate the system works, and the service guarantees the system’s

product. Another approach is to purchase your own on-site recycling machine. This allows full

management of the system’s use and the quality of the product it produces. Either one of these

will reduce new product purchases and associated RCRA disposal costs, as well as ensure a

readily available product.

Some Factors to Consider in Choosing the Best Method for the Facility

C Verify warranty coverage of the vehicle/equipment for the system/service chosen.

C Verify disposal approval for filters generated from the recycling system.

C See if bulk containers for used/recycled anti-freeze are available and proper storage can

be achieved.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-120 Local Government Operations

Key Tip. Whatever method is chosen, make sure testing and warranties of the system’s product

is backed, and the manufacturer of the vehicle/equipment allows for the use of the reconditioned

anti-freeze/coolant.

3.10.4.5 Shop Rags 

Do not use disposable shop rags. Contract with a service to provide reusable rags for the facility

as needed. Provide mechanics with a certain amount to perform the job. Require them to bring

back and exchange used rags for new rags. Verify that the service selected has an approved

method and facility for recycling the rags. The only exception to utilizing a service is if the

facility’s nonregulated waste is disposed of at a waste-to-energy plant that can incinerate waste

rags. Remember, never use chlorinated solvents regardless of the recycling/disposal method. 

Some Factors to Look for in Selecting a Service

C A regulatory approved method for the facility where the rags will be recycled.

C Will set a pick-up schedule for the used rags as required by your facility.

C Offers different rag selection based on the use for the facility.

Key Tip. Use as few rags as possible and always utilize a service to recycle rags at an approved

facility. 

3.10.4.6 Air Conditioning

There are several manufacturers that have different machines that will recover Freon from a

system for off-site recycling. Other machines recover and recycle the Freon and then place the

recycled Freon back into the repaired unit. These types of machines reduce new Freon purchases

and disposal costs associated with the management requirements of the waste stream. If the

repair of air conditioners is performed offsite, verify their practice for handling generated waste.

Some Factors to Look for in Selecting a Machine

C Is regulatory approved and registered.

C Is backed by third party test results verifying efficiency.

C Has factory warranty and supplier training.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-121 Local Government Operations

3.10.4.7 Lubricating Oils

There are several types of lubricating oils in the various types of vehicles/equipment in use today.

Changing these oils should be performed as determined by the use and not specific timed dates. 

If the vehicle/equipment is underutilized and/or is only needed for a specific task, changing the

oils by a timed date is a waste of resources. Synthetic oils generally have a longer span of time

for use before a change is required. When choosing the correct lubricant, verify warranty

approval and track the miles/hours of use of the product in the vehicle/equipment. Check various

options of disposal to see if refining of the waste oils is available over fuel blending for

incineration. Keep non-compatible oils separate from one another to reduce possible cross

contamination and increased disposal cost. 

3.10.4.8 Metal Recycling

Most parts replaced are made of metal. Some metal parts must be exchanged for the new part

when purchased. Many parts can be recycled, while saving the facility disposal costs. Lead tire

weights, broken engine brackets, nuts and bolts, and body parts are just a few that have value for

recycling. Set up places to store the recyclable metal, preferably out of the weather, and contract

with a scrap dealer to pickup what is recycled at the facility on an as needed basis. Some scrap

dealers will supply the container to the facility for the storage of the metal to be recycled. The

scrap dealer may require separation of the different metal types.

3.10.4.9 Conclusion

Pollution prevention will have a positive effect on procedures/processes and regulated waste

generated at the facility when the pollution prevention concept is initiated. When product use is

decreased and/or eliminated, manufacturing, transporting, and handling are all affected. This

decreases the need for energy and raw materials. Although the facility may not benefit entirely

from this occurrence, the entire scope of pollution prevention for the industry does. Changing

procedures and incorporating new technology to reduce or eliminate waste are true pollution

prevention tactics and must be encouraged from top management to every employee. The key to

incorporating a successful pollution prevention plan is to utilize current funds and available

resources to implement the changes required in the plan. Inventory control, product research,

operational procedures, and regulatory compliance requirements all must be evaluated before

implementation occurs. Evaluate and document current product uses and procedures to verify the

extent of the pollution prevention plan’s success at the facility. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-122 Local Government Operations

3.10.5 Success Story

The purpose of this case study was to evaluate and eliminate violations and the potential to

violate RCRA at Lee County's Fleet Management Facility, to reduce associated liabilities

regarding the facility's employees' health and safety, to implement and utilize BMPs, pollution

prevention technologies and preferable purchasing techniques, where possible, and to perform

research and institute recycling procedural requirements, where profitable.

The Fleet Management Facility maintains over 1,600 pieces of equipment from lawn mowers to

heavy equipment utilized by various departments in Lee County. Several violations of RCRA

were discovered in 1992 and Lee County was required by the Board of County Commissioners to

fix the situation so violations did not occur again. A corrective plan was the first task, and later

another operations plan was written to include pollution prevention, BMPs, and Reduce, Reuse,

and Recycle (R3). The later plan initiated a three-year phased process that covered product

substitution and/or elimination, equipment/chemical purchasing requirements, and employee

training.

Some of the equipment purchased by Lee County to promote pollution prevention, BMPs, and

R3 included:

C Parts washer with a multi-staged filter system that used a cleaner degreaser. Using this

system allowed for the total elimination of hazardous waste that was being generated and

then shipped off-site for disposal.

C Anti-freeze recycler used to filter impurities from used anti-freeze before chemically

balanced to manufacturer specifications. This closed loop approach is the only way to

ensure compliance is achieved and product integrity. As long as filters are changed

appropriately, they do not accumulate regulated heavy metal amounts. Also, performing

on-site recycling of the anti-freeze saved money required for new product purchases,

testing to determine if it was a hazardous waste, and transportation/disposal.

C Air conditioning reclaimer/recycler, which cut the cost of freon purchases by 82 percent,

with zero waste to dispose.

C Self-pressurizing solvent sprayer. In conjunction with recyclable rag service, there is no

regulated hazardous waste. Also, changing to manual pressurizing dispensers eliminated

use of chlorinated solvents.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-123 Local Government Operations

The cost of hazardous waste disposal was reduced 100 percent for savings of $16,800 per year

for an average year’s cost. This includes solvent disposal contracts, anti-freeze disposal, and

freon disposal. Recycling of fluids such as anti-freeze, used oil, parts cleaning solvent, and freon

also reduced the facility’s liability and saved in new product purchases. For more information,

contact Dale Nottingham (see below).

References

Local, State, and National Vehicle Trade Associations

National Pollution Prevention Roundtable

State Pollution Prevention Roundtables

National Association of Counties

EPA Website

For more information, contact Dale L. Nottingham - Lee County Small Quantity Generator

Program, 1500 Monroe Street, Fort Myers, FL 33901, Phone: (941) 479-8126, e-mail: 

nottindl@bocc.co.lee.fl.us.

3.11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATORY PROGRAMS

The preceding sections of this chapter present activities conducted by local governments in

which the local government is the regulatee, (i.e., the one being regulated). There are some

environmental programs at the local level, however, in which the local government is the

regulator, (i.e., the one implementing and enforcing the program). This section discusses three

distinct environmental programs in which the local government is the regulator.

It should be noted that in addition to the three programs discussed in this section any local

government is also responsible for environmental programs and initiatives that may affect their

populations. In their daily operations, for example, local governments must consider and address

several high-profile EPA programs, including environmental justice, Brownfields, and the

reduction of the exposure of children to lead-based paint or asbestos. Some of these programs,

such as lead-based paint and asbestos, do have regulatory recourse on which the local

government can rely. Others, however, do not have an explicit statutory basis and, as such, must
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-124 Local Government Operations

be developed and implemented by a local government through policies or standard operating

procedures.

3.11.1 Pretreatment Program 

Local governments are responsible for ensuring compliance with pretreatment program

requirements. The national pretreatment program (CWA Section 307(b)) controls the indirect

discharge of pollutants to POTWs by “industrial users.” The goals of the pretreatment program

are to protect municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems from adverse impacts

resulting from the discharge of pollutants into the sewage system, prevent the pass through of

pollutants to receiving waters, and protect the quality of the sludge. 

EPA established the National Pretreatment Program and shares responsibilities for its

implementation among the federal government, states, and local governments:

C EPA and the states are responsible for reviewing, approving, and overseeing local

pretreatment programs and regulating discharges to POTWs that do not have local

programs.

C Local governments are responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing their

local programs.

As part of their responsibilities, local governments conduct a variety of activities within the

confines of the pretreatment program, including the following: 

C Identifying industrial users that need to be regulated

C Reviewing permit applications from industrial users

C Drafting/writing permits

C Conducting sampling and inspections

C Evaluating the status of industrial user compliance (e.g., reviewing reports)

C Taking enforcement actions, as warranted.

Any POTW with a design flow of more than 5 million gallons per day is required to develop a

pretreatment program. In addition, any POTW with a design flow of less than 5 million gallons

per day may be required to develop a program if a potential exists for nondomestic wastes to

cause POTW upsets, sludge contamination, violations of NPDES permit conditions, or exposure
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-125 Local Government Operations

of workers to hazardous chemicals or if their industrial users are subject to national pretreatment

standards.

3.11.2 Air Pollution Control

Local governments are responsible for ensuring compliance with air program requirements to

reduce the environmental impacts from other entities. Local governments usually are responsible

for the following activities:

C Monitoring, including operating and overseeing maintenance of sampling stations

C Permitting, including issuing draft Title V permits, construction permits, and source

registrations

C Conducting compliance and enforcement activities.

Local government responsibilities pertain primarily to stationary sources; states maintain control

over mobile sources (e.g., vehicle inspections).

Local agencies conduct ambient air quality monitoring, which consists of collecting air samples

to evaluate compliance with and/or progress toward meeting ambient air quality standards. Air

quality monitoring programs are implemented by using state and local air monitoring stations

(SLAMS) and/or special purpose monitoring stations (SPMS) to measure the criteria pollutants. 

Criteria pollutants are those that have documented effects on public health and the environment

(e.g., carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.) 

Some states also monitor fine particulate matter.

In addition, local governments are responsible for issuing permits, primarily Title V and

construction permits, and for overseeing facility compliance with the permits. A Title V permit

is an operating permit required for individual facilities under Title V of the CAA. The Title V

permit brings together all federal, state, and city air pollution control requirements for a given

facility into one permit. This permit includes information on the types of pollutants being

released, permissible emission levels, and methods for reducing or eliminating pollution,

including plans for monitoring and reporting emissions. Construction permits indicate that

construction-related equipment and facilities meet all applicable air quality standards or

requirements. Permits for new or modified facilities must be obtained before construction starts.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-126 Local Government Operations

3.11.3 Land Use Planning/Zoning

At the local government level, urban planning and community and rural development involve

planning, administering, and researching the development of urban and rural areas. In general,

land use management involves making decisions regarding how a particular site will be used.

Once land is zoned or used for one purpose, it cannot be used for another purpose.

Along these lines, EPA has launched a national effort (campaign) to restore “Brownfields” (i.e.,

abandoned or under-utilized industrial and commercial sites that are environmentally

contaminated from previous use). In many situations, restoration or remediation of these areas

would contribute to the economic revitalization of an area or community.

Effective and comprehensive land use planning requires coordination by federal, state, and local

experts. Federal and state objectives that reflect the needs and conditions of county and

municipal governments are appropriate, because land use management typically occurs at the

local level. State and federal governments often grant local governments the necessary authority

to implement national and state land use requirements, as well as review land use plans, in a

manner appropriate to individual communities. 

Land use planning and zoning activities do not themselves cause environmental effects. The

results of these activities -- the actual land use -- pose environmental impacts. Land use

determines whether natural resources are conserved or depleted. Land set aside for open space or

parks obviously will conserve the resource and cause less severe environmental impacts than

land zoned for industrial purposes. Land set aside for open space, however, is at risk for later

development. Land used for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes can affect air, land,

and water resources. On the other hand, abandoned sites that are restored can revitalize an area

and reduce environmental risks as the site is remediated.

3.11.4 Pollution Prevention in Air Pollution Programs and Pretreatment Programs

Both of these regulatory programs often exist at the local government level and provide many

important functions. As a result, these programs interact with many different types of businesses

and industries and, therefore, have a tremendous opportunity to encourage pollution prevention

and waste reduction at these sources. It will be at the discretion of each individual program

where it wants to focus its efforts; however, there are common aspects of these regulatory

programs that offer the opportunity for integration of pollution prevention. In addition to

working with prevalent industries in the region, programs can also target sources of emissions or
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-127 Local Government Operations

discharges, which lead to problems specific to that region, such as ozone or specific treatment

plant upsets. Although the priorities of these programs are often in the areas of permits,

inspections, compliance and enforcement, it is important to remember that these programs also

have a responsibility to educate the regulated community. By educating pollution sources on the

benefits of, and opportunities for, waste reduction and pollution prevention, a program can more

effectively and efficiently accomplish its mission of environmental protection. The following

section lists some examples of opportunities to incorporate pollution prevention into existing

regulatory programs.

 

3.11.4.1 Top Pollution Prevention Strategies 

The following list highlights selected pollution prevention strategies associated with air pollution

and pretreatment programs:

C Incorporate pollution prevention into the permitting process. Examples of opportunities

include:

- Providing recommendations for pollution prevention and waste minimization

during permit applications for new facilities

- Including pollution prevention work standards, practices, or conditions in permits

- Requiring formal pollution prevention/waste minimization plans from facilities as

part of their operating permits

- Providing a definition of pollution prevention and information on available

services, assistance, and benefits in permit renewal letters.

C Train engineers and inspectors on pollution prevention technologies and opportunities

and have them include information and technical assistance during inspections, as well as

in the permit and plan review and approval stages. 

C Provide compliance assistance and pollution prevention information through descriptive

brochures, BMPs, and implementation documents associated with regulatory standards. 

These can be provided with permits, distributed by inspectors, or handed out at

workshops or training events.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-128 Local Government Operations

C Provide various incentives such as relaxing inspection periods or reducing permit fees for

sources that implement pollution prevention practices.

C Utilize surcharge and impact fees to encourage water re-use, conservation, and pollutant

reduction. These fees can be scaled and should be based on the quantities and the

concentrations of pollutants discharged to avoid dilution.

C Utilize national events, such as Clean Air Month, Earth Day, and National Pollution

Prevention Week, to publicize pollution prevention initiatives and target local issues,

such as high ozone levels and acid rain. This is a good opportunity to educate local

sources on EPA initiatives, including Climate Wise and Energy Star.

C Incorporate implementation of pollution prevention projects into enforcement and

settlement agreements. If a program is willing to offset a portion of the fines for facilities

that agree to implement pollution prevention projects, they provide a much greater

incentive for facilities to utilize this option.

C Get involved with other national and international organizations, such as the State &

Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and Association of Local Air Pollution

Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO), Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies,

and the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable.

3.11.4.2 Case Study

In February 1993, the U.S. EPA promulgated, in Final Rule, the Standards for the Use and

Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR 503). In response to this, the Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (the District) initiated a comprehensive plan, the 503

Enforcement Initiative (503EI), to achieve two primary objectives: (1) to “substantially reduce

the discharge of metals of concern from the regulated industrial community,” and (2) ensure “that

the District’s Water Reclamation Plants produce high quality sludge, which maximizes the

District’s opportunities for beneficial reuse.” The main components of the 503EI included “(a)

optimization of the District’s existing Pretreatment Program, (b) increased monitoring of

industrial point source discharges into its sewerage system, and (c) innovative pollution

prevention assistance to the industrial community.” 

In cooperation with several local and regional agencies, the District began providing pollution

prevention training, outreach, and technical assistance to local businesses and also developed a
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-129 Local Government Operations

public recognition program for businesses successful in implementing pollution prevention

measures. In addition, the District cooperated with local industry stakeholders to develop a cost

recovery system for the Pretreatment Program, to help cover the additional costs incurred by the

Program for the 503EI. This system “brought direct financial liability to industrial users who are

regulated for the discharge of these metals” and created a further incentive for these users to

reduce their discharges. The District has found that by linking compliance performance to

financial liability, Pretreatment Program administrative costs are more equitably distributed

amongst the industrial users and “in conjunction with pollution prevention assistance programs,

offer greater leverage to influence SIU (Significant Industrial User) behavior at lesser cost to

Control Authorities and the industrial community.” Overall, this program resulted in a more

than 33% reduction in heavy metal discharges to the sewerage system between the years of 1992

and 1996, and it is an illustrative example of the benefits of incorporating pollution prevention

into existing regulatory programs. 

(Source: Richard Sustich et al., “Chicago’s 503 Enforcement Initiative: A Great Industrial CleanUp Experience,” Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, presented at the

Water Environment Federation Technical Expo and Conference, Chicago, Illinois, October

1997.)

For more information, contact Mr. Richard Sustich at the Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District of Greater Chicago, (312) 751-3050.

3.11.5 Pollution Prevention in Land Use Planning & Zoning and Brownfield

Redevelopment

Although the connections may not be immediately evident, poor planning and zoning decisions

can lead to environmental impacts, particularly through environmentally irresponsible

development patterns. The country’s development patterns of low density single family housing,

separation of uses, dependence on the automobile, loss of habitat and greenfields, and urban

sprawl have greatly contributed to overall environmental degradation. This can be counteracted

by promoting construction to optimize energy efficiency, infill development, Brownfield

redevelopment, mixed land use, and pedestrian and transit-oriented development (TOD). These

smart growth initiatives can benefit a community economically, financially, and socially through

improved environmental quality and improved quality of life. If planning, zoning, and

development are done carefully and with foresight, energy, water and other resources can be

conserved, aquifers and watersheds can be protected, neighborhoods can become more selfsufficient, vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) can be reduced (as well as the pollution associated with
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-130 Local Government Operations

vehicles), money and other resources can be conserved through avoidance of the need for

additional infrastructure, declining areas can be revitalized, and overall environmental quality

can be improved both locally and regionally. Therefore, it is important to consider many factors

at the planning and zoning stage, including current and potential future uses of the land, existing

infrastructure in the area, potential impacts to nearby watersheds and aquifers (please refer to

Section 3.8 of this profile for more information), and the accessibility to, and feasibility of,

residents and employees using alternative means of transportation, such as mass transit, biking,

or walking. There are several areas associated with planning and zoning operations which offer

excellent opportunities to implement innovative ideas and projects to help prevent pollution and

support smart growth.

3.11.5.1 Top Pollution Prevention Strategies

The following list highlights pollution prevention strategies associated with planning and zoning

operations: 

C Establish steering committees with representatives from various departments involved in

the planning and zoning process to research the feasibility and encourage the

implementation of smart growth initiatives. For example, an Infill Task Force can be

established to research and address the existing barriers to smart growth and to develop

an infill strategy for the community.

C Establish policies identifying areas for environmental resource preservation or

conservation and establish rules to protect such areas from incompatible land uses and

management practices. Examples may include:

S Incorporate watershed management plans into Comprehensive Development

Master Plans

S Establish protective zones around aquifers and other drinking water sources to

limit certain land uses and operations

S Restrict certain land uses and operations in those areas served only by septic tanks

S Minimize impervious surfaces in a development through compact design and

reduction of road width and parking lot size (to reduce storm water run-off)
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-131 Local Government Operations

S Locate watershed development with an eye for preserving the natural land near

lakes, rivers, and streams.

C Create an urban design manual for developers to educate them on smart growth concepts

and opportunities for incorporation into their plans and projects.

C Establish incentives for developers who incorporate smart growth initiatives into their

plans and projects. These incentives could include expedited approval processes,

decreased permit fees, decreased impact fees, and priority in the provision of services,

facilities, and allocation of financial resources. 

C Modify economic incentive packages for Brownfield developers based on how closely

they follow recommendations for pollution prevention implementation. For example,

increase the economic package if they are willing to implement more pollution prevention

initiatives.

C Establish policies requiring BMPs for particular land uses and activities to achieve

pollution reduction goals.

C Incorporate pollution prevention language into local Brownfield codes and ordinances.

C Provide education opportunities (workshops, booklets, pamphlets, etc.) to encourage

smart growth initiatives and implementation of pollution prevention and BMPs. This

may include:

S Education of financial institutions on the benefits to them of providing loans for

pollution prevention projects and equipment.

S Education of target Brownfield communities on the benefits of the developer and

future business utilizing pollution prevention. Since it is added insurance that the

property will not become contaminated again this may help win the community’s

approval for location of a new facility in a Brownfield area.

S Education of residents and businesses located in areas served by septic tanks on

the operation and proper maintenance of these systems to prevent ground and

groundwater contamination.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-132 Local Government Operations

• Review and amend zoning subdivision regulations and other regulations to encourage

TOD principles. This may include maximizing the use of existing urbanized areas

accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment, reinforcing transit through land use

planning, or reducing VMTs by creating opportunities to walk, bike, and use mass transit.

3.11.5.2 Case Study

Since the 1970s the City of San Jose, California, has been committed to growth management and

sustainability and has been establishing initiatives and policies to promote smart growth. This

commitment came in response to tremendous growth and urban sprawl in the 1950s and 1960s,

when the city discovered that the revenue generated by urban development on the City’s fringe

was insufficient to cover the costs of providing the infrastructure and services to this area. The

City realized that it must take action to prevent this trend from continuing and began approving

numerous initiatives within their General Plan in order to ensure a sustainable and profitable

future for the area. With policies such as the Sustainable City Major Strategy, the

Greenline/Urban Growth Boundary, and the Intensification Corridors Special Strategy, the City

has been implementing smart growth development in a variety of ways. Some of these include

directing urban development to infill sites which are already provided with urban infrastructure

and services, promoting high density housing and supportive mixed uses in close proximity to

public transit corridors, and enacting building and site design policies to improve energy and

water use efficiency. 

Overall, the City’s goal is to “ensure that urban development in San Jose is designed and built in

a form that enhances the City’s ability to provide adequate levels of urban services and ensuring

the efficient use of existing infrastructure and services while protecting the natural environment

to the maximum extent feasible.” Through proactive planning and building, the City is helping

to ensure smart growth today while providing adequate resources for future generations.

(Source: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), U.S. Office, Cities

for Climate Protection Campaign Case Studies, San Jose, California Growth Management Plan)

Portland, Oregon is another city which has implemented a very proactive smart growth plan. For

more information on San Jose, California or Portland, Oregon contact the ICLEI, U.S. Office,

Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, at (510) 540-8843.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 3-133 Local Government Operations

Resources

AMSA: (202) 833-2672; http://www.amsa-cleanwater.org

Clean Air Technology Center (CATC): (919) 541-0800; http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catcCenter

Center for Technology Transfer and Pollution Prevention (CT2P2):

http://ingis.acn.purdue.edu:9999/cttpp/cttpp.html

Energy Star Buildings/Green Lights: (202) 233-9178; http://www.epa.gov/appdstar/buildings/

and http://www.epa.gov/greenlights.html

Florida Sustainable Communities Center: http://sustainable.state.fl.us

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), U.S. Office, Cities for Climate

Protection Campaign: (510) 540-8843; http://www.iclei.org

National Pollution Prevention Roundtable: (202) 466-7272; http://www.p2.org

$mart Growth Network: (202) 260-2750; http://www.smartgrowth.org

STAPPA/ALAPCO: (202) 624-7863; http://www.4cleanair.org

U.S. EPA Design for the Environment (DfE): (202) 260-1678; http://www.epa.gov/dfe

For more information, contact Nichole Hefty, Dade County DERM, Florida; Phone: (305)

372-6825; Fax: (305) 372-6760; E-mail: heftyn@co.miami-dade.fl.us.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-1 Federal Statutes and Regulations

4. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES

AND REGULATIONS

This chapter discusses the federal regulations that may apply to local governments. The purpose

of this chapter is to highlight and briefly describe the applicable federal requirements and to

provide citations for more detailed information. The descriptions within this chapter are intended

solely for general information. Depending on the nature or scope of the local government

activities, these summaries may or may not necessarily describe all applicable environmental

requirements. Moreover, they do not constitute formal interpretations or clarifications of the

statutes and regulations. This chapter also discusses proposed regulations that may affect local

governments.

As a supplement to this chapter, Appendix D presents a detailed matrix of local government

activities organized by the operations presented in Chapter 3. For each activity, the matrix

identifies the federal environmental statutes that may regulate that specific activity. Local

governments can use the matrix as a quick reference to determine which statutory programs may

regulate specific activities.

4.1 CLEAN AIR ACT

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments, including the Clean Air Act Amendments

(CAAA) of 1990, are designed to “protect and enhance the nation's air resources so as to promote

the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the population.” The CAA consists

of six sections, known as Titles, which direct EPA to establish national standards for ambient air

quality and for EPA and the states to implement, maintain, and enforce these standards through a

variety of mechanisms. Under the CAAA, many facilities will be required to obtain permits for

the first time. State and local governments oversee, manage, and enforce many of the

requirements of the CAAA. CAA regulations appear at 40 CFR Parts 50-99.

• National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Pursuant to Title I of the CAA, EPA has

established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs) to limit levels of "criteria

pollutants," including carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone,

and sulfur dioxide. Geographic areas that meet NAAQSs for a given pollutant are classified

as attainment areas; those that do not meet NAAQSs are classified as non-attainment areas. 

Under Section 110 of the CAA, each State must develop a State Implementation Plan to
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-2 Federal Statutes and Regulations

identify sources of air pollution and to determine what reductions are required to meet

federal air quality standards.

• New Source Performance Standards. Title I also authorizes EPA to establish New Source

Performance Standards (NSPSs), which are nationally uniform emission standards for new

stationary sources falling within particular industrial categories. NSPSs are based on the

pollution control technology available to that category of industrial source. New municipal

waste combustors or sewage sludge incinerators may be subject to these standards.

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Under Title I, EPA

establishes and enforces National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAPs), which are nationally uniform standards oriented toward controlling particular

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Title I, Section 112(c) of the CAA further directed EPA to

develop a list of sources that emit any of 189 HAPs and to develop regulations for these

categories of sources. To date, EPA has listed 174 categories and developed a schedule for

the establishment of emission standards. The emission standards will be developed for both

new and existing sources based on "maximum achievable control technology" (MACT). 

MACT is defined as the control technology achieving the maximum degree of reduction of

HAP emissions, taking into account cost and other factors. Unless a local government

operates a treatment, storage, and disposal facility or stores significant quantities of organic

chemicals, it is not likely to be subject to the NESHAP requirements.

• Mobile Sources. Title II of the CAA pertains to mobile sources, such as cars, trucks, buses,

and planes. EPA uses reformulated gasoline, automobile pollution control devices, and

vapor recovery nozzles on gas pumps, among other mechanisms, to regulate mobile air

emission sources. Local governments may be subject to these standards if they operate

vehicles or large fleets of vehicles or if they conduct fueling operations.

C Sulfur Dioxide/Nitrous Oxide Emissions. Title IV of the CAA establishes a sulfur

dioxide/nitrous oxide emissions program designed to reduce the formation of acid rain. 

Sulfur dioxide releases will be reduced by granting to certain sources limited emissions

allowances, which are below previous levels of sulfur dioxide releases. Local governments

that operate municipal waste combustors, sewage sludge incinerators, or large

boilers/generators may be subject to these requirements.

C Major Source Permit Program. Title V of the CAAA of 1990 created a permit program

for all "major sources" (and certain other sources) regulated under the CAA. One purpose of
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-3 Federal Statutes and Regulations

the operating permit is to include in a single document all air emissions requirements that

apply to a given facility. States are developing the permit programs in accordance with

guidance and regulations from EPA. Once EPA approves a state program, that state will

issue and monitor permits.

C Stratospheric Ozone Protection. Title VI of the CAA is intended to protect stratospheric

ozone by phasing out the manufacture of ozone-depleting chemicals and restricting their use

and distribution. The production of Class I substances, including 15 kinds of

chlorofluorocarbons and chloroform, were phased out (except for essential uses) in 1996. 

Local governments that conduct vehicle or building air conditioner maintenance and repair

are subject to these requirements.

• Risk Management Planning. Section 112(r) of the amended CAA mandates a new federal

focus on the prevention of chemical accidents. The objective of Section 112(r) is to prevent

serious chemical accidents that could affect public health and the environment. Under these

requirements, industry is obligated to prevent accidents, operate safely, and manage

hazardous chemicals in a safe and responsible way. Under the new CAA requirements,

stationary sources (facilities) must identify and assess their chemical hazards and carry out

certain activities designed to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidental chemical

releases. Information summarizing these activities will be available to state and local

governments, the public, and all other stakeholders. Using this information, citizens can

work with industry to reduce risks to the community from chemical accidents.

In the broadest sense, risk management planning relates to local emergency preparedness and

response, to pollution prevention at facilities, and to worker safety. In a more focused sense,

it forms one element of an integrated approach to safety and complements existing industry

codes and standards. The risk management planning requirements build on the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Process Safety Management Standard.

In general, large, urban local governments and governments near pristine areas, such as national

parks and wilderness areas, will be subject to the most stringent CAA requirements. Appendix D

contains a detailed matrix of activities and the specific statutes under which they are regulated.

The following proposed regulations under the CAA are currently in the development process:

• New Source Performance Standard: Sewage Sludge Incinerators. Section 129 of the

CAAA requires the EPA Administrator to establish new source performance standards and
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-4 Federal Statutes and Regulations

emission guidelines for new and existing solid waste incineration units, including units that

incinerate municipal sewage sludge. The standards and guidelines are to specify numerical

emission limitations for the following substances: particulate matter (total and fine), opacity

(as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide,

lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans. In addition, the standards and

guidelines are to include requirements for emissions and parameter monitoring as well as

provisions for operator training and certification. This final action is expected to be

completed and published in May 2000.

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Publicly Owned

Treatment Works. Section 112 of the CAAA requires the EPA Administrator to regulate

the emissions of HAPs from stationary sources by establishing national emission standards. 

The standards reflect the maximum degree of reduction in HAP emissions through

application of a MACT. The proposed emission standards for Publicly Owned Treatment

Works (POTWs) would require control for HAP emissions from each new or reconstructed

POTW that is a major source of HAP. The standards would also require each existing and

new POTW that treats specific industrial user waste streams from an individual user— for

the purpose of allowing that industrial user to comply with another NESHAP— to meet the

treatment and control requirements of the relevant NESHAP. EPA has specifically

requested comments on pretreatment and wastewater collection systems to help determine

the importance of their effect on HAP emissions from POTWs. The final rule is expected in

May 1999.

4.2 CLEAN WATER ACT

The primary objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the

Clean Water Act (CWA), is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological

integrity of the nation's surface waters. The CWA regulates "priority" pollutants, including

various toxic pollutants; "conventional" pollutants, such as biochemical oxygen demand, total

suspended solids, fecal coliform, oil and grease, and pH; and "non-conventional" pollutants,

including any pollutant not identified as either conventional or priority.

• NPDES Permits. The CWA regulates both direct and indirect discharges. The National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program (CWA Section 402) controls

direct discharges into navigable waters. Direct discharges or "point source" discharges are

from such sources as pipes and sewers. These include discharges of industrial and municipal

wastewater, as well as storm water conveyed through a municipal separate storm water
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-5 Federal Statutes and Regulations

Defining “Municipal” Sewer Systems

EPA uses a broad definition of “municipal”

in defining municipal sewer systems. 

Municipal systems are defined as

conveyances that are owned or operated by

a state, city, town, borough, county, parish,

district, association, or other public body

having jurisdiction of disposal of sewage,

industrial wastes, storm water, or other

wastes. This includes special districts

under state law, such as a sewer district,

flood control district or drainage district, or

other similar entity; an Indian tribe or an

authorized Indian tribal organization; or a

designated and approved management

agency under Section 208 of the CWA.

system. NPDES permits, issued by either EPA or an authorized state (EPA has authorized 

43 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands to administer the NPDES program), contain industryspecific, technology-based and/or water quality-based limits and establish pollutant

monitoring requirements. Each municipal or industry facility that intends to discharge into

the nation's waters must obtain a permit prior to initiating its discharge. A permit applicant

must provide quantitative analytical data identifying the types of pollutants present in the

facility's effluent. The permit then sets the conditions and effluent limitations on the facility

discharges. 

An NPDES permit may also include discharge limits based on federal or state water quality

criteria or standards that were designed to protect designated uses of surface waters, such as

supporting aquatic life or recreation. These standards, unlike the technological standards,

generally do not take into account technological feasibility or costs. Water quality criteria

and standards vary from state to state and from site to site, depending on the use

classification of the receiving water body. Most states follow EPA guidelines, which

propose aquatic life and human health criteria for many of the 126 priority pollutants.

Local governments that own and operate wastewater treatment plants are required to apply

for and obtain an NPDES permit. These permits contain a variety of required elements,

including discharge limits; monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements; and

biosolids requirements.

• Combined Sewer Systems Permit

Provisions. EPA’s 1994 Combined Sewer

Overflow (CSO) Control Policy provides

recommended NPDES permit conditions for

municipalities with combined sewer systems. 

These provisions, which are typically

implemented by the permitting authority,

include requirements for meeting the nine

minimum controls to reduce the frequency

and water quality impacts of CSO events and

to establish a long-term control plan to

address capital improvements to the system. 

Local governments that operate and maintain

a combined collection system must abide by

these requirements, which are included as part of the NPDES permit.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-6 Federal Statutes and Regulations

• Storm Water Discharges. In 1987, the CWA was amended to require EPA to establish a

program to address storm water discharges. In response, EPA promulgated the NPDES

storm water regulations. Implemented in two phases, the first phase requires local

governments that operate large (serving a population greater than 250,000) or medium

(serving a population from 100,000 to 250,000) municipal separate storm water systems to

apply for and obtain an NPDES storm water permit. During phase 2 of the storm water

program, local governments operating regulated small municipal separate storm water

systems will be required to submit a Notice of Intent to EPA to be covered under a national

general storm water permit. 

In addition to requiring storm water permits for collection systems, the CWA may also

require industrial or local government operations to obtain or be covered by storm water

permits. Such operations may include construction activities (e.g., roads, buildings) or

storage of chemicals or hazardous materials. 

• Pretreatment Program. The CWA also regulates discharges to POTWs. The national

pretreatment program (CWA Section 307(b)) controls the indirect discharge of pollutants to

POTWs by "industrial users." Facilities regulated under Section 307(b) must meet certain

pretreatment standards. The goal of the pretreatment program is to protect municipal

wastewater treatment plants from damage that may occur when hazardous, toxic, or other

wastes are discharged into a sewer system and to protect the quality of sludge generated by

these plants. Discharges to a POTW are regulated primarily by the POTW itself, rather than

the state or EPA. 

EPA has developed technology-based standards for certain industrial users of POTWs. 

Different standards apply to existing and new sources within each category. EPA develops

these "categorical" pretreatment standards applicable to an industry on a nationwide basis. 

In addition, a POTW develops another kind of pretreatment standard, "local limits," to assist

the POTW in achieving the effluent limitations in its NPDES permit.

Regardless of whether a state is authorized to implement either the NPDES or the

pretreatment program, it may enforce requirements more stringent than federal standards.

Local governments that own and operate POTWs must meet the requirements for a

pretreatment program under the CWA. In such situations, the local government becomes the

regulator and establishes limits that must be met by industries discharging to the POTW.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-7 Federal Statutes and Regulations

• Sludge Management. Section 503 of the CWA and the associated regulations govern land

application and land disposal of sludge generated from municipal wastewater treatment. The

Section 503 regulations establish provisions for sludge quality, application rates, and

environmental conditions under which land application is permitted. The regulations also

specify management methods, monitoring, and recordkeeping for both disposal and land

application facilities. Local governments that produce sludge from their wastewater

treatment operations are subject to the Section 503 regulations.

• Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans. The 1990 Oil Pollution Act

requires facilities that could reasonably be expected to discharge oil in harmful quantities to

prepare and implement more rigorous Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure

(SPCC) Plans required under the CWA (40 CFR Section112.7). The SPCC regulations also

require specific management procedures for loading, unloading, and storing petroleum

products. The regulations delineate criminal and civil penalties for deliberate or negligent

spills of oil. Regulations covering response to oil discharges and contingency plans (40 CFR

Part 300), as well as facility response plans to oil discharges (40 CFR Section112.20) and for

PCB transformers and PCB-containing items, were revised and finalized in 1995. Local

governments that maintain fueling operations must comply with the SPCC regulations.

Many local governments conduct operations that are directly regulated by the CWA. Appendix

D contains a detailed matrix of activities and the specific statutes under which they are regulated.

The following proposed regulations are currently in the development process:

• NPDES Comprehensive Storm Water Phase II Regulations. Expected in 1999. See

Section 4.2 for a description of the Storm Water Program.

C NPDES Wastewater Permit Application Forms and Regulatory Revisions for

Municipal Discharges and Sewage Sludge Use or Disposal. The purpose of this action is

to revise and consolidate existing application forms and requirements for POTWs and other

treatment works treating domestic sewage, as well as to streamline the application process

for these facilities. The Agency seeks to establish a unified process that minimizes the need

for additional information from applicants while providing permit writers the necessary

information, including toxics data, to ensure that permits adequately address concerns of

permittees and environmental protection. The Agency seeks to allow the use of existing data

and to avoid unnecessary reporting. The Agency is also considering how to utilize electronic

data submission. Although these forms will increase the burden on permittees not already
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-8 Federal Statutes and Regulations

required to submit these data, EPA is minimizing the need for information from small

entities, including tribal facilities. The burden on states would be minimized because of

improvements to the application forms. This final action is expected in 1999.

C Revisions to NPDES Requirements for Compliance Reporting and Collection System

Discharges. EPA is proposing revisions to the NPDES regulations. The proposed revisions

would clarify how standard noncompliance reporting requirements and prohibition/defense

provisions in NPDES permits apply to discharges from sanitary sewer and combined sewer

collection systems owned and operated by municipal entities. These proposed revisions

respond to recommendations made by a FACA Subcommittee (under the Urban Wet

Weather Federal Advisory Committee) that was convened by EPA to provide

recommendations for improving NPDES program implementation efforts that address SSOs

and sanitary sewer operation, management, and maintenance. The proposed revisions would

address combined sewers, as well as separate sanitary sewers, to avoid confusion among the

regulatory community. Failures in sewer collection systems can result in discharges of

wastewater containing raw sewage to surface waters. Pathogens and other pollutants in

these discharges can create significant health and environmental risks. The SSO FACA

Subcommittee identified inconsistent application of several key NPDES provisions to SSOs

as a major implementation problem. There is substantial agreement among the SSO FACA

Subcommittee that EPA should modify the NPDES regulations to clarify how

noncompliance reporting and prohibition/defense provisions apply to dischargers to waters

of the U.S. from a sanitary sewer collection system. The proposed action is expected in

1999.

4.3 COASTAL ZONE ACT REAUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS OF 1990

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) encourages states/tribes to preserve, protect,

develop, and where possible, restore or enhance valuable natural coastal resources such as

wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as the

fish and wildlife using those habitats. It includes areas bordering the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic

Oceans, Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound, and Great Lakes. A unique feature of this law is

that participation by states/tribes is voluntary. To encourage states/tribes to participate, the act

makes federal financial assistance available to any coastal state, tribe, or Territory, including

those on the Great Lakes, that is willing to develop and implement a comprehensive coastal

management program. Most eligible states/tribes are, or will be, participating in the program. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-9 Federal Statutes and Regulations

In its reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1990, Congress identified nonpoint

source pollution as a major factor in the continuing degradation of coastal waters. Congress also

recognized that effective solutions to nonpoint source pollution could be implemented at the

state/tribe and local levels. Therefore, in the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of

1990 (CZARA), Congress added Section 6217, which calls upon states/tribes with federallyapproved coastal zone management programs to develop and implement coastal nonpoint

pollution control programs. The Section 6217 program is administered at the federal level jointly

by EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA).

Section 6217(g) of CZARA called for EPA, in consultation with other agencies, to develop

guidance on “management measures” for sources of nonpoint source pollution in coastal waters. 

Under Section 6217 of CZARA, EPA is responsible for developing technical guidance to assist

states/tribes in designing coastal nonpoint pollution control programs. On January 19, 1993,

EPA issued its Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources of Nonpoint Pollution

in Coastal Waters, which addresses five major source categories of nonpoint pollution: (1) urban

runoff, (2) agriculture runoff, (3) forestry runoff, (4) marinas and recreational boating, and (5)

hydromodification.

Depending on their geographical locations, local governments may be responsible for

contributing to the above mentioned programs. Appendix D contains a detailed matrix of

activities and the specific statutes under which they are regulated.

4.4 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), a

1980 law known commonly as Superfund, authorizes EPA to respond to releases or threatened

releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health, welfare, or the environment. 

CERCLA also enables EPA to force parties responsible for environmental contamination to clean

it up or to reimburse the Superfund for response costs (including remediation costs) incurred by

EPA. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 revised various

sections of CERCLA, extended the taxing authority for the Superfund, and creating a

free-standing law, SARA Title III, also known as the Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

The CERCLA hazardous substance release reporting regulations (Section 103; 40 CFR Part 302)

direct the person in charge of a facility to report to the National Response Center any

environmental release of a hazardous substance that equals or exceeds a reportable quantity. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-10 Federal Statutes and Regulations

Reportable quantities are listed in 40 CFR Section 302.4. A release report may trigger a response

by EPA or by one or more federal or state emergency response authorities.

EPA implements hazardous substance responses according to procedures outlined in the National

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Part 300). The NCP

includes provisions for permanent cleanups, known as remedial actions, and other cleanups,

referred to as removals. EPA generally takes remedial actions only at sites on the National

Priorities List, which currently includes approximately 1,300 sites. Both EPA and states can act

at sites; however, EPA provides responsible parties the opportunity to conduct removal and

remedial actions and encourages community involvement throughout the Superfund response

process.

Local governments are generally not involved with hazardous waste cleanup as part of normal

operations. However, many local government operations have the potential to generate

hazardous waste. In reviewing the requirements of CERCLA, it is important for local

governments to assess the impacts of all their operations to minimize environmental impacts and

to reduce the potential CERCLA liability. In particular, local governments should maintain tight

controls on landfill and incinerator operations, vehicle maintenance operations, underground and

above ground storage tanks, and any other activities or operations that could significantly affect

the environment. Appendix D contains a detailed matrix of activities and the specific statutes

under which they are regulated.

4.5 EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT

As mentioned previously, the SARA of 1986 created the Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA, also known as SARA Title III), a statute designed to improve

community access to information about chemical hazards and to facilitate the development of

chemical emergency response plans by state and local governments. EPCRA required the

establishment of state emergency response commissions (SERCs), which are responsible for

coordinating certain emergency response activities and for appointing local emergency planning

committees (LEPCs). 

EPCRA and its regulations (40 CFR Parts 350-372) establish four types of reporting obligations

for facilities that store or manage specified chemicals:

C EPCRA Section 302 requires facilities to notify the SERC and LEPC of the presence of any

extremely hazardous substance (the list of such substances is in 40 CFR Part 355,
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-11 Federal Statutes and Regulations

Appendices A and B) in excess of the substance's threshold planning quantity and directs the

facility to appoint an emergency response coordinator.

C EPCRA Section 304 requires the facility to notify the SERC and the LEPC in the event of a

release equaling or exceeding the reportable quantity of a CERCLA hazardous substance or

an EPCRA extremely hazardous substance.

C EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 require a facility at which a hazardous chemical, as defined

by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, is present in an amount exceeding a specified

threshold to submit to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department material safety data sheets

(MSDSs) or lists of MSDSs and hazardous chemical inventory forms (also known as Tier I

and II forms). This information helps the local government respond in the event of a spill or

release of the chemical.

C EPCRA Section 313 requires manufacturing facilities included in SIC codes 20 through 39,

as well as SIC codes 10, 12, 4911, 4931, 4939, 4953, 5169, 5171, and 7389, that have 10 or

more employees and that manufacture, process, or use specified chemicals in amounts

greater than threshold quantities to submit an annual toxic chemical release report. This

report, known commonly as Form R, covers releases and transfers of toxic chemicals to

various facilities and environmental media and allows EPA to compile the national Toxic

Release Inventory (TRI) data base.

Since local governments do not have operations that fall within the identified SIC codes,

they are not subject to Section 313 reporting requirements.

Hazardous chemicals may be used as refrigerants, for cleaning, for disinfecting, or for other

maintenance activities. If a local government stores or uses specified amounts of certain

chemicals, it may be subject to planning and reporting requirements of EPCRA. Appendix D

contains a detailed matrix of activities and the specific statutes under which they are regulated.

4.6 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) establishes a program for conserving endangered and

threatened species and their habitats. The ESA affords broad protection for species of fish,

wildlife, and plants that are listed as endangered and threatened in the United States and

elsewhere. Provisions are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the

designation of critical habitat for listed species. Anyone can petition the Fish and Wildlife
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-12 Federal Statutes and Regulations

Service (FWS) to list a species. The ESA strives to conserve ecosystems both through federal

action and through the establishment of state programs. The law outlines procedures for federal

agencies to follow when taking actions that may jeopardize listed species or their habitats. The

ESA is the enabling legislation for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

of Wild Fauna and Flora.

The ESA requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), acting through the FWS, to list species

as endangered or threatened when certain factors, including habitat destruction, overutilization,

disease or predation, inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors,

warrant such a listing. In the case of marine plants, fish, or wildlife, the Secretary of Commerce,

acting through the Marine Fisheries Service (MFS), determines whether to list a species or

change the status of a species. When determining that a species is endangered or threatened, the

Secretary must, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, designate critical habitat. In

addition, the Secretary must develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and

survival of endangered and threatened species.

Under the ESA, the Secretary must cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with states and

may enter into management agreements with states for the administration of particular

conservation areas. The Secretary is also authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with

states that establish and maintain adequate and active programs for conservation of listed species. 

State laws or regulations may be more, but not less, restrictive than the ESA or its regulations.

When taking action, federal agencies must consult with the FWS or MFS to ensure that such

action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in

destruction or adverse modification of a critical habitat of a species. If jeopardy or adverse

modification is likely, the FWS or MFS must suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives to the

agency and the applicant.

The ESA prohibits the taking, possession, import, export, sale, and transport of any listed fish or

wildlife species. The term “take” includes harassing, harming, hunting, killing, capturing, and

collecting. It is also unlawful to maliciously damage, destroy, or remove from any area under

federal jurisdiction, damage or remove from any other area in knowing violation of state law,

import, export, or trade any listed plant species. These prohibitions do not apply to species

legally held in captivity or a controlled environment. In addition, the FWS or MFS may permit a

prohibited act for scientific purposes, for the establishment and maintenance of experimental

populations, or for the enhancement of the propagation and survival of an affected species. The

FWS or MFS, by permit, may also allow a taking incidental to an otherwise lawful activity if the
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-13 Federal Statutes and Regulations

applicant submits, and the FWS or MFS approves, a conservation plan addressing the impact of

the taking, mitigation measures, funding, and alternative actions considered.

Requirements of the ESA may be triggered if local governments conduct activities along these

guidelines. Appendix D contains a detailed matrix of activities and the specific statutes under

which they are regulated.

4.7 FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is a comprehensive regulatory

statute that addresses the sale, distribution, and labeling of pesticides, as well as the certification

and training of pesticide applicators. FIFRA also imposes selected record keeping and reporting

requirements on certified applicators of restricted use pesticides, as well as imposing storage,

disposal, and transportation requirements on registrants and applicants for registration of

pesticides. 

The primary purpose of FIFRA is to regulate the labeling and the subsequent use of pesticides. 

Pesticide use is regulated through requirements to apply pesticides in a manner consistent with

the label. The labeling requirements include directions for use, warnings, and cautions, along

with the uses for which the pesticide is registered (i.e., pests and appropriate applications). The

labeling requirements reflect regulatory program determinations made with respect to particular

products. For example, the worker protection standard of FIFRA includes specific restrictions on

the entry of workers into areas after pesticide applications, as well as requirements for the use of

personal protective equipment. (40 CFR Part 170). Labeling requirements also include specific

conditions for the application, mixture, storage, and time period for re-entry to fields following

pesticide application, and when crops may be harvested after applications. If a pesticide is used

in a manner contrary to its labeling, that use constitutes a violation of FIFRA. 

FIFRA has an array of other requirements, including record keeping, storage, and handling, that

are applicable to pesticide producers (registrants) and certified applicators. The intent of these

requirements is to regulate the use and management of pesticides so these products do not pose

an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.

For example, FIFRA Section 136f(b), Inspections, contains requirements that apply to producers,

distributors, carriers, dealers, and persons who sell or offer for sale pesticide devices. These

groups or individuals are required to allow regulatory authorities to inspect records related to the

delivery, movement, or holding of pesticides. These records include the quantity, date of
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-14 Federal Statutes and Regulations

shipment, receipt, and name of the consignor and consignee. FIFRA Section 136i-1, Pesticide

Record keeping, requires that certified applicators of restricted use pesticides (Section

136a(d)(1)(C)) maintain records regarding the product name, amount, approximate date of

application, and location of application of each pesticide used for a 2-year period.

FIFRA Section 136q(a), Storage, Disposal, and Transportation, includes requirements for

developing methods by registrants for safe storage, transportation, and disposal of excess

quantities of pesticides, as well as the labeling to reflect this information. Registrants must also

develop information on the procedures for transport, storage, and disposal of the pesticide, any

container of the pesticide, and rinsate containing the pesticide, or any other material used to

contain or collect excess or spilled quantities of the pesticide. Many of these requirements also

extend to suspended/canceled pesticides. FIFRA Section136q(e), Container Design, presents

requirements for containers used to hold pesticides, as well as procedures governing pesticide

removal, including disposal of rinsates and residues.

In summary, FIFRA presents a complex regulatory program for the regulation of pesticide

labeling and use. States are the primary enforcement authority for pesticide use violations;

however, states may not enact more stringent labeling requirements than those specified under

FIFRA. Once the federal authority has approved a particular label, a regulatory authority cannot

alter or amend it. States are empowered to restrict the sale or use of a federally registered

pesticide, but may not allow the sale or use of a federally prohibited product.

Local governments may use pesticides to maintain building appearance and prevent or eradicate

disease-carrying vectors. These operations may be subject to regulation under FIFRA. Appendix

D contains a detailed matrix of activities and the specific statutes under which they are regulated.

4.8 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was one of the first laws written to establish the

broad national framework for protecting our environment while bolstering the health and welfare

of humankind. Congress, recognizing the profound impact of humankind’s activity on the

natural environment, declared it a policy for the federal government, in cooperation with state

and local governments, to give proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking any

major federal action that could significantly affect the environment.

The most visible NEPA requirements are environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental

impact statements (EISs). These studies are performed for any major federal action that could
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-15 Federal Statutes and Regulations

significantly impact the environment and consider the likelihood of environmental impacts,

alternatives to the proposed action, and the long-term effects the action could have on the

environment, resources, and humankind. The policy requirements are invoked when airports,

buildings, military complexes, highways, parkland purchases, and other federal activities are

proposed. EAs and EISs are required from all federal agencies. 

Some activities undertaken by local governments may require compliance with provisions of

NEPA, including the preparation of an EA or EIS. Appendix D contains a detailed matrix of

activities and the specific statutes under which they are regulated.

4.9 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, which amended the Solid Waste

Disposal Act, addresses nonhazardous (Subtitle D) and hazardous (Subtitle C) waste

management activities. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984

strengthened RCRA’s waste management provisions and added Subtitle I, which governs

underground storage tanks (USTs). 

Regulations promulgated pursuant to Subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR Parts 260-299) establish a

“cradle-to-grave” system governing hazardous waste from the point of generation to disposal. 

RCRA hazardous wastes include the specific materials listed in the regulations (commercial

chemical products designated with the code "P" or "U", hazardous wastes from specific

industries/sources designated with the code "K", or hazardous wastes from non-specific sources,

designated with the code "F") or materials that exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic

(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity and designated with the code "D").

Regulated entities that generate hazardous waste are subject to waste accumulation, manifesting,

and record keeping standards. Facilities generally must obtain a permit either from EPA or from

a state agency that EPA has authorized to implement the permitting program if they store

hazardous wastes for more than 90 days before treatment or disposal. Facilities may treat lessthan-90-day tanks or containers of hazardous wastes without a permit. Subtitle C permits contain

general facility standards, such as contingency plans, emergency procedures, record keeping and

reporting requirements, financial assurance mechanisms, and unit-specific standards. RCRA also

contains provisions (40 CFR Part 264 Subpart S and Section 264.101) for conducting corrective

actions that govern the cleanup of releases of hazardous waste or constituents from solid waste

management units at RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-16 Federal Statutes and Regulations

Although RCRA is a federal statute, many states implement the RCRA program. Currently, EPA

has delegated its authority to implement various provisions of RCRA to all states except Alaska,

Hawaii, Iowa and two U.S. territories.

Most RCRA requirements are not industry specific but apply to any entity that generates,

transports, treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous waste. The following are some important

RCRA regulatory requirements:

C Identification of Solid and Hazardous Wastes (40 CFR Part 261) delineates the procedure

every generator must follow in determining whether the material in question is considered a

hazardous waste or solid waste or is exempted from regulation.

C Standards for Generators of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 262) establish the

responsibilities of hazardous waste generators. These include obtaining an EPA

identification number, preparing a manifest, ensuring proper packaging and labeling,

meeting standards for waste accumulation units, and meeting record keeping and reporting

requirements. Providing they meet additional requirements described in 40 CFR 262.34,

generators may accumulate hazardous waste for up to 90 days (or 180 or 270 days depending

on the amount of waste generated and the distance the waste will be transported).

C Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) (40 CFR Part 268) are regulations prohibiting the

disposal of hazardous waste on land without prior treatment. Under the LDR program,

materials must meet LDR treatment standards prior to placement in a RCRA land disposal

unit (landfill, land treatment unit, waste pile, or surface impoundment). Generators of waste

subject to the LDR must provide notification of such to the designated TSD facility to ensure

proper treatment prior to disposal.

C Used Oil Management Standards (40 CFR Part 279) impose management requirements

affecting the storage, transportation, burning, processing, and re-refining of the used oil. For

parties that merely generate used oil, regulations establish storage standards. For a party

considered a used oil processor, re-refiner, burner, or marketer (one who generates and sells

off-specification used oil directly to a used oil burner), additional tracking and paperwork

requirements must be satisfied.

• Tanks and Containers, as well as any unit, used to store, treat, or dispose of hazardous

waste, are regulated under RCRA. Tanks and containers used to store hazardous waste with

a high volatile organic concentration must meet emission standards under RCRA. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-17 Federal Statutes and Regulations

Regulations (40 CFR Part 264-265, Subpart CC) require generators to test the waste to

determine the concentration of the waste, to satisfy tank and container emissions standards,

and to inspect and monitor regulated units. These regulations apply to all facilities that store

such waste, including large quantity generators accumulating waste prior to shipment offsite.

C Underground Storage Tanks containing petroleum and hazardous substances are regulated

under Subtitle I of RCRA. Subtitle I regulations (40 CFR Part 280) contain tank design and

release detection requirements, as well as financial responsibility and corrective action

standards for USTs. The UST program also includes upgrade requirements for existing

tanks that must be met by December 22, 1998.

C Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs) that use or burn fuel containing hazardous waste

must comply with design and operating standards. BIF regulations (40 CFR Part 266,

Subpart H) address unit design, provide performance standards, require emissions

monitoring, and restrict the type of waste that may be burned.

C Solid Waste Management (RCRA Subtitle D) regulations establish standards and

guidelines for solid waste collection and disposal programs, as well as recycling programs. 

The regulations also establish criteria for design, operation, maintenance, and closure for

municipal solid waste landfills. In addition, the regulations provide requirements for

thermal processing (incineration) and resource recovery facilities.

Local governments may have numerous operations that result in the generation and management

of different types of solid and hazardous waste. These operations may be subject to specific

parts of RCRA, depending on the type of waste generated, its management (e.g., stored,

transported), and its disposal. Appendix D contains a detailed matrix of activities and the

specific statutes under which they are regulated.

The following proposed regulations under RCRA are currently in the development process:

• Amendments to Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. The purpose of this action is to

develop standards for regulating emissions of non-methane organic compounds from new

and modified municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills under Section 111(b). Section 111(d)

requires states to develop emission standards for existing landfills based on EPA guidelines. 

The intended effect of the standards and guidelines is to require certain municipal solid

waste landfills to control emissions to the level achievable by the best demonstrated system

of continuous emission reduction, considering costs, non-air quality health, and
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-18 Federal Statutes and Regulations

environmental and energy impacts. EPA has worked with landfill owners and operators,

including local governments and private owners, to produce a regulation based on commonsense techniques, providing maximum flexibility for owners and operators, while achieving

the desired emissions reductions in the most cost-effective way. The rule focuses on only

the largest sources of emissions, thereby avoiding regulation of small landfills where

controls would be inefficient and onerous. The rule also provides complete flexibility to

design a control system based on the site-specific conditions at each landfill. The direct final

rule was published June 16, 1998, at 63 FR 32743.

• RCRA Subtitle D Solid Waste Facilities; State Permit Program -- Determination of

Adequacy (State Implementation Rule). This rule will establish criteria and procedures

for EPA to use in determining whether state MSW landfill permit programs and state permit

programs relating to non-municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units that receive

conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) waste are adequate to ensure

compliance with the federal revised criteria in 40 CFR Parts 258 and 257, Subpart B,

respectively. While the federal revised criteria apply to all MSW landfills and nonmunicipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units receiving CESQG waste, states with permit

programs deemed adequate under this rule can provide some flexibility on certain

requirements to owners and operators who meet the revised criteria's performance standards. 

In providing this flexibility, this action offers an opportunity to reduce the regulatory burden

on state and local governments and on landfill owners and operators. The final rule is

scheduled for publication in 1999.

• Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste

Program; Mercury-Containing Lamps. EPA is considering two deregulatory options for

the management of spent mercury-containing lamps based on data that indicate these lamps

may be safely managed outside of the RCRA hazardous waste system or with a reduced

regulatory structure under RCRA. The options were proposed in a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on July 27, 1994 (59 FR 38288). Either option selected would have positive

impacts on small businesses and state, local, and tribal governments interested in collecting

and managing lamps. The EPA Administrator is expected to sign the final action in 1999.

• Modifications to RCRA Rules Associated with Solvent-Contaminated Shop Towels and

Wipers. This action would modify RCRA rules that affect the management of solventcontaminated shop towels and wipers. Solvent-contaminated shop towels and wipers are

used throughout industry for equipment cleaning and other related facility operations. Many

times, the spent shop towels and wipers are considered a hazardous waste because the
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-19 Federal Statutes and Regulations

solvent used is either a characteristic or a listed solvent. Examination of industry use and

management practices reveals that many facilities use only small amounts of solvent on their

disposable wipers and small numbers of wipers daily, suggesting that these materials,

particularly if listed solvents are being used, pose little or no risk to human health and the

environment if disposed of in municipal landfills. Similarly, situations exist where both

disposable wipers and reusable shop towels are not being managed according to prescribed

federal and states rules and policies. Problems with this issue have persisted since the late

1980s. The EPA Administrator is expected to sign this final action in 1999.

4.10 RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT

The Rivers and Harbors Act addresses harbor and river improvements, projects and activities in

navigable waters. This Act provides a number of regulatory authorities, the implementation of

which has evolved over time. Section 10 of the act prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or

alteration of any navigable water of the United States. This section provides that the construction

of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States or the accomplishment of any

other work affecting the course, location, condition, or physical capacity of such waters is

unlawful unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the

Secretary of the Army. The Secretary’s approval authority has since been delegated to the Chief

of Engineers. If a local government is conducting activities that may affect navigable waters, it

may be subject to the Rivers and Harbors Act. Appendix D contains a detailed matrix of

activities and the specific statutes under which they are regulated.

4.11 SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that EPA establish regulations to protect

human health from contaminants in drinking water. The law authorizes EPA to develop national

drinking water standards and to create a joint federal-state system to ensure compliance with

these standards. The SDWA also directs EPA to protect underground sources of drinking water

through the control of underground injection of liquid wastes.

Local governments may be responsible for operating and maintaining drinking water systems and

providing drinking water to communities and the public. Whether it is providing drinking water

to a community or simply to visitors, the local government is responsible for providing safe

drinkable water that meets EPA standards. These standards stem from the SDWA, which

specifies standards for both community water systems and transient water systems. In addition,

any municipal operation that provides water to the public (other than water that it receives from a
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-20 Federal Statutes and Regulations

public water supply system [i.e., wells or other reservoirs]) may also be required to comply with

safe drinking water requirements.

• Drinking Water Standards. EPA has developed primary and secondary drinking water

standards under its SDWA authority. EPA and authorized states enforce the primary

drinking water standards, which are contaminant-specific concentration limits that apply to

certain public drinking water supplies. Primary drinking water standards consist of

maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), which are non-enforceable health-based goals,

and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), which are enforceable limits set as close to

MCLGs as possible, considering cost and feasibility of attainment. 

To assure these standards are maintained, SDWA regulations require sampling and

monitoring for various contaminants, such as fecal coliform and metals. In addition, the

SDWA regulations require specified disinfection and filtration activities, notification when

certain contaminants exceed specified levels, and reporting of contaminant limit

exceedences.

• Underground Injection Control. The SDWA Underground Injection Control (UIC)

program (40 CFR Parts 144-148) is a permit program that protects underground sources of

drinking water by regulating five classes of injection wells. UIC permits include design,

operation, inspection, and monitoring requirements. Wells used to inject hazardous wastes

must also comply with RCRA corrective action standards to be granted a RCRA permit, and

must meet applicable RCRA land disposal restrictions standards. The UIC permit program

is primarily state-enforced, since EPA has authorized all but a few states to administer the

program.

• Sole Source Aquifer Protection. The SDWA provides for a federally implemented sole

source aquifer protection program, which prohibits federal funds from being expended on

projects that may contaminate the sole or principal source of drinking water for a given area,

and for a state-implemented wellhead protection program, which is designed to protect

drinking water wells and drinking water recharge areas.

Appendix D contains a detailed matrix of activities and the specific statutes under which they are

regulated.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-21 Federal Statutes and Regulations

The following proposed regulations under the SDWA are currently in the development process: 

C Revision of Existing Variances and Exemptions Regulation to Comply with

Requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This action will revise the existing

regulations in accordance with the SDWA Amendments of 1996, regarding the issuance and

availability of variances and exemptions (V&E) under the act. Mirroring the statutory

language, a section specifically addressing variances for small public water systems will be

added, and minor codification changes will be made elsewhere in the existing rule. EPA

anticipates that the revisions will have beneficial impacts on small systems. The final rule is

scheduled to be signed in 1999.

C Public Water System Public Notification Regulation. This action revises an existing

regulation to incorporate the new public notification provisions in section 1414(c) of the

SDWA. The basic requirement for public water systems with violations of drinking water

standards to give public notification is not changed by the 1996 SDWA amendments. A

public water system is required under Section 1414(c) of the SDWA to provide notification

to its customers whenever: 1) a violation of certain drinking water regulations occurs

(including MCL, treatment technique, and monitoring/reporting requirements); 2) a V&E to

those regulations is in place or the conditions of the V&E are violated, or 3) results from

unregulated contaminant monitoring required under Section 1445 of the SDWA are

received. This statute requires the Administrator to prescribe by regulation the manner,

frequency, form, and content for giving notice. The existing regulation is in 40 CFR Section

141.32.

The 1996 amendments significantly revise the public notification requirements. The

amendments: 1) alter the timing of the notification for certain violations, 2) establish a

specific requirement for EPA consultation with the states in issuing revised regulations, 3)

allow the state to prescribe alternative notification requirements by rule with respect to the

form and content of the notice, and 4) add a new requirement for the state to prepare an

annual report on violations and for EPA to prepare a follow-on report summarizing states'

reports and public notices submitted by public water systems serving Indian Tribes. One

other new requirement— for public water systems to prepare an annual consumer confidence

report— is being implemented under a separate regulatory action. The revised public

notification regulations will streamline the existing requirements, provide quicker and more

effective notification of violations that have a serious adverse effect, and better inform

customers of public water systems of the quality of their drinking water and the risk to their

health. The EPA Administrator is expected to sign this final action 1999.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 4-22 Federal Statutes and Regulations

4.12 TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) granted EPA authority to create a regulatory

framework to collect data on chemicals to evaluate, assess, mitigate, and control risks that may

be posed by their manufacture, processing, and use. TSCA provides a variety of control methods

to prevent chemicals from posing unreasonable risk.

TSCA standards may apply at any point during a chemical’s life cycle. Under TSCA Section 5,

EPA has established an inventory of chemical substances. If a chemical is not already on the

inventory and has not been excluded by TSCA, a premanufacture notice (PMN) must be

submitted to EPA prior to manufacture or import. The PMN must identify the chemical and

provide available information on health and environmental effects. If available data are not

sufficient to evaluate the chemicals effects, EPA can impose restrictions pending the

development of information on its health and environmental effects. EPA can also restrict

significant new uses of chemicals based upon various factors, such as the projected volume and

use of the chemical.

Under TSCA Section 6, EPA can ban the manufacture or distribution in commerce, limit the use,

require labeling, or place other restrictions on chemicals that pose unreasonable risks. Among

the chemicals EPA regulates under Section 6 authority are asbestos, chlorofluorocarbons, and

PCBs.

Local governments may handle asbestos, lead paint, and other toxic substances as part of overall

operations, as part of building renovations or inspections, or as part of general maintenance of

schools and housing units. TSCA regulates the management of and protection from toxic

substances. Appendix D contains a detailed matrix of activities and the specific statutes under

which they are regulated. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-1 Compliance and Enforcement History

5. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT HISTORY

Until recently, EPA has focused much of its attention on measuring compliance with specific

environmental statutes. This approach allows the Agency to track compliance with the Clean Air

Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, and other

environmental statutes. Within the last several years, the Agency has begun to supplement

single-media compliance indicators with facility-specific, multimedia indicators of compliance. 

In doing so, EPA is in a better position to track compliance with all statutes at the facility level

and within specific industrial sectors. 

A major step in building the capacity to compile multimedia data for industrial sectors was the

creation of EPA's Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system. IDEA has the

capacity to "read into" the Agency's single-media databases, extract compliance records, and

match the records to individual facilities. The IDEA system can match air, water, waste,

toxics/pesticides/EPCRA, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and enforcement docket records for a

given facility and generate a list of historical permit, inspection, and enforcement activity. IDEA

also has the capability to analyze data by geographic area and corporate holder. As the capacity

to generate multimedia compliance data improves, EPA will make available more in-depth

compliance and enforcement information. Additionally, EPA is developing sector-specific

measures of success for compliance assistance efforts.

This chapter uses inspection, violation, and enforcement data from the IDEA system, to provide

information about the historical compliance and enforcement activity of the local government

sector. While other sector notebooks have used Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) data

from the Toxics Release Inventory System (TRIS) to define their data sampling universes, none

of the SIC codes associated with local governments identifies facilities required to report to the

TRI program. As such, sector-defining data have been provided from EPA data systems linked

to EPA's Facility Indexing System (FINDS), which tracks facilities in all media databases. This

chapter does not attempt to define the actual number of facilities that fall within each sector. 

Instead, the chapter portrays the records of a subset of facilities within the sector that are well

defined within EPA databases.

As a check on the relative size of the full sector universe, most notebooks contain an estimated

number of facilities within the sector according to the Bureau of Census. Census data were not

used for the local government sectors because the SIC codes used to identify them are not unique

to local government, and the aggregated Census data would not allow differentiation between

public and private, or local versus state or federal, operations. A number of alternative sources
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-2 Compliance and Enforcement History

were evaluated before deciding to use the Dun and Bradstreet database as the primary reference,

supplemented by data from the U. S. Department of Education where appropriate. Since these

data sources are not aggregated, facility name and location data can be evaluated to help identify

local government facilities. Since the local government sector consists of facilities not typically

falling under environmental agency scrutiny (exceptions being water supply and waste/

wastewater treatment), the reporting universe within the EPA databases may be small compared

to full universe data (in some cases, much smaller). However, the groups selected for inclusion

in this data analysis chapter should be consistent with this sector's general makeup.

Before presenting the data, the next section defines general terms and the column heads used in

the data tables. The data represent a retrospective summary of inspections and enforcement

actions and solely reflect EPA, state, and local compliance assurance activities that have been

entered into EPA databases. To identify trends, EPA ran data queries for the past 5 years (July 1,

1993 to June 30, 1998). Other sector notebooks have run both 1-year and 5-year analyses for

comparative purposes. Again, because many of the SIC groups within the local government

sector have not received much environmental scrutiny, data are not sufficient over a 1-year

period to support a meaningful analysis. 

The data illustrate the variations across EPA regions for certain sectors. This variation may be

attributable to state/local data entry variations, specific geographic concentrations, proximity to

population centers, sensitive ecosystems, highly toxic chemicals used in production, or historical

noncompliance. Hence, the exhibited data do not rank regional performance or necessarily

reflect which regions may have the most compliance problems.

5.1 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT DATA DEFINITIONS

5.1.1 General Definitions

Below are the general definitions of terms used in the data tables:

C Facility Indexing System (FINDS) assigns a common facility number to EPA singlemedia permit records, establishing a linkage capability to the permit data. The FINDS

identification number allows EPA to compile and review all permit, compliance,

enforcement, and pollutant release data for any given regulated facility.

C Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) is a data integration system that can

retrieve information from the major EPA program office databases. IDEA uses the
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-3 Compliance and Enforcement History

FINDS identification number to link separate data records from EPA’s databases. This

allows retrieval of records from across media or statutes for any given facility, thus

creating a ?master list” of records for that facility. Some of the data systems accessible

through IDEA are AFS (Air Facility Indexing and Retrieval System, Office of Air and

Radiation), PCS (Permit Compliance System, Office of Water), RCRIS (Resource

Conservation and Recovery Information System, Office of Solid Waste), NCDB

(National Compliance Data Base, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic

Substances), CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental and Liability Information

System, Superfund), and TRIS. IDEA also contains information from outside sources,

such as Dun and Bradstreet (DUN) and the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration. Most data queries displayed in this section were conducted using

IDEA.

5.1.2 Data Table Column Heading Definitions

Below are the following general definitions of terms used in the data tables:

C Column A: Region–Is the EPA Region for which data are summarized.

C Column B: Facilities in Universe–Is based on an analysis of the Dun and Bradstreet

Marketing Identifier (DMI) database within the listed SIC code range. The DMI tracks

more than 11 million currently operating public and private business entities. Data

records were retrieved by SIC code and then screened for business name keywords

indicative of local government operations. The SIC code range selected for each search

is defined by each notebook's selected SIC code coverage. While this method in no way

provides exact sector universe numbers, it does allow for reasonable approximations

from a uniform, verifiable source. The one exception to using DMI was in

approximating the elementary and secondary schools universe (SIC code 8211) and

public library universe (SIC code 8231). Data used for these sectors came from the

1995-1996 Public Elementary and Secondary School Universe and FY1994 Public

Library Survey, as compiled by the U. S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics.

C Column C: Facilities in Search–Is based on the universe of FINDS-linked facilities 

within the listed SIC code range. SIC codes were tested from AFS, PCS, RCRIS,

NCDB, and DUN, with a match from any one database qualifying the facility for
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-4 Compliance and Enforcement History

inclusion. This subset of facilities with links to Agency databases is used to derive the

data in Columns D through K.

C Column D: Facilities Inspected–Indicates the level of EPA and state agency

inspections for the facilities in this data search. These values show what percentage of

the facility universe is inspected in a 5-year period.

C Column E: Number of Inspections–Measures the total number of inspections

conducted in this sector. An inspection event is counted each time it is entered into a

single media database. 

C Column F: Average Time Between Inspections–Provides an average length of time,

expressed in months, between compliance inspections for all facilities within the

defined universe.

C Column G: Facilities with One or More Enforcement Actions--expresses the number

of facilities that were the subject of at least one enforcement action within the defined

time period. This category is broken down further into federal and state actions. Data

are obtained for administrative, civil/judicial, and criminal enforcement actions. A

facility with multiple enforcement actions is only counted once in this column (e.g., a

facility with three enforcement actions counts as one facility).

C Column H: Total Enforcement Actions–Describes the total number of enforcement

actions identified for a sector across all environmental statutes within the defined time

period. A facility with multiple enforcement actions is counted multiple times (e.g., a

facility with three enforcement actions counts as three).

C Column I: State Lead Actions–Shows what percentage of the total enforcement actions

are taken by state and local environmental agencies. Varying levels of use by states of

EPA data systems may limit the volume of actions recorded as state enforcement

activity. Some states extensively report enforcement activities into EPA data systems,

while other states may use their own data systems.

C Column J: Federal Lead Actions–Shows what percentage of the total enforcement

actions are taken by EPA. This value includes referrals from state agencies. Many of

these actions result from coordinated or joint state/federal efforts.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-5 Compliance and Enforcement History

C Column K: Enforcement to Inspection Rate–Is a ratio of enforcement actions to

inspections and is presented for comparative purposes only. This ratio is a rough

indicator of the relationship between inspections and enforcement. It relates the number

of enforcement actions and the number of inspections that occurred within the 5-year

period. This ratio includes the inspections and enforcement actions reported under the

CWA, CAA and RCRA. Inspections and actions from the TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA

database are not factored into this ratio because most of the actions taken under these

programs are not the result of facility inspections. Also, this ratio does not account for

enforcement actions arising from non-inspection compliance monitoring activities (e.g.,

self-reported water discharges) that can result in enforcement action.

5.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPLIANCE HISTORY

Exhibit 5-1 presents the 5-year inspection and enforcement summary by statute for local

government SIC groups. This exhibit provides an overview of the reported compliance and

enforcement data for SIC codes over the past 5 years (July 1993 to June 1998). As shown in the

table, approximately 90 percent (79,725) of the 88,619 inspections conducted over the 5-year

period were conducted under the Clean Water Act. From the total 88,619 inspections, EPA took

4,961 enforcement actions. A total 5.6 percent of all inspections conducted of local government

operations resulted in an enforcement action. Nearly 80 percent (3,916) of all enforcement

actions were taken under the Clean Water Act. Other points of interest include:

C Sewerage systems (SIC code 4952) have received the most inspections of any local

government operation, with 67,444 inspections over the 5 years. This translates to each

facility being inspected an average of seven to eight times over the 5-year period. 

Ninety-eight percent of these inspections were conducted under the Clean Water Act. 

From those 67,444 inspections, EPA took 4,037 enforcement actions. On average, 6

percent of all inspections resulted in an enforcement action. (It should be noted that this

number could be lower since one facility may have had numerous enforcement actions

taken against it within the 5-year period.)

C Elementary and secondary schools (SIC code 8211) received a total of 9,587 inspections

over the 5 years, which is the second largest number of inspections across all SIC codes. 

These inspections were spread across the statutes, with more than half (53 percent)

being conducted under the Clean Water Act. The 9,587 inspections resulted in 237

enforcement actions. On average, 2 percent of all inspections resulted in an
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-6 Compliance and Enforcement History

enforcement action. Sixty-eight percent of these enforcement actions were taken under

the Clean Water Act.

Exhibits 5-2 through 5-17 present the compliance and enforcement data for each of the specific

local government operation SIC codes over the same 5-year period. These data are also broken

out by EPA region, thereby allowing geographical comparisons. Exhibit 5-18 presents the

compliance and enforcement data specifically for public water systems owned by local

governments. This information was taken from EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System

(SDWIS), which is not a part of the IDEA system. Like the exhibits that precede it, this exhibit

displays the data by region to allow for geographical comparisons.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-7 Compliance and Enforcement History Industry Sector Facilities Inspected Total Inspections Total Enforcement Actions Clean Air Act Clean Water Act RARA FIFRA/TSCA/ EPCRA/Other % of Total Inspections % of Total Actions % of Total Inspections % of Total Actions % of Total Inspections % of Total Actions % of Total Inspections % of Total Actions Water Supply (1) 914 4,062 167 10% 12% 87% 82% 3% 3% 0% 3% Sewerage Systems 8,744 67,444 4,037 2% 2% 98% 97% 0% 0% 0% 1% Refuse Systems 474 2,607 197 34% 25% 53% 63% 12% 10% 1% 2% Sanitary Systems, NEC 31 236 12 7% 0% 86% 92% 6% 8% 1% 0% Amusement & Recreation Services, NEC 41 123 13 9% 0% 80% 100% 7% 0% 3% 0% Elementary & Secondary Schools 4,410 9,587 237 19% 5% 53% 68% 3% 5% 24% 22% Libraries 30 124 19 6% 0% 85% 100% 6% 0% 2% 0% Police Protection 81 373 37 6% 0% 70% 97% 23% 3% 1% 0% Fire Protection 68 305 29 6% 0% 80% 97% 14% 3% 0% 0% Public Order & Safety, NEC 15 62 3 10% 67% 55% 0% 35% 33% 0% 0% Administration of Education Programs 365 508 25 7% 8% 19% 40% 4% 0% 71% 52% Air & Water Resource & Solid Waste Management 319 2,809 167 12% 13% 83% 82% 5% 4% 0% 1% Land, Mineral, Wildlife, & Forest Conservation 39 179 6 1% 0% 89% 83% 10% 17% 1% 0% Administration of Housing Programs 48 120 4 40% 25% 40% 0% 17% 75% 3% 0% Administration of Urban Planning & Community & Rural Development 18 68 6 13% 0% 62% 33% 22% 67% 3% 0% Regulation, Licensing, & Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sites

2 12 2 0% 0% 92% 100% 8% 0% 0% 0% 

(1) Exhibits 5-18 presents compliance and enforcement data under the Safe Drinking Water Act for public water systems is presented in Exhibit 5-18.

Exhibit 5-1. Five-Year Inspection and Enforcement Summary by Statute for Local Government SIC Groups
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-8 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 442 105 28 111 57

4

7 29% 71% 0.06

II 420 191 95 344 33 19 31 94% 6% 0.09

III 595 339 138 1,041 20

9 21 52% 48% 0.02

IV 1,510 547 278 1,094 30 37 46 89% 11% 0.04

V 851 615 160 713 52 16 20 95% 5% 0.03

VI 1,677 93 30 131 43 12 21 48% 52% 0.16

VII 405 113 55 176 39

3

3 100% 0% 0.02

VIII 344 105 42 184 34

2

3 100% 0% 0.02

IX 1,062 102 63 189 32

4

4 100% 0% 0.02

X 372 132 25 79 >60

8 11 100% 0% 0.14

TOTAL 7,678 2,342 914 4,062 35 114 167 80% 20% 0.04

Exhibit 5-2. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 4941 - Water Supply
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-9 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 442 105 28 111 57

4

7 29% 71% 0.06

II 420 191 95 344 33 19 31 94% 6% 0.09

III 595 339 138 1,041 20

9 21 52% 48% 0.02

IV 1,510 547 278 1,094 30 37 46 89% 11% 0.04

V 851 615 160 713 52 16 20 95% 5% 0.03

VI 1,677 93 30 131 43 12 21 48% 52% 0.16

VII 405 113 55 176 39

3

3 100% 0% 0.02

VIII 344 105 42 184 34

2

3 100% 0% 0.02

IX 1,062 102 63 189 32

4

4 100% 0% 0.02

X 372 132 25 79 >60

8 11 100% 0% 0.14

TOTAL 28,964 13,142 8,744 67,444 12 2,181 4,037 55% 45% 0.06

Exhibit 5-3. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 4952 - Sewerage Systems
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-10 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 35 81 11 46 >60

2

3 0% 100% 0.07

II 128 79 36 307 15 20 71 85% 15% 0.23

III 97 145 78 746 12 15 28 68% 32% 0.04

IV 212 162 93 450 22 15 25 84% 16% 0.06

V 245 85 50 395 13 15 21 57% 43% 0.05

VI 112 87 34 138 38

8 25 20% 80% 0.18

VII 69 314 106 230 82

7

9 78% 22% 0.04

VIII 38 35 11 44 48

2

2 100% 0% 0.05

IX 68 40 32 122 20

4

6 100% 0% 0.05

X 44 69 23 129 32

6

7 71% 29% 0.05

TOTAL 1,048 1,097 474 2,607 25 94 197 70% 30% 0.08

Exhibit 5-4. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 4953 - Refuse Systems
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-11 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 4 1 0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- II 19

8

2 13 37

0

0 0% 0% -- III 16 12

6 68 11

4

6 83% 17% 0.09

IV 30

6

3 24 15

0

0 0% 0% --

V 42 35 13 100 21

5

6 83% 17% 0.06

VI 11 0

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- VII

9

5 1 17 18

0

0 0% 0% -- VIII

8

5 1 1 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- IX 17

9

5 13 42

0

0 0% 0% --

X

4

6

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- TOTAL 160 87 31 236 22

9 12 83% 17% 0.05

Exhibit 5-5. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 4959 - Sanitary Services, not Elsewhere Classified
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-12 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 131

3

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- II 330

7

2

2 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- III 485 14

5 20 42 1 2 100% 0% 0.10

IV 700 16 12 28 34

0

0 0% 0% --

V 1,185 21

7 11 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- VI 551 12

4 32 23 1 4 50% 50% 0.13

VII 356 14

4 10 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- VIII 264

5

4 17 18 1 7 86% 14% 0.41

IX 433

5 1 1 >60

0

0 0% 0% --

X 185 11

2

2 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- TOTAL 4,620 108 41 123 53

3 13 77% 23% 0.11

Exhibit 5-6. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 7999 - Amusement and Recreation Services, not Elsewhere Classified
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-13 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 4,836 957 303 416 >60

4

7 29% 71% 0.02

II 8,098 1,070 330 609 >60 67 53 60% 40% 0.09

III 7,644 3,192 1,323 3,222 59 13 15 33% 67% 0.00

IV 13,027 1,543 745 2,680 35 63 72 90% 10% 0.03

V 18,150 2,052 594 1,252 >60 49 51 39% 61% 0.04

VI 11,877 666 317 386 >60 15 27 56% 44% 0.07

VII 6,812 789 402 549 >60

7

6 17% 83% 0.01

VIII 5,218 357 151 211 >60

2

2 50% 50% 0.01

IX 9,814 589 49 50 >60

2

2 50% 50% 0.04

X 3,881 671 196 212 >60 1 2 100% 0% 0.01

TOTAL 89,357 11,886 4,410 9,587 >60 223 237 61% 39% 0.02

Exhibit 5-7. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 8211 - Elementary and Secondary Schools
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-14 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 1,300

6 1 5 >60 1 1 100% 0% 0.20

II 1,578 17

4

4 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- III 1,493 30

3 22 >60 1 1 100% 0% 0.05

IV 2,297 10

9 32 19

2

5 40% 60% 0.16

V 3,340 17

5 37 28

0

0 0% 0% -- VI 1,584

7

4 13 32

3 12 0% 100% 0.92

VII 1,377

9 1 1 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- VIII 667

3

3 10 18

0

0 0% 0% -- IX 1,372 41

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% --

X 779

0

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- TOTAL 15,787 140 30 124 >60

7 19 21% 79% 0.15

Exhibit 5-8. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 8231 - Libraries
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-15 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 615

7 1 10 45

0

0 0% 0% -- II 717 12

6 29 25 1 1 100% 0% 0.03

III 633 47 12 54 52

0

0 0% 0% -- IV 1,243 25 19 107 14 1 1 100% 0% 0.01

V 1,483 24

7 35 41

0

0 0% 0% -- VI 1,107 25 15 71 21

9 28 0% 100% 0.39

VII 488 13

5 12 >60 1 1 100% 0% 0.08

VIII 286 12

6 23 31

2

4 100% 0% 0.17

IX 563 14

4 17 49

2

2 100% 0% 0.12

X 268 11

6 15 44

0

0 0% 0% -- TOTAL 7,403 190 81 373 31 16 37 24% 76% 0.10

Exhibit 5-9. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 9221 - Police Protection
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-16 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 795 14

2 11 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- II 1,534 32

8 50 38

0

0 0% 0% -- III 1,787 35

6 15 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- IV 2,368 22 14 71 19

2

2 100% 0% 0.03

V 1,748 24

7 27 53 1 1 100% 0% 0.04

VI 1,158 23 14 72 19

6 20 0% 100% 0.28

VII 380 10

3 10 60 1 1 100% 0% 0.10

VIII 333

6

3 11 33 1 3 100% 0% 0.27

IX 712 13

4 15 52 1 1 100% 0% 0.07

X 478 25

7 23 >60 1 1 0% 100% 0.04

TOTAL 11,293 204 68 305 40 13 29 28% 72% 0.10

Exhibit 5-10. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 9224 - Fire Protection
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-17 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 18 21

2

4 >60

3

3 100% 0% 0.75

II 52

4 1 2 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- III 42

6

5 26 14

0

0 0% 0% -- IV 95

5

3 25 12

0

0 0% 0% --

V 96

2 1 1 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- VI 65

2

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- VII 29 1 1 2 30

0

0 0% 0% -- VIII 13 1 1 1 60

0

0 0% 0% -- IX 41 1 1 1 60

0

0 0% 0% --

X 19

4

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- TOTAL 470 47 15 62 45

3

3 100% 0% 0.05

Exhibit 5-11. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 9229 - Public Order and Safety, not Elsewhere Classified
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-18 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 400 29 12 22 >60 1 3 0% 100% 0.14

II 265 62 21 66 56

3

9 89% 11% 0.14

III 194 44 26 80 33 1 1 0% 100% 0.01

IV 373 42 32 37 >60

0

0 0% 0% --

V 972 143 56 65 >60

9

9 0% 100% 0.14

VI 602 108 57 59 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- VII 732 134 90 99 >60

2

2 0% 100% 0.02

VIII 495 43 21 22 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- IX 483 53 16 21 >60 1 1 100% 0% 0.05

X 304 74 34 37 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- TOTAL 4,820 732 365 508 >60 17 25 36% 64% 0.05

Exhibit 5-12. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 9411 - Administration of Education Programs
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-19 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 195 66 40 420

9 17 33 15% 85% 0.08

II 284 54 40 366

9 17 44 55% 45% 0.12

III 466 65 54 690

6

7

9 67% 33% 0.01

IV 540 56 40 294 11

8 14 86% 14% 0.05

V 483 67 54 457

9 13 20 55% 45% 0.04

VI 393 32 15 69 28 10 22 5% 95% 0.32

VII 176 19 11 88 13 1 1 100% 0% 0.01

VIII 160 30 20 117 15

5

9 78% 22% 0.08

IX 381 54 38 228 14

9 10 70% 30% 0.04

X 129 41

7 80 31

2

5 100% 0% 0.06

TOTAL 3,207 484 319 2,809 10 89 167 47% 53% 0.06

Exhibit 5-13. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 9511 - Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-20 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 220 1 0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- II 285 13

8 27 29 1 1 100% 0% 0.04

III 99

3

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- IV 154 12

9 51 14

2

3 100% 0% 0.06

V 428 22 12 56 24

0

0 0% 0% -- VI 118

3 1 9 20

0

0 0% 0% -- VII 90

8 1 2 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- VIII 94

5

5 29 10 1 1 100% 0% 0.03

IX 114

4

2

3 >60 1 1 100% 0% 0.33

X 45

2 1 2 60

0

0 0% 0% -- TOTAL 1,647 73 39 179 24

5

6 100% 0% 0.03

Exhibit 5-14. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 9512 - Land, Mineral, Wildlife, and Forest Conservation
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-21 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 354 70

6 10 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- II 480 35

6

6 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- III 263 15 11 55 16 1 1 100% 0% 0.02

IV 645 45 15 23 >60 1 2 100% 0% 0.09

V 466 18

5 18 60

0

0 0% 0% -- VI 484

4

3

3 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- VII 152

3 1 4 45 1 1 0% 100% 0.25

VIII 89

3 1 1 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- IX 167

3

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% --

X 86 11

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- TOTAL 3,186 207 48 120 >60

3

4 75% 25% 0.03

Exhibit 5-15. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 9531 - Administration of Housing Program
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-22 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 154 1 0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- II 232

5 1 1 >60 1 1 100% 0% 1.00

III 182

8

3 11 44 1 1 100% 0% 0.09

IV 278 18

6 23 47 1 2 50% 50% 0.09

V 228

5 1 4 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- VI 144 1 1 5 12

0

0 0% 0% -- VII 49 1 0

0 -- 

0

0 0% 0% -- VIII 93

3

2

2 >60

0

0 0% 0% -- IX 129

5

3 13 23 1 1 100% 0% 0.08

X 48 17 1 9 >60 1 1 100% 0% 0.11

TOTAL 1,537 64 18 68 >60

5

6 83% 17% 0.09

Exhibit 5-16. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 9532 - Administration of Urban Planning and Community and Rural Development
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-23 Compliance and Enforcement History

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Facilities

Inspected

Number of

Inspections

Average

Months

Between

Inspections

Facilities

with 1 or

More

Enforcement

Actions

Total

Enforcement

Actions

Percent

State Lead

Actions

Percent

Federal

Lead

Actions

Enforcement

to Inspection

Rate

I 8

0

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- II 21

0

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- III 35 1 1 7

9

0

0 0% 0% -- IV 46

0

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% --

V 43

0

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- VI 26 1 1 5 12 1 2 0% 100% 0.40

VII 13

0

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- VIII

8

0

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- IX 23

2

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% --

X

5

0

0

0 --

0

0 0% 0% -- TOTAL 228

4

2 12 20 1 2 0% 100% 0.17

Exhibit 5-17. Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Local Government Sector

SIC Code 9651 - Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sites
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 5-24 Compliance and Enforcement History

Exhibit 5-18 . SDWIS Enforcement and Compliance Summary Information Reported

for Local Government-Owned Public Water Systems

Region

Facilities

in

Universe

Facilities in

Search

Number of

Visits *

Total

Enforcement

Actions **

% State

Lead

% Federal

Lead

I 22,499 2,083 722 3,897 99% 1%

II 36,155 3,669 1,891 4,521 95% 5%

III 38,443 4,778 535 9,575 98% 2%

IV 57,558 6,939 3,672 14,863 97% 3%

V 106,252 10,865 6,060 27,908 98% 2%

VI 28,233 5,715 638 8,138 95% 5%

VII 12,979 4,447 1,620 13,459 99% 1%

VIII 13,623 2,056 836 6,277 97% 3%

IX 20,139 2,444 251 1,591 76% 24%

X 20,607 3,184 267 4,313 97% 3%

* Number of visits is not a required field in SDWIS; much of the data are not reported by the states.

** Number of enforcement actions is a required field in SDWIS; therefore, there is no relationship between

number of visits and number of enforcement actions.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 6-1 Review of Major Legal Actions

6. REVIEW OF MAJOR LEGAL ACTIONS

This chapter summarizes major cases that have affected the local government sector and contains

information on supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) negotiated in some cases. As indicated in

EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Reports from 1992 to 1997, many

significant enforcement actions were resolved involving the local government sector. Appendix E

presents examples of environment related law violations and enforcement cases against local

governments. As shown in Appendix E, the 147 cases can be categorized as follows: 

C CAA–8 cases

C CERCLA–31 cases

C CWA–67 cases

C SDWA–12 cases

C Ocean Dumping Ban Act and Marine Protective Research and Sanctuaries Act–4 cases

C RCRA–7 cases

C TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA–14 cases

C Multimedia–4 cases.

6.1 SELECTED ENFORCEMENT CASES

This section features 12 examples of enforcement cases resolved between 1992 and 1997 involving the

local government sector. One case involves CAA violations, three involve CWA violations, two

involve SDWA violations, one involves a RCRA violation, three involve CERCLA violations, and two

involve TSCA violations. Nine of the 12 cases resulted in the assessment of a penalty. Penalties

ranged from $5,500 to $2.8 million. In the CWA case U.S. v. City of Hoboken, NJ (1994), the

Hoboken, Union City, Weehawken Sewerage Authority agreed to pay stipulated penalties in the

amount of $2.8 million for its violations of a January 1991 consent decree. This $2.8 million includes a
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 6-2 Review of Major Legal Actions

payment of $1,152,000 that will be made to EPA, $850,000 to the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection, and the remainder to the Interstate Sanitation Commission. 

Some of the settlements required defendants to initiate cleanup projects for the remedial action. 

In U.S. v. School District of Philadelphia, PA (1997): a complaint and consent decree was filed that

seeks the cleanup and disposal of PCBs that are in 29 transformers located at 12 schools. The school

district must also comply with the PCB rule and implement a PCB management plan. The plan would

provide for the repair, inspection, cleanup, and proper disposal of PCB-contaminated materials. The

school district must remove or upgrade all of the PCB transformers within 3 years and submit bimonthly

progress reports to EPA to facilitate monitoring of the school district’s cleanup efforts.

U.S. v. Kansas Bureau of Water (1995) involved the Kansas’ Bureau of Water issuing 25 wastewater

treatment orders against various municipalities and trailer courts in Kansas. The consent orders to

cities, including Lawrence, Topeka, and Leavenworth, initiate projects to eliminate the discharge of

water treatment sludge to streams. The orders to trailer courts in Pittsburg, Kansas, have resulted in

ongoing efforts to form sewer districts that will be connected to the Pittsburg wastewater treatment

plant. These sewer districts will help eliminate sewage discharges into abandoned mine shafts.

In U.S. v. City and County of Denver, CO (1995), violations included an exceedence of performance

standards by air emissions from the treatment plant on two occasions, failure to notify EPA and the

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, failure to recycle vapor-phase carbon units

and implement change-out procedures, and failure to submit a schedule for proposed corrective

measures. The city will pay a penalty of $79,550.

In U.S. v. City of San Diego, CA (1997), a stipulated final order settled an enforcement action that

addressed deficiencies with San Diego’s sewage treatment facilities. The order calls for the city to

continue work on infrastructure projects, replace 200 miles of decaying concrete sewers, audit pump

stations and force mains, increase efforts to reduce grease loadings to the system, and upgrade its data

collection and modeling capabilities. The order also requires $60 to $200 million for projects. 

In the 1996 CWA case of U.S. v. City of Blackhawk, CO, the city allowed the illegal construction of

a water supply pump station on Clear Creek (without a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA permit),

including excavation and backfilling of about 1,800 square feet of river bed on the north fork of Clear
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 6-3 Review of Major Legal Actions

Creek. The result was a temporary loss of wetlands and destruction of aquatic life. The penalty

payment was $61,515.

In U.S. v. Town of Hempstead, NY (1997), the town had two violations: an unpermitted discharge

into an underground injection well and the endangerment of a Department of Highways facility in

Roosevelt. An administrative/consent order was issued that required the town to implement a

compliance/closure plan, pay a $5,500 penalty, perform a facility audit, and provide employee training. 

The town will: 1) inventory and address facilities where there may be Class V injection wells, 2) test

for pesticides, and 3) keep the public informed of the status of closure implementation at the Roosevelt

facility.

In U.S. v. City of New York Department of Transportation, NY (1995 and 1997), the city

generated hazardous paint chips during bridge repainting operations without a RCRA identification

number or manifests, and stored wastes without a permit or authorization. A joint penalty (with

contractor) of $25,000 was assessed and an administrative consent agreement/consent order (CACO)

issued. The city drafted a lead-based paint removal protocol, the implementation of which will cost the

city more than $5 million. The city must pay a civil penalty of $145,000.

In the CERCLA case U.S. v. City of Algoma, Algoma Municipal Landfill, WI, settled in 1992, a

consent decree was issued requiring the city and eight potentially responsible parties to implement the

remedy selected by the record of decision. Defendants will reimburse EPA and the state for their future

oversight costs and pay 90 percent of EPA’s past oversight costs. Settlement is for $1.3 million. 

Monitoring detected an exceedance of the maximum contaminant levels for cadmium, iron, and

manganese.

The case of U.S. v. City of Jacksonville, AR (1994), involved two consent decrees that were lodged

for the Jacksonville and Rogers Road Municipal Landfill Superfund Sites. Both sites have soils

contaminated with dioxin that was produced by a herbicide manufacturer. An estimated 800 cubic

yards of soil is contaminated. The city agreed to pay $100,000 in past costs.

In U.S. v. Montgomery County Solid Waste District (MCSWD), Moraine, OH (1996), excess

waste from an incinerator operated by the MCSWD was sent to a municipal landfill. Thirty-one

municipalities are members of the MCSWD. The landfilled waste included commercial or industrial

waste containing hazardous substances. The defendants will pay $60,000 for previous oversight costs

and 50 percent of remaining oversight costs.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 6-4 Review of Major Legal Actions

U.S. v. New York City, NY Board of Education, which was settled in 1996, involved an allegation

that the head of the board’s Asbestos Task Force knowingly submitted false information on 375

Asbestos Hazards Emergency Response Act (AHERA) management plans. A CACO was issued

under AHERA that requires a payment of $1.5 million, systematic reinspection of each of the 1,069

schools for asbestos, and the preparation of new management plans to ensure that all buildings are in

compliance.

6.2 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

SEPs are compliance agreements that reduce a facility’s stipulated penalty in return for an

environmental project that exceeds the value of the reduction. Often, these projects fund pollution

prevention activities that can significantly reduce the future pollutant loadings of a facility. Exhibit 6-1

presents examples of SEPs negotiated as part of case settlements with local governments. It should be

noted that the information contained in Exhibit 6-1 is not comprehensive and provides only a sample of

the types of SEPs developed for local governments. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 6-5 Review of Major Legal Actions Case Name EPA Region Statute/ Type of Action Type of SEP Estimated Cost Expected Environmental Benefits Final Assessed Penalty Final Penalty After Mitigation City of Haverhill, MA 

1 RCRA Pollution

Prevention andReduction

$100,000 Construction of a permanent

household hazardous wastecollection facility and quarterlyhousehold waste collections.

$176,735 $17,708

New Jersey TransitBus Operations, NJ

2 RCRA Pollution

Prevention

$184,300 Removal and disposal of

asbestos insulation from twolocations. 

$322,704 $130,000

JeffersonCounty/CahabaRiver, AL

4 CWA Environmental

Restoration andProtection

$30 million Acquisition and maintenance

of protected areas; restoration,protection, and enhancementof the water quality; reductionand prevention of erosion andnonpoint source pollution ofthe Cahaba and Black WarriorRivers. 

unknown $750,000

Memphis-ShelbyCounty AirportAuthority, TN

4 EPCRA Pollution

Reduction

unknown Purchase of equipment used to

de-ice runways will reduce theamount of the de-icing fluid,ethylene glycol, that is needed.

$60,000 $9,000

City and County ofHonolulu

9 CWA Public Health,

PollutionReduction andOther ProgramSpecific SEPs

$42 million Treatment and reuse of

wastewater and sludge. By theyear 2001, Honolulu willrecycle 10 million gallons ofwastewater per day.

unknown $950,000

Exhibit 6-1. Examples of Supplemental Environmental Projects – Local Government Sector
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-1 Activities and Initiatives

7. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES

AND INITIATIVES

During the 1990s, many regulatory agencies, including EPA, have focused on designing

programs that help industry comply with environmental requirements. One of the sectors to

benefit from such programs is local governments. This chapter highlights the activities and

initiatives designed by EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to improve and

facilitate local government compliance with environmental statutes and regulations. The chapter

concludes with information on various associations and organizations relevant to local

governments.

7.1 EPA INITIATIVES AND VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS

National Small Flows Clearinghouse

Funded by EPA, the National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC) provides information about

innovative, low-cost wastewater treatments for small communities (i.e., communities with

populations less than 10,000). Emphasis is placed on finding practical, alternative solutions for

“small flows” wastewater problems. A “small flows” system is one that has 1 million gallons or

less of wastewater flowing through it each day, ranging from septic systems to small sewage

treatment plants. NSFC helps homeowners, renters, citizens’ groups, local industry leaders,

research scientists, educators, local and state government officials, and related professionals. 

The program addresses a range of wastewater-related topics, including treatment technologies,

design and monitoring information, planning strategies, regulations, and education. (Contact:

NSFC at (800) 624-8301, email at webmaster@estd.wvu.edu, or visit NSFC’s website at

http://names.nsfc.wvu.edu/nsfc/.) 

Project XL for Communities

Project XL was initiated in March 1995 as part of President Clinton’s Reinventing Environmental

Regulation initiative. This project seeks to achieve cost-effective environmental benefits by

providing participants regulatory flexibility on the condition that they produce greater

environmental benefits. EPA and program participants negotiate and sign a final project

agreement that details specific environmental objectives that the regulated entity shall satisfy. 

EPA provides regulatory flexibility as an incentive for the participant’s superior environmental

performance. Participants are encouraged to seek stakeholder support from local governments,
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-2 Activities and Initiatives

businesses, and environmental groups. EPA hopes to implement 50 pilot projects in four

categories, including industrial facilities, communities, and government facilities regulated by

EPA. Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis. For additional information regarding XL

projects, including application procedures and criteria, see the April 23, 1997 Federal Register

Notice. (Contact: Fax-on-Demand Hotline at (202) 260-8590, Web: http://yosemite.epa.gov/

xl/xl_home.nsf/all/homepage or http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL, or Christopher Knopes at EPA’s

Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation at (202) 260-9298.) 

Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative

EPA’s Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative is designed to empower states,

communities, and other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together in a timely

manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse Brownfields. A Brownfield is a

site, or portion thereof, that has actual or perceived contamination and an active potential for

redevelopment or reuse. EPA’s Brownfields Initiative strategies include funding pilot programs

and other research efforts, clarifying liability issues, entering into partnerships, conducting

outreach activities, developing job training programs, and addressing environmental justice

concerns. (Contact: Linda Garczynski at (202) 260-4039 or visit the EPA Brownfields website at

http://www.epa.gov/brownfields.)

Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection

EPA’s Office of Water has developed a Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed

Protection to inform watershed partners of federal money that may be available to fund a variety

of watershed protection projects. The information presented reflects sources available as of

September 1997. The Office of Water plans to update the catalog periodically. (Contact: This

catalog can be viewed at http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/fund.html.)

The Watershed Academy

Public and private organizations, academic institutions, and citizens and their governments in

thousands of communities across the nation are forming partnerships and learning new ways to

manage their watersheds together. EPA’s Office of Water established the Watershed Academy

to provide training for watershed managers based on local, state, tribal, and federal experiences

in implementing watershed approaches throughout the past decade. The Watershed Academy

provides technical watershed information and outreach through live training courses, the Internet,

and published documents. The academy also maintains a training catalog listing information
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-3 Activities and Initiatives

regarding more advanced training. (Contact: Email the Watershed Academy at publicaccess@epamail.epa.gov or visit the website at http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/

wacademy.htm.)

Climate Wise Program

In October 1993, President Clinton unveiled the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) in honor

of the United States’ commitment to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the

year 2000. Climate Wise, a project jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and

EPA, is one of the projects initiated under CCAP. 

Climate Wise is a partnership between government and industry that offers companies a

nonregulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Climate Wise state and local

government “allies” work with U.S. industries to develop flexible, comprehensive strategies for

achieving energy efficiency and pollution prevention. They help local business identify and

implement projects that often require little capital investment, but promise a high rate of return. 

Companies that become Climate Wise partners receive technical assistance and financing

information to help them develop and implement cost-effective changes. (Contact: Climate Wise

Clearinghouse at (301) 230-4736 or visit the Climate Wise website at

http://www.epa.gov/climatewise/allies.htm or http://www.epa.gov/climatewise/index.htm.) 

State and Local Outreach Program

EPA’s State and Local Outreach Program was created in 1989 and incorporated into the CCAP in

1993 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. This program forms

partnerships with state and local governments to help them increase their understanding of the

impacts of climate change and reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. State and local

authorities are critical players in the effort to reduce these emissions, because they have

jurisdiction over activities that create direct and indirect impacts, including land use,

transportation, building codes, and waste management. Moreover, states and localities account

for a significant percentage of global emissions of greenhouse gases. The mission of the program

is to empower decision makers at the state and local level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by

providing them with specialized products and services. 

Cities and counties become partners in the State and Local Outreach Program through initiatives

coordinated by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). ICLEI

organizes campaigns that provide incentives for local governments to conduct energy audits and
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-4 Activities and Initiatives

emissions inventories, reduce energy consumption, and increase public awareness. The State and

Local Outreach Program supports energy and innovative ideas of states and localities by

providing a host of activities and services. These include technical and financial assistance

workshops and training, guidance documents, software tools, analytic models, and opportunities

for recognition and profile. (Contact: State and Local Outreach Program Website at

http://es.epa.gov/partners/ stateloc/stateloc.html.)

Small Community Outreach Project for Environmental Issues (SCOPe)

The Small Community Outreach Project for Environmental Issues (SCOPe) seeks to help small

communities obtain optimal environmental quality and public health while minimizing the

financial burdens of compliance by increasing the quantity and quality of local government

participation in the development of environmental regulations. SCOPe’s mission is to minimize

the effects of environmental regulations on small entities by conveying the communities’

concerns and values to EPA at an early stage of the rulemaking process. SCOPe focuses on those

governments with populations under 50,000 that will be affected by a particular potential

regulation. SCOPe is funded through a cooperative agreement with EPA and is coordinated by

the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). NASPAA

is a nationwide network of 240 graduate schools of public affairs and administration and

university-based centers of governmental affairs. University faculty conduct the outreach

discussions and meet at least twice with local government officials to get their input into how a

potential environmental regulation might affect their community. Currently, SCOPe is limited to

small communities in the Southeast United States; however, NASPAA expects future expansion

of the program to other regions. (Contact: Deborah Rosenbloom of NASPAA at 202-628-8965

or visit the SCOPe website at www.naspaa.org.)

Transportation Partners

The Transportation Partners program was initiated as part of the CCAP, which directed EPA to

develop an innovative, non-regulatory approach to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the

transportation sector. The program was started in 1995 to support the voluntary efforts of local

officials, citizens, and businesses to improve the efficiency of transportation systems and reduce

the demand for vehicle travel. The goal of the Transportation Partners program is to reduce

carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector by voluntarily reducing vehicle miles

traveled. Effective measures include telecommuting, transit- and pedestrian-oriented community

design, and market-based reforms. These measures have significant side benefits, such as

reducing traffic congestion, increasing worker productivity, making neighborhoods safer and
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-5 Activities and Initiatives

more livable, and generating revenues that can reduce the funding for transportation

infrastructure without increasing general taxes.

The Transportation Partners program has partnerships with approximately 100 local governments

and citizens’ organizations. The program provides members with technical and outreach support

to assist them in implementing transportation measures that they have decided are appropriate for

their communities. The program also provides members with public recognition of their efforts

to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. (Contact: View the Transportation Partners’ website at

http://es.epa.gov/partners/transp/tranpart.html.)

Local Government Advisory Committee

The Local Government Advisory Committee is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee

Act. The purpose of the committee is to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the

Administrator of EPA on matters related to the implementation of federal environmental

requirements by local governments. The committee’s activities include changes in the regulatory

planning and development process to involve local governments more effectively; changes

needed to allow flexibility to accommodate local needs without compromising environmental

performance, accountability, or fairness; and ways EPA and states can help local governments

deal with the challenge of financing environmental protection, identify ways to encourage

innovation and explore ways to speed dissemination of new environmental protection techniques

and technologies. (Contact: EPA’s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations

website: http://www.epa.gov/regional/lgac.htm.)

Small Community Advisory Committee

The Small Community Advisory Committee is a subcommittee of the Local Government

Advisory Committee. The purpose of the subcommittee is to be a standing advisory group to aid

small towns with environmental issues by improving and protecting the environment in which

they live. The committee is made up of 16 members from small towns across the country. The

members consist of elected local government officials, appointed officials, technical officials,

representatives from small water districts, and citizen activists. The objectives of the committee

include: changing how EPA and state agencies develop regulations; informing legislative bodies

of the cost of providing environmental protection to small towns; and advising EPA of the range

of technical service available to help. The Small Community Advisory Committee oversees the

implementation of the Small Town Task Force Report. The report was created by EPA in 1992

as mandated by Congress. The purpose of the task force was to advise EPA on how to work
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-6 Activities and Initiatives

better with small communities to improve compliance with environmental regulations. (Contact:

Steve Wilson, EPA Small Community Coordinator at (202) 260-2294, or Small Town Task

Force website: http://www.epa.gov/regional/small1.htm.)

Local Government Environmental Assistance Network

The Local Government Environmental Assistance Network (LGEAN) is a forum and

clearinghouse of environmental information for local governments. LGEAN provides

environmental management, planning, and regulatory information for local government elected

and appointed officials, managers, and staff. LGEAN enables local officials to interact with their

peers and others on-line. In an effort to reach all local governments, LGEAN publishes a

quarterly newsletter, SCAN, and manages both a toll-free and fax-on-demand service. EPA is a

partner in LGEAN and has provided technical and financial resources. (Contact: View the

website: http://www.lgean.org, or call toll-free 877-TO-LGEAN.)

Municipal Environmental Management Systems

EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management and Office of Compliance have sponsored a two-year

project to assist small and medium-sized public sector organizations in developing and

implementing an ISO 14001 Environmental Management System (EMS). At the end of the twoyear project EPA expects that each of the participants will have all of the elements of an ISO

14001 EMS. Additional goals for this project include: evaluating the effect of the ISO 14001

EMS on the management of environmental issues; tracking costs, staff commitment, benefits,

hurdles, environmental performance, interested stakeholder involvement, and pollution

prevention activities; and communicating results and lessons learned across the public and

private sector. EPA selected the Global Environment & Technology Foundation to lead the

Municipalities Initiative and to provide on-going training, technical assistance, and EMS

coaching to each of the municipal organizations throughout the project. (Contact: EPA’s website

http://www.epa.gov/ owmitnet/impiso.htm, or visit GlobeNet http://www.iso14000.net.) 

The Mayors Desk

The Mayors Desk is an EPA-sponsored program started in August 1998. The purpose of this

program is to provide information dealing with environmental issues to mayors across the

country. The goal of providing such information is to improve the mayors’ access to the policy

development process. An appointed EPA liaison operates the desk, acts as the Agency’s point of

contact, and serves as an information resource who channels mayors to those people in the
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-7 Activities and Initiatives

program offices who are working on specific issues and projects. (Contact: Richard Dickerson

of EPA at (202) 260-6029.)

Energy Star® Buildings and Green Lights® Partnership

In 1991, EPA introduced Green Lights®, a program designed for businesses and organizations to

proactively combat pollution by installing energy-efficient lighting technologies in their

commercial and industrial buildings. In April 1995, Green Lights® expanded into Energy Star®

Buildings— a strategy that optimizes whole-building energy-efficiency opportunities.

The energy needed to run commercial and industrial buildings in the United States produces 19

percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 12 percent of nitrogen oxides, and 25 percent of sulfur

dioxide, at a cost of $110 billion a year. If implemented in every U.S. commercial and industrial

building, Energy Star® Buildings’ upgrade approach could prevent up to 35 percent of the

emissions associated with these buildings and cut the nation’s energy bill by up to $25 billion

annually.

The more than 2,500 participants include corporations, small businesses, universities, health care

facilities, nonprofit organizations, school districts, and federal and local governments. As of

January 1, 1998, Energy Star®Buildings and Green Lights® Program participants have reduced

their annual energy use by 7 billion kilowatt hours and annually save more than $517 million. By

joining, participants agree to upgrade 90 percent of their owned facilities with energy-efficient

lighting and 50 percent of their owned facilities with whole-building upgrades, where profitable,

over a seven-year period. Energy Star® participants first reduce their energy loads with the

Green Lights® approach to building tune-ups, then focus on “right sizing” their heating and

cooling equipment to match their new energy needs. EPA predicts this strategy will prevent

more than 5.5 MMTCE of carbon dioxide by the year 2000. EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation

is responsible for operating the Energy Star® Buildings and Green Lights® Program. (Contact: 

Energy Star Hotline, 1-888-STAR-YES (1-888-872-7937) or Maria Tikoff Vargas, Co-Director

at (202) 564-9178 or visit the website at http://www.epa.gov/buildings.)

Indoor Environments Program

The Indoor Environments Program was formed in 1995 to increase the public’s understanding of

indoor air quality (IAQ) and its effect on public health. IAQ is widely recognized as among the

highest environmental risks people face on a day-to-day basis. To address this issue, the Agency

uses voluntary relationships with public and private organizations, as well as the general public,
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-8 Activities and Initiatives

to inform individuals and institutions about simple and low-cost steps they can take to reduce

risks. Using the best science available, the Indoor Environments Program develops and

disseminates information, guidance, and solution-based technologies. The program serves as a

catalyst for action by guiding research, using innovative and creative risk communication tools,

and building public/private partnerships. (Contact: View the Indoor Environments Program’s

website at http://es.epa.gov/partners/indoor/indoor.html.)

WasteWi$e Program

The WasteWi$e Program was started in 1994 by EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response. The program is aimed at reducing municipal solid wastes by promoting waste

prevention, recycling collection, and the manufacturing and purchase of recycled products. As of

1998, the program had about 700 business, government, and institutional partners. Partners agree

to identify and implement actions to reduce their solid wastes by setting waste reduction goals

and providing EPA with yearly progress reports for a three-year period. EPA, in turn, provides

partners with technical assistance, publications, networking opportunities, and national and

regional recognition. (Contact: WasteWi$e Hotline at (800) 372-9473 or Joanne Oxley, EPA

Program Manager, (703) 308-0199.)

NICE3

The U.S. Department of Energy sponsors a grant program called National Industrial

Competitiveness through Energy, Environment, and Economics (NICE3). The NICE3 program

provides funding to state and industry partnerships (large and small businesses) for projects

demonstrating advances in energy efficiency and clean production technologies. The goal of the

NICE3 program is to demonstrate the performance and economics of innovative technologies in

the U.S., leading to the commercialization of improved industrial manufacturing processes. 

These processes should conserve energy, reduce waste, and improve industrial costcompetitiveness. Industry applicants must submit project proposals through a state energy,

pollution prevention, or business development office. Awardees receive a one-time, three-year

grant of up to $400,000, representing up to 50 percent of a project’s total cost. In addition, up to

$25,000 is available to support the state applicant’s cost share. (Contact: View the website at

http//www.oit.doe.gov/Access/nice3; Steve Blazek, DOE, (303) 75-4723; or Eric Hass, DOE,

(303) 275-4728.)
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-9 Activities and Initiatives

Design for the Environment

The Design for the Environment (DfE) is working with several industries to identify costeffective pollution prevention strategies that reduce risks to workers and the environment. DfE

helps businesses compare and evaluate the performance, cost, pollution prevention benefits, and

human health and environmental risks associated with existing and alternative technologies. The

goal of these projects is to encourage businesses to consider and use cleaner products, processes,

and technologies. For more information about the DfE Program, call (202) 260-1678. (Contact: 

EPA’s Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse at (202) 260-1023 or visit the DfE

Website at http://www.epa.gov/dfe.)

Clean Water Action Plan

In 1998, EPA and the USDA were charged with developing a Clean Water Action Plan designed

to speed the restoration of the nation’s waterways. This plan aims to achieve clean water by

strengthening public health protections, targeting community-based watershed protection efforts

at high priority areas, and providing communities with new resources to control polluted runoff. 

This action plan is being built around four key tools: 1) watershed approaches, 2) strong federal

and state standards, 3) natural resource stewardship, and 4) informed citizens and officials. 

(Contact: View the Clean Water Action Plan website at http://www.epa.gov/cleanwater/action/

overview.html.)

7.2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE INITIATIVES AND VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS

National Drinking Water Clearinghouse

The National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC) was established in 1991 at West Virginia

University to develop and maintain services and information related to small community

drinking water systems. Funded by the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service, the

NDWC is an extension of that organization’s commitment to provide technical assistance to

America’s rural water facilities. NDWC assists small communities (fewer than 10,000) by

collecting, developing, and providing timely information relevant to drinking water issues. Two

quarterly newsletters (On Tap and Water Sense) are available to help small communities with

their drinking water needs. NDWC also offers approximately 200 free or low-cost educational

products, including brochures, videotapes, and government publications, on topics ranging from

drinking water regulations to financial management. Furthermore, NDWC’s databases offer a

variety of drinking water information relating to groundwater protection, water system design,
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-10 Activities and Initiatives

water treatment processes, water conservation, and drinking water regulations. Technical

assistants are available to conduct a search to help individuals find answers to questions or refer

individuals to the appropriate organization. (Contact: Call NDWC at (800) 624-8301 or visit

NDWC’s website at http://names.nsfc.wvu.edu/ndwc/.)

Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community

The Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) program is designed to afford

communities real opportunities for growth and revitalization. The framework of the program

addresses four key principles: economic opportunities (e.g., create jobs within the community

and throughout the region), sustainable community development, community-based partnerships

(e.g., partnerships with local governments, community groups, health and social service groups,

and environmental groups), and strategic vision for change (e.g., what the community will

become). This program is designed to empower people and communities all across the nation by

inspiring Americans to work together to create jobs and opportunity. (Contact: EZ/EC Team at

(800) 645-4712, email to ezec@rurdev.gov, or view EZ/EC’s website at http://www.ezec.gov.) 

National Rural Development Partnership

The National Rural Development Partnership, through 37 State Rural Development Councils and

a National Rural Development Council, brings together federal, state, local, and tribal

governments, as well as the private for-profit and non-profit sectors, to work in partnership for

the improvement of rural America’s communities. Through an information-based, learningwhile-doing approach, the National Rural Development Partnership addresses complex rural

problems in new ways: building crucial intergovernmental and intragovernmental relations;

promoting strategic development; conducting partnership activities; making better use of existing

resources; intervening in a problem-solving role; addressing regulatory and administrative

impediments; and representing a new model of governance. (Contact: National Rural

Development Partnership at (202) 690-2394, or view the website at

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/nrdp.) 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-11 Activities and Initiatives

7.3 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

International City/County Management Association

777 North Capitol Street, NE

Suite 500

Washington, DC 20002

Phone: (202) 289-4262

Fax: (202) 962-3500

Website: http://www.icma.org/

Founded in 1914, the International City/County Management Association is the professional and

educational association for more than 8,000 appointed administrators and assistant administrators

serving cities, counties, other local governments, and regional entities around the world. 

National Association of County & City Health Officials

1100 17th Street, Second Floor

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: (202) 783-5550

Fax: (202) 783-1583

Email: info@NACCHO.org

Website: http://www.naccho.org/

In July 1994, the National Association of County Health Officials and the U.S. Conference of

Local Health Officers combined to form a unified organization representing local public health. 

NACCHO is a nonprofit membership organization serving all of nearly 3,000 local health

departments nationwide–in cities, counties, townships, and districts. NACCHO provides

education, information, research, and technical assistance to local health departments and

facilitates partnerships among local, state, and federal agencies to promote and strengthen public

health. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-12 Activities and Initiatives

National Association of Counties

440 1st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Phone: (202) 393-6226

Fax: (202) 393-2630

Website: http://www.naco.org/

The National Association of Counties (NACo) was created in 1935 when county officials wanted

to have a strong voice in the nation’s capital. NACo’s membership totals nearly 1,800 counties,

representing more than 85 percent of the nation’s population. NACo, the only national

organization that represents county governments in the United States, continues to follow the

traditions established by those early county officials. NACo provides an extensive line of

services, including legislative, research, and technical, as well as public affairs. The association

acts as a liaison with other levels of government, works to improve public understanding of

counties, serves as a national advocate for counties, and provides them with resources to help

them find innovative methods to meet the challenges they face. NACo is involved in a number

of special projects that deal with such issues as the environment, sustainable communities,

volunteerism, and intergenerational studies. 

National Association of Towns and Townships

444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 208

Washington, DC 20001-1202

Phone: (202) 624-3550

Fax: (202) 624-3554

Website: http://natat.org/

The purpose of the National Association of Towns and Townships (NATaT) is to strengthen the

effectiveness of town and township governments. It does so by educating lawmakers and public

policy officials about how small town governments operate and by advocating policies on their

behalf in Washington, DC. NATaT works to assure smaller local governments equal access to

vital federal resources. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-13 Activities and Initiatives

National Center for Small Communities

444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 208

Washington, DC 20001-1202

Phone: (202) 624-3550

Fax: (202) 624-3554

Website: http://natat.org/

The National Center for Small Communities (NCSC) is the only national, nonprofit organization

devoted to serving the leaders of America’s smaller communities. The mission of NCSC is to

provide small town decision makers with the tools to govern effectively and the skills to expand

local economies, protect natural resources, and preserve community character.

National Environmental Training Association

3020 East Camelback Road, Suite 399

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Phone: (602) 956-6099

Fax: (602) 956-6399

Website: http://www.envirotraining.org/

Founded in 1977 with support from EPA, the National Environmental Training Association

(NETA) is an international nonprofit educational and professional society dedicated to promoting

competency and excellence in environmental and safety and health training. With 1,600

members worldwide, NETA is the network for academic, government, industrial, utility, and

consulting trainers and training managers responsible for protecting public health, workers, and

the environment. NETA’s programs and services include a certified environmental trainer

program; annual conference and workshops; environmental, health, and safety training skills

workshops; development of standards in environmental occupations; Internet trainers forum; and

a newsletter. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-14 Activities and Initiatives

National League of Cities

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: (202) 626-3000

Fax: (202) 626-3043

Website: http://www.nlc.org/

The National League of Cities (NLC) is the country’s largest and most representative

organization serving municipal governments. Founded in 1924 by 10 state municipal leagues,

today its direct members include 49 state municipal leagues and 1,500 communities of all sizes. 

Through the membership of the state municipal leagues, NLC represents more than 18,000

municipalities. Acting on behalf of local governments, NLC’s goals include influencing national

policy and building understanding and support for cities and towns. Through a wide range of

programs and services, NLC assists local leaders in their jobs as policy makers and public

servants. 

The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable

2000 P Street NW, Suite 708

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: (202) 466-7272

Fax: (202) 466-7964

Website: http://www.p2.org/

The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (the Roundtable) is the largest membership

organization in the United States devoted solely to pollution prevention. The Roundtable

provides a national forum for promoting the development, implementation, and evaluation of

efforts to avoid, eliminate, or reduce pollution at the source. The Roundtable's voting

membership includes state, local, and tribal government pollution prevention programs. Affiliate

members include representatives from federal agencies, non-profit organizations, trade

associations, academic institutions, and private industry. Public sector members located in every

state and internationally operate programs that provide pollution prevention information and

technical assistance to thousands of industrial, commercial, and agricultural facilities each year. 

This information helps many of these facilities reduce the cost of both production and

environmental compliance. The result is improved efficiency, increased competitiveness and a

better environment. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-15 Activities and Initiatives

National Rural Water Association

2915 S. 13th Street

Duncan, OK 73533

Phone: (580) 252-0629

Fax: (580) 255-4476

Website: http://www.nrwa.org

The National Rural Water Association (NRWA) is a federation of 45 state rural water

associations. These state associations represent more than 18,000 water and wastewater utilities

across America, making NRWA the largest utility membership organization in the nation. In

cooperation with state associations, NRWA is constantly working to improve the quality of

utility services for rural Americans, while protecting natural resources.

Public Technology, Inc.

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue., NW

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: (800) 852-4934

Fax: (202) 626-2498

Website: http://www.pti.nw.dc.us/

Public Technology, Inc. (PTI), is the nonprofit technology research, development, and

commercialization organization for all cities and counties in the United States. The National

League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the International City/County

Management Association provide PTI with its policy direction, while a select group of city and

county members conduct applied R&D and technology transfer functions. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-16 Activities and Initiatives

State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local

Air Pollution Control Officials

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 307

Washington, DC 20001

Phone: (202) 624-7864

Fax: (202) 624-7863

Email: 4clair@sso.org

Website: http://www.4cleanair.org/

The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association

of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) are the two national associations

representing air pollution control agencies in the 54 states and territories and more than 150

major metropolitan areas across the United States. State and local air pollution control officials

formed STAPPA and ALAPCO over 25 years ago to improve their effectiveness as managers of

air quality programs. The associations encourage the exchange of information among air

pollution control officials; enhance communication and cooperation among federal, state, and

local regulatory agencies; and promote good management of air resources. 

Water Environment Federation

601 Wythe Street

Alexandria, VA 22314

Phone: (703) 684-2400

Fax: (703) 684-2492

Website: http://www.wef.org

The Water Environment Federation (WEF) is a federation of local educational and technical

associations, including some specific to wastewater operations. WEF guides technical

developments in water quality and provides the public with the latest information on wastewater

treatment and water quality protection. WEF also participates in the development and review of

government policies on water and environmental issues. WEF is involved in nonpoint source

pollution, hazardous waste, biosolid recycling, and groundwater contamination. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-17 Activities and Initiatives

 CSO Partnership

P.O. Box 26505

Richmond, VA 23261

Phone: (804) 780-5293

Fax: (804) 649-9661

Email: CSOInfo@csop.com

Website: http://www.csop.com

CSO Partnership is a nationwide coalition of small and medium-sized communities with

combined sewer systems. The Partnership provides its members, and on a more limited basis,

members of the public, with critical information on all aspects of CSO regulation and control. 

American Public Works Association

2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 500

Kansas City, MO 64108

Telephone: (202)393-2792

Email: apwa@bbs.pubworks.org

Website: http://www.pubworks.org

The American Public Works Association (APWA) provides manuals and technical information

on municipal management and regulations. Its Internet site provides general information on

emergency management, public buildings, solid waste, and water, as well as contacts for

acquiring additional information.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-18 Activities and Initiatives

American Water Works Association

6666 West Quincy Avenue

Denver, CO 80235

Telephone: (303) 794-7711

Fax: (303) 795-1440

Website: http://www.awwa.org

American Water Works Association’s (AWWA) educational service provides teleconferences,

conferences, workshops, and seminars on various topics relating to water resources and

management, technical support on water issues, and Internet access. The small utility network is

a free service designed for water systems serving fewer than 3,300 people in the United States

and Canada.

International Conference of Building Officials

5360 Workman Mill Road

Whittier, CA 90601-2290

Telephone: (800) 284-4406

Fax: (562) 692-3853

Website: http://www.icbo.org

The International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) provides building service codes,

guidelines for new buildings, and assistance and education in building and managing municipal

facilities. The ICBO Internet site provides building standards, a building resource guide, and

links to related sites.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 7-19 Activities and Initiatives

National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals

1350 New York Avenue, NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 200005-4798

Telephone: (202) 879-4093

Website: http://www.nalgep.org

The National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals (NALGEP) works

to meet the training and information needs of professionals responsible for environmental

compliance and policy at the local level.

National Association of Regional Councils

1700 K Street, Suite 1300

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202) 437-0710

Website address: http://www.narc.org

The National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) is a membership organization of

regional councils that offers technical assistance, educational services, and public policy support

to regional government officials. Topics include economic development, water quality, water

supply, air quality, aging, housing, workforce training, and solid waste.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 R-1 References

REFERENCES

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 801,

Washington, DC, 20036 (aceee.org).

American Water Works Association Small System Hotline

Aronson, J. Richard. Financing State and Local Governments. The Brookings Institution, 

Washington, D.C. 1986.

Association of Municipal Sewerage Authorities. (www.amsa-cleanwater.org).

Azimi and Saphire. “Rethinking Resources: New Ideas for Community Waste Reduction.”

(www.informinc.org/rethinking.html).

Barron, Thomas S., "Pollution Prevention In The Construction Industry: A Workbook Covering

The Chemicals Used And Wastes Generated By Construction Trades." Construction Industry

Workshop. 1997.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (www.baaqmd.gov).

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). “Blueprint For A Clean

Bay: Best Management Practices To Prevent Stormwater Pollution From Construction-Related

Activities." 1995.

Bingham, Richard. Managing Local Government. SAGE Publications, Inc. 1991.

California Air Resources Board. (www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/arb.htm).

California Environmental Protection Agency. “Hazardous Waste Minimization Checklist and

Assessment Manual for the Building Construction Industry," Department of Toxic Substances

Control, Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development. Sacramento, CA. May

1993.

Center for Disease Control. “Cryptosporidium and Water.” CDC Working Group on Waterborne

Crypto. (www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/crypto/crypto.htm).

Center for Technology Transfer and Pollution Prevention. 

(ingis.acn.purdue.edu:9999/cttpp/cttpp.html).

Cincinnati Water Works. “Database and Geographic Information System (GIS) for Management

of a Multi-Jurisdictional Wellhead Protection Area.” Proceedings from the NWRI Source Water

Assessment and Protection 98 Conference, Dallas, TX.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 R-2 References

City of Rockville, Maryland. “City Services.” July 1995. (www.ci.rockville.md.us/service.htm). 

City of Rockville, Maryland, Annual Report FY 1996.

Clean Air Technology Center. (www.epa.gov/ttn/catcCenter).

Comprehensive Municipal Pollution Prevention Project: Inventory Phase, Regional Municipality 

of Hamilton-Wentworth. April, 1995.

Cooperative Extension Service, The Ohio State University. “Conservation Improvement Projects

through Soil and Water Conservation Districts." 

Cornwell, T.L. and Speltz, N. “Management of Cultural and Recreational Services.” 

Elliot, J.M., and Ali, S.R.. The State and Local Government Political Dictionary. ABC-CLIO,

Santa Barbara. 1988.

Environmental Health Coalition. “Toxic Turnaround - A Guide to Reducing Pollution for Local

Governments.” San Diego, CA (www.environmentalhealth.org).

Environmental Defense Fund. “Pollution Prevention Questionnaire for Municipal Departments"

and "Procurement Recommendations Applicable to Multiple City Departments and Agencies."

Washington, DC, 20009.

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Listserve (EPPNET). Established and maintained by the

Northeast Recycling Council (802) 254-3636. To subscribe to EPPNET, send an e-mail

message to (lyris@aladdin.webrover.com) with SUBSCRIBE EPPNET <FIRST NAME>

<LAST NAME> on the subject line or in the body of the message.

Epstein, L.N. and Skavroneck, S.A. “Promoting Pollution Prevention Among Dischargers to

POTWs.” Water Environment Federation conference, Miami, FL, October 25, 1995. Available

from the Environmental Defense Fund.

Fairfax County Government: DEM’s Preserve Brochure. 

(www.co.fairfax.va.us/gov/dem/brochure/preserve.htm).

Fairfax County Department of Public Works. (www.co.fairfax.va.us/gov/dpw.htm).

Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst. “Beyond Delineation and Assessment: Community Action to

Protect Source Water Using Farm*A*Syst\Home*A*Syst.” 

(www.ctic.purdue.edu/Abstracts/Castelnuovo.html).

Fisher, M.J. and Bishop, D.G. Municipal and Other Local Government. Prentice -Hall, Inc.:

New York. 1950.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 R-3 References

Florida Sustainable Communities Center. (sustainable.state.fl.us).

Forrest, C.J. “Risk Management Planning: Will It Lead to Inherently Safer Operations?" In 

Pollution Prevention Review. Summer 1997.

Goodrich, J.A. (Editor). “Safe Drinking Water From Small System: Treatment Options." 

AWWA Journal. May 1992.

Green Seal. “Office Green Buying Guide” and “Choose Green Reports.” Washington, DC.

(www.greenseal.org).

Gruder, S. "Construction Resources: A Waste Reduction And Recycling Guide for

Wisconsin Builders and Contractors," University of Wisconsin-Extension, Solid and

Hazardous Waste Education Center, Madison, WI. November 1997.

Hunter, C.S. “Suppliers of Beneficial Organisms in North America." California Environmental

Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Environmental Monitoring and Pest

Management Branch.

International City/County Management Association, Smart Growth Network (SGN). 

(www.smartgrowth.org).

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. U.S. Office, Cities for Climate

Protection Campaign Case Studies, San Jose, California Growth Management Plan.

(www.iclei.org).

LA Network. “Construction And Demolition Waste Recycling Guide: Recycling Construction

and Demolition Waste In The Los Angeles Area." August 1992.

League of Women Voters. “Tools for Drinking Water Protection.” Video Workshop. 

(www.lwv.org/pubweb/resources.html).

Leslie, A.R. (Editor). Handbook of Integrated Pest Management for Turf and Ornamentals.

Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 1989.

Local Government Environmental Assistance Network (LGEAN) through the International 

County and City Managers Association.

Maryland Department of Public Works and Transportation, Montgomery County. Dickerson

Compost Facility. (www.dpwt.com/SolWstSvcDiv/solid/compos).

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, A Current Assessment of Urban Best

Management Practices. 1992.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 R-4 References

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. “When it Rains, It Drains-What Everyone

Should Know About Storm Water.” Surface Water Quality Division.

Minneapolis Community Development Agency. (www.mtn.org/mcda).

Missouri Department of Natural Resources Environmental Services Program. National Ambient

Air Quality Program. (www.state.mo.us/dnr/deq/esp/aqm/standard.htm).

National Academy Press. “Safe Water from Every Tap - Improving Water Service to Small

Communities." 1998.

National Association of City and County Health Departments, 440 First Street NW, Suite 450,

Washington, DC 20001

National Association of Counties. (www.naco.org).

National Association of Counties. “Environmental Purchasing Model Resolutions from Local

Governments.” (www.naco.org/programs/environ/purchase.cfm).

National Association of Home Builders. “Residential Construction Waste: From Disposal to

Management," interim document. NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD.

National Environmental Law Center. “Accidents Do Happen: Toxic Chemical Accidents in the

United States." December 1996.

National Environmental Law Center. “Too Close to Home." 

National Integrated Pest Management Network. Colorado State University. 

(www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/csuipm.html).

National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. Washington, DC. (www.p2.org).

National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, National Association of Counties, National

Association of City and County Health Officials, and U.S. Conference of Mayors. “Preventing

Pollution in Our Cities and Counties: A Compendium of Case Studies." 1995.

National Rural Water Association.

Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants. (www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html).

Northern Virginia BMP Handbook. 1992.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. DRAFT "Pollution Prevention in Enforcement - Village

of South Charleston, Ohio." Office of Pollution Prevention. 1998.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 R-5 References

Olkowski, W., Daar, S., Olkowski, H. Common Sense Pest Control. The Tauton Press,

Newtown, CT. 1991. 

Palermini and Associates. “Environmental Handbook For Oregon General Construction

Contractors: Regulatory Guidance." Oregon Waste Reduction Assistance Program. April 1994.

Palo Alto Regional Quality Control Plant. “Cooling Water Systems, Management Guidelines for

Water Quality Protection." Palo Alto, CA.

Pontius, F.W. (Editor) “Setting Standards: Risk Assessment Issues." AWWA Journal. July 1995.

Porter, D.R., Lin, B.C., and Peiser, R.B. Special Districts: A Useful Technique for Financing

Infrastructure. Washington, DC. Urban Land Institute. 1987.

Public Technology, Inc., the U.S. Green Building Council, U.S. Department of Energy, and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sustainable Building Technical Manual - Green

Building Design, Construction, and Operations. 

Putman, S.W. (Editor). “Chemicals Versus Microbial in Drinking Water: A Decision Sciences

Perspective." AWWA Journal. Boston, MA. March 1993.

Raupp, M.J., Van Driesche, R.G., Davidson, J.A. “Biological Control of Insect and Mite Pests of

Woody Landscape Plants: concepts, agents and methods." Maryland Cooperative Extension

Service. 1993.

River City Resources Group, Inc. “Environmental Handbook For Oregon Construction

Contractors: Best Pollution Prevention Practices." May 1994.

San Jose/Santa Clara Valley Water District and Water Pollution Control Plant. Water Efficiency

Program. San Jose, CA.

Santa Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program. “Blueprint for a Clean Bay,

Construction-related Industries." San Jose, CA. 1992.

Science Applications International Corporation. “Pollution Prevention Training Instructors'

Guide." March 1996.

Smart Growth Network: (202) 260-2750. (www.smartgrowth.org).

Smith, J.W. and Klemanski, J.S. The Urban Politics Dictionary. ABC-CLIO. Santa Barbara.

1990. 

State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators / Association of Local Air Pollution

Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO). (www.4cleanair.org).
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 R-6 References

Stegman, M. The Role of Public Housing in a Revitalized National Housing Policy. Cambridge:

Massachusetts Institution of Technology, Center for Real Estate Development. April 1988. 

Stiefel, H.J. Municipal Wastewater Treatment: Privatization and Compliance. Reason

Foundation, LA. February 1994.

Sustich R., et al. “Chicago’s 503 Enforcement Initiative: A Great Industrial Clean-up

Experience.” Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, presented at the

Water Environment Federation Technical Expo & Conference, Chicago, Illinois. October 1997.

Taylor, A. The 1996 IWSA Municipal Waste Combustion Directory of United States Facilities.

Washington D.C.: Integrated Waste Services Association. 1996. 

Telephone conversation with Dr. Jonsson Balgard, Deputy Commissioner of City of St. Louis Air

Pollution Control Division, September 11, 1997.

The Hamilton to New Baltimore Groundwater Consortium. (www.gwconsortium.org).

Tim Richman & Associates. “Start at the Source: Residential Site Planning & Design Guidance

Manual For Stormwater Quality Protection." January 1997.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Environmental Assessment and Management Guide. 

September 1996.

U.S. Conference of Mayors. Washington, DC. (www.usmayors.org/uscm).

U.S. Conference of Mayors and National Association of Counties. “Innovative City/County

Partnerships - A Report from the Joint Center for Sustainable Communities.” 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Economic and Statistics Administration. 1992 Census of

Governments. Volume 4: Government Finances. Number 3: Finances of County Governments. 

1992.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Economic and Statistics Administration. 1992 Census of

Governments. Volume 1: Government Organization. Number 3: Government Organization.

1992.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Federal Register, Volume 61, Number 45. Lead; Requirements for Disclosure of

known Lead-based Paint and/or Lead-based Paint Hazards in Housing; Final Rule. March 6,

1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Combined Sewer Overflow Control Manual. Office of

Research and Development (EPA/625/R-93/007). September 1993.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 R-7 References

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

(www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical and Economic Capacity of States and Public

Water Systems to Implement Drinking Water Regulations Report to Congress. Office of Water

(EPA 810-R-93-001). September 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act. Office of Air

Quality, Planning, and Standards.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Asbestos-in Buildings Technical Bulletin. Office of

Toxic Substances. March 12, 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the

United States: 1996 Update. Office of Solid Waste (EPA 530-R-97-015). June 1997. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992 Needs Survey Report to Congress. Office of Water

(EPA 832-R-93-002). September 1993. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Community Water System Survey. Volume II: Detailed

Survey Result Tables and Methodology Report. Office of Water (EPA 815-R-97-001b). January

1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Accomplishments Report, FY 1996. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (EPA

300-R-97-003). May 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program.

(www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse

(www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2home).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Community Water System Survey. Volume I: Overview. 

Office of Water. January 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Accomplishments Report, FY 1995. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (EPA

300-R-96-006). July 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey, First

Report to Congress. Office of Water (EPA 812-R-97-001). January 1997.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 R-8 References

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Part 1 of the

NPDES Permit Applications for Discharges From Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. 

Office of Water (EPA-505/8-91-003A). 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Design for the Environment (DfE). (es.inel.gov/dfe).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Pretreatment Program Report to Congress. 

Office of Water (21W-4004). July 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Enforcement Accomplishments Report, FY 1993. 

Office of Enforcement (EPA 300-R-94-003). April 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Accomplishments Report, FY 1994. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (EPA

300-R-95-004). May 1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Public-Private Partnership Case Studies: Profiles of

Success in Providing Environmental Services. The National Drinking Water Clearinghouse. 

September 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Enforcement Accomplishments Report, FY 1992. 

Office of Enforcement (EPA 230-R-93-001). April 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Hotline/National Drinking Water

Clearinghouse

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Star Program.

(www.epa.gov/appdstar/buildings.html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “$mart Investments for City and County Managers:

Energy, Environment and Community Development.” Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation,

EPA 231-R-98-004. April 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Study of Asbestos-Containing Materials in Public

Buildings: A Report to Congress. February, 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Building State and Local Pollution Prevention

Programs.” Office of the Administrator, EPA-130-R-93-001. December 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. WAVE Program. Office of Water. Technical Support

Hotline: 800/993-WAVE.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Drinking Water, Pollution Prevention and Public

Health.” EPA/742/F-97/004. 1997.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 R-9 References

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Incentives and Disincentives for Adoption of P2

Measures Under EPA's Water Program.” EPA/742/R-94/006. 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wellhead Protection Programs: Tools for Local

Governments. 1989.

Water Environment Federation. A Global Perspective for Reducing CSOs: Balancing

Technologies, Costs, and Water Quality. July 10-13, 1994.

Wise, M. and Kenworth, L. “Preventing Industrial Toxic Hazards: A Guide for Communities." 

INFORM.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-1 Appendix A

Appendix A

Statistical Overview of Local Governments

[Note: Because direct education services constitute the overwhelming majority 

of a school district’s budget (i.e. school districts do not usually perform services

such as wastewater treatment, air quality monitoring) and have limited

responsibility for managing environmental issues, the discussion of local

governments in this appendix does not include school district-only data/

information. However, when data/information are provided for “total local

governments,” it does include school districts.]

The majority of data used in this appendix were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. In all

instances, the most recent data available were used; however, because different data are collected

and published at different times, the dates may vary. That is, for one statistical category the most

recent data may be from 1992. For other categories, the most recent data may be from 1993.

The historic data presented in this chapter are in actual dollars and do not consider inflation. 

During the 10-year period between 1982 and 1992, the consumer price index rose 25 percent (see

Exhibit A-1). Most of the data presented indicate that revenues, expenses and other variables

increased significantly more than this inflation rate.

While data in this document do not provide definitive cause for these increases, general increases

may be due to increases in local government responsibility for environment-related activities that

previously may have been managed by the state, increased regulatory requirements, or increases

in population. For example, many local governments saw their responsibilities for landfill

upgrades significantly increase in the late 1980s and early 1990s in preparation for the

implementation of new federal landfill standards in 1991. Wastewater treatment budgets also

increased significantly during this time in efforts to upgrade deteriorating systems and meet new

CWA requirements. This section highlights some of the details of these increasing budgets.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

1

In New England states, counties have only a minor role, and towns (townships) are used to implement state

government services. (Managing local government: public administration in practice. Richard Bingham et al. 

1991.)

January 1999 A-2 Appendix A

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Year

Dollars

(millions)

Exhibit A-1. The Real Value of $100 Million: 1982-1992

A.1 TYPES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

The three types of local governments discussed in this document are counties, subcounties, and

special districts. The following sections define each of these types of local government and

present information on the various structures and management systems that are typical of each. It

should be noted that while examples are included in each of the sections, the specifics of each

local government may vary. The organization, structure, and responsibilities of each local

government are dependent on the specific characteristics of that local government, including size,

location, and demographics.

A.1.1 Counties

A county government is a unit of local government established to implement state and county

policies, programs, and services. Counties can be distinguished from other local governments in

that they are the only local government entity established as a formal arm of the state

government. In most states1, counties were originally established to implement state services so

that citizens would not have to travel to the state capital. They may perform functions such as
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-3 Appendix A

Exhibit A-2. Populations of U.S. 

Counties in 1992

budgeting and tax collection, and

provide services such as wastewater

treatment, water supply, solid waste

management, police and fire protection,

and housing. Many counties provide

services such as centralized

recordkeeping (county clerk’s office)

and highway maintenance, and play an

important role in education,

transportation, and health services. 

Typically, larger counties provide a

wider range of services.

Counties generally have higher

populations than subcounties or special

districts. Nevertheless, most counties

are small. As shown in Exhibit A-2,

more than half (54 percent) of the 3,043 counties in the U.S. had a population of less than

25,000. Conversely, 6 percent had populations greater than 250,000.

While county government structures can vary, usually the principal governing body is the county

board, also known as the board of county commissioners or county commission. County boards

vary in size and method of election. Boards will often have members representing a specific

portion of the county, as well as those elected at large. The chair of the board is appointed by the

board members or elected by the voters. This board performs administrative functions, oversees

general administration of county services and functions, and conducts legislative functions such

as approving county budgets or local ordinances. While the county board may oversee many

county operations, counties will often have some departments, such as the sheriff, treasurers, or

school board, whose heads are elected directly by county residents. 

The county board often appoints a county administrator, or manager, to implement board

policies, and direct and supervise the administrative functions of county government. County

manager responsibilities may include appointing county officials, supervising all county offices

and departments, executing regulations, and submitting an annual budget to the board. Exhibit

A-3 presents the structure of Johnson County, Kansas, which is typical of a county management

structure.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-4 Appendix A

Bingham, Richard D. et al. Managing Local Government: Public Administration in Practice. SAGE Publications, Inc.: California, 1991, p. 42.

County

Recorder Coroner Board of CountyCommissioners Sheriff County Auditor

County

Administrator

Administrative

Assistant

Legislative

Liaison

Deputy

Administrator

Justice Affairs Community

Service Development HumanServices

Central

Services

Equal

Employment

Opportunity

Management

and Planning

Systems Group

Personnel Budget and

Management

Labor

Relations

Clerk of the

Board

Exhibit A-3. County Government Structure

(Johnson County, KS)

A.1.2 Subcounties

Subcounties include two specific types of governments: 1) municipalities and 2) townships. 

Municipalities and townships have the same definition, but are distinguished by the historical

circumstances regarding their incorporation. Both are organized local governments authorized in

state constitutions and statutes and established to provide direct general government for those

living a defined area. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

2

For the purposes of U.S. Census Bureau data and this document, municipalities include certain cities that are

completely or substantially consolidated with their county governments, operate outside the geographic limits of

any county, or for other reasons have no organized county government operations within their boundaries. The

following cities are included in this group: Anaconda (MT), Anchorage (AK), Athens (GA), Baltimore (MD),

Baton Rouge (LA), Boston (MA), Butte (MT), Carson City (NV), Columbus (GA), Denver (CO), Honolulu (HI),

Houma (LA), Indianapolis (IN), Jacksonville (FL), Juneau (AK), Lexington (KY), Lynchburg (TN), Nashville

(TN), New Orleans (LA), New York (NY), Philadelphia (PA), St. Louis (MO), Sitka (AK), San Francisco (CA),

and Washington, DC, as well as the "independent cities" in Virginia.

January 1999 A-5 Appendix A

Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of municipalities is that they are generally defined

by population. Municipalities can take several forms, but are most commonly organized as

cities, boroughs (except in Alaska), villages, and towns (except in Massachusetts, Connecticut,

Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin).2 In a

typical state, those municipalities that have the largest populations and areas are classified as

cities, while smaller municipalities are classified as towns or villages. The classifications are

important because they often determine the nature of certain municipal boards or commissions. 

However, these classifications are not permanent and can change as a municipality’s population

increases or decreases. 

Township governments (which include “towns” in Connecticut, Maine (including organized

plantations), Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire (including organized locations), New

York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin) are also organized by their state constitutions. In

contrast to municipal governments, townships are defined without regard to population. 

Townships typically include a central urban area and its surrounding rural area(s). Townships are

typically subdivisions of a county covering a predetermined land area, as a result of the

Congressional township system of identifying land, with the exception of New England towns,

where township size varies considerably. Township functions are almost identical to those of

municipalities. Some towns or townships permit voters to make policy through direct

participation in local meetings. Other towns perform few formal functions, relying on county or

state governments, or private organizations for public services.

Approximately 96 percent of all subcounty governments had populations of less than 25,000. 

Those same subcounty governments, however, accounted for 40 percent of the total population of

all subcounties. As shown in Exhibit A-4 and Exhibit A-5, the 53 subcounties with more than

300,000 people represented more than 20 percent of the population, but less than 1 percent of

total subcounty governments.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-6 Appendix A

Exhibit A-5. Percent of Total Subcounty

Governments by Population, 1992

Exhibit A-4. Subcounty Governments by Population Size, 1992

Size (based on

population)

Number of

Subcounty

Governments

Percent of Total

Subcounty

Governments

Population (in

millions)

Percent of Total

Population

<24,999 34505 96 82150 39.7

25,000 -

299,999

1977 3.8 81979 39.6

>300,000 53 0.0015 42,748 20.7

Totals 35,935 100.0 206,877 100

Source: 1992 Census of Governments. Government Organization, Volume 1, Number 4, Tables 7 and 8.

At the subcounty level, there can be a variety of potential government structures. The three most

common are:

C Commission

C Council-mayor

C Council-manager.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-7 Appendix A

Board of Directors

Executive

Director

Operations Personnel

Member 4

Member 1

Member 2

Member 5

COMMISSION

City Electorate

PLANNING

COMMISSION

Planning

Development Corporation

Utilities Streets Budget Parks

Water Housing Health

Member 3

Exhibit A-6. Commission Form of Subcounty Government

In the commission structure (see Exhibit A-6), a group of elected commissioners oversee the

city’s executive departments, with each commissioner heading a different specific department. 

Though commission forms of government may vary widely, all share several characteristics,

including small boards, at-large elections, and legislative and executive powers. The

commission possesses the authority to enact ordinances and establish spending (budget)

priorities; the commissioner is empowered to supervise administrative/executive departments

(public works, for example); and the mayor is elected from the ranks of the city council but has

few if any formal powers. The commission form of government gives both legislative and

administrative (executive) powers to one body. One drawback of this form is that commissioners

tend to become advocates of the departments they head, and that commissioners might not be

interested in issues that are not directly related to their specific department.

As shown in Exhibit A-7, in the council-mayor form of subcounty government, the mayor is the

chief executive or leader. Both the councilmen and the mayor typically are elected. The mayor -

- as the administrative/executive chief of the city -- is directly responsible for overseeing the

various city departments. The board of directors has the same responsibilities and links to the

council as in the other forms of subcounty government. Most mayors serve two- or four-year

terms and exercise a wide range of formal and informal powers. They have influence over city 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-8 Appendix A

Board of Directors

Executive

Director

Operations Personnel

Member 2

Member 1

Member 3

Member 4

COUNCIL

Partisan

Electorate

Mayor

PLANNING

COMMISSION

Planning

Development Corporation

Utilities Streets Budget Parks

Water Housing Health

Bingham, Richard D. et al. Managing Local Government: Public Administration in Practice. SAGE Publications, Inc.: California, 1991, p. 41.

Exhibit A-7. Council-Mayor Form of Subcounty Government

(Madison, WI)

council, oversee executive departments, enforce the law, resolve crises, and process citizen

complaints. Mayors that are selected by a city council typically exercise less power than an

elected mayor.

Finally, in the council-manager structure shown in Exhibit A-8, the elected city council has

policymaking/legislative responsibilities, and the city manager— a professional administrator— is

responsible for administrative (executive) functions. The city manager is appointed by the city

council to act as chief executive. In this manner, legislative and executive functions are

conducted by separate bodies. That is, the council develops policy, while the city manager

implements council initiatives and supervises personnel.

In this form of government, the mayor may be elected, or selected from within the city council,

but has few executive responsibilities. This form of government is one of the most popular,
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-9 Appendix A

Board of Directors

Executive

Director

Operations Personnel

Member 4

Member 2

Member 1

COUNCIL

City Electorate

PLANNING

COMMISSION

Planning

Development Corporation

Utilities Streets Budget Parks

Water Housing Health

Bingham, Richard D. et al. Managing Local Government: Public Administration in Practice. SAGE Publications, Inc.: California, 1991, p. 43.

Member 3

City

Manager

Member 5

Exhibit A-8. Council-Manager Form of Subcounty Government

(City of Rockville, MD)

particularly for small- and medium-sized cities and for suburban cities. However, few large

cities implement this form. This form is useful because it offers functional simplicity, clear lines

of authority, and utilizes professional experts.

A.1.3 Special Districts

Special district are local government units that perform one or more specific services that are not

being supplied by other government units. Special districts are known by a variety of titles,

including districts, authorities, boards, and commissions. A majority of special districts are

established to perform a single function, but some have been given authority to provide several,

usually related large-scale services such as water supply, wastewater treatment, or solid waste

management. They may exist within the boundaries of a single city, across city and county
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-10 Appendix A

boundaries, or across state lines. Special districts have been formed for a wide variety of

purposes, including:

C Sewer districts

C Water districts

C Irrigation districts

C Storm water management districts

C Regional solid waste authorities

C Water resource authorities

C Regional port authorities

C Regional air quality management districts

C Fire protection

C Vector control.

Examples of special districts include the Tennessee Valley Authority, which provides water,

electricity, and flood control services in the southeast, the Port Authority of New York/New

Jersey, which provides transportation services in New York and New Jersey, and the Sanitary

District of Decatur, which manages the sanitary sewer system in parts of several local

governments in Illinois. Exhibit A-9 presents the structure of the Sanitary District of Decator;

Exhibit A-10 presents the structure of the South Coast Air Quality Management District of

California, which is responsible for all aspects of air pollution control in four counties. 

Special districts are the fastest growing local government unit in the United States, comprising

more than 35 percent of all local government units in 1992, compared to 10 percent in 1952. 

This growth can be attributed to the benefits that other local governments see in developing

special districts as an alternative to the local government providing public services. Special

districts can often provide a service more efficiently, as their boundaries can be tailored to

provide services where they are specifically required. In addition, they are independent financial

entities, and thus are able to levy user fees or special assessments, rather than relying on taxes or

municipal bonds to fund their services.

While the Census Bureau does not provide population data for special districts, it does provide

data for the types of special districts. Special districts may be either a single-function or a

multiple-function district. A single-function district has been established to provide only one

service, such as sewerage or water supply, to the population it serves. More than 90 percent

(29,036) of all special districts are single-function in nature. The 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-11 Appendix A Executive Director Administrative Director Technical Director Engineering Director Accounting Human Resources Operations Laboratory Pretreatment Maintenance Outside Facilities Plant Engineer Special Project Board of Trustees Exhibit A-9. Structure of the Sanitary District of Decatur, Illinois
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-12 Appendix A Executive Officer General Counsel Stationary Source Compliance Technical Support Services Governing Board Technology Advancement Planning, Training, & Information Management Public Affairs & Local Government Assistance Legislative Office Finance Exhibit A-10. Structure of Special District (South Coast Air Quality Management District - California)
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-13 Appendix A

remaining special districts are multiple-function in that they provide a combination of services to

their populations. Exhibit A-11 presents data regarding the type and number of single-function

districts, as well as their percent of the total.

A.2 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET PROCESS

Local governments, like the federal and state governments, operate on a 1-year budget cycle. 

During that one year, it is the absolute responsibility of the local government to manage its

resources and, for the most part, determine how and when the budget is spent. The specific

budget can be developed by several different parties, depending on the structure of the local

government. Basically, there are two types of budget processes: 1) executive and 2) legislative. 

These processes are named for the party who develops the actual budget. Under the executive

process, the local government executive proposes a budget, which is then sent to the legislative

body for approval. This is the process used by the federal government. In the legislative process,

the local legislative body is responsible for proposing and approving the budget. In the cases of

local governments, the legislative body is usually the council or commission. This process is

practiced primarily by small local governments with a city (or similar) council.

1800

6228

3470

5260

1156

395

1710

3302

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Education

Natural

Resources

Housing

Public

Safety

Parks &

Recreation

Solid Waste

 Management

Sewerage

Water

Supply

Exhibit A-11. Types of Single-Function Special

Districts
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-14 Appendix A

As with any entity that operates on a budget, the local government is tasked with balancing its

incoming money (revenues) with its outgoing money (expenditures). To accomplish this task, a

local government may use one of three types of budgeting:

C Incremental budgeting - This is a process of setting annual appropriations based on the

previous year’s budget, with small changes, usually reflecting the rate of inflation. 

C Line-item budgeting - This process lists annual agency expenditures for items such as

salaries, equipment, supplies, maintenance, and contractual services. This most

resembles a traditional budget because it lists the item and cost of each item. This is the

type of budget employed by most local governments.

C Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (PPBS) - PPBS is a tool that requires

agencies to submit objectives and the most cost-effective manner to meet these

objectives. It is predicated on concepts such as cost-benefit analysis, program

budgeting, systems analysis, and cost effectiveness. Although not popular on the federal

level, PPBS may be practiced in the local level because of its efficiency. It has

generated more success in agencies that deal in material benefits rather than social

benefits.

A.3 REVENUE GENERATION

Local government revenue includes all the money it receives for use in providing services to its

population. These revenues are generated through several mechanisms, including:

C Taxes

C User fees

C Bond offerings

C Intergovernmental revenues

C Local government-owned utilities

C Employee retirement programs.

A.3.1 Taxes

Collecting taxes is the most common form of revenue generation associated with government at

all levels. The primary source of revenue for local governments is the assessment and collection

of property taxes. Property tax is a local levy on real or personal, tangible or intangible, property
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-15 Appendix A

(such as cars or real estate) collected once per year. Property taxes typically range from $.05 to

$4.50 per $100 of assessed value of the property. Sales tax is another major producer of

revenues for local governments. Sales tax is a levy on goods and services, derived as a

percentage of the price at the point of sale. The sales tax usually ranges from less than one

percent to five percent and can apply to most retail items and services. Local governments may

also implement local use taxes on hotels, automobile rentals or other items that are not

purchased. Use taxes are typically in the same percentage range as sales taxes. Local wage and

income taxes are another important source of local tax revenue. Income tax includes levies on

salaries, rents, interests, dividends, commissions, royalties, business profits, and other income. A

severance tax is sometimes levied on natural resources (e.g., minerals) extracted from the land. 

Severance taxes are mostly used in the West, Southwest, and South for revenue and conservation.

A.3.2 User Fees

User fees are levied on individuals and businesses who use various public services and are

frequently used to fund the specific service for which the fee was collected. The implementation

of user fees has increased in recent years as local governments have been forced to reduce their

reliance on property taxes as a major revenue source. User fees have also increased because they

help local governments track the fiscal efficiency of each operation or service. Examples of user

fees include the following:

• Sewage - Sewer system fees, including local hookup, maintenance, and use fees

C Drinking water - Fees based on water use, connection fees, and system development

changes

• Other sanitation - Trash collection fees and industrial waste charges

• Education - School lunches, adult education tuition, municipal college tuition, charges

for books, gymnasium uniforms or equipment

• Transportation - Road and bridge tolls, airport fees, water transportation fees, and

parking

• Health and hospitals - Hospital charges (including per diem rates and service charges),

ambulance charges, and inoculation charges
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-16 Appendix A

User Fees and Privatization

 Contracting solid waste management

services to private entities is becoming

increasingly popular with local

governments. Approximately 30% of

the solid waste management

operations are contracted out by local

governments. Depending on the

contract or privatization agreement,

user fees may be collected by the local

government, or directly by the

privatized entity.

• Parks and recreation - Parking charges, concession rental, golf course greens fees,

softball league enrollment fees, tennis class charges, day camp charges, admission

charges to municipal swimming pools, zoos, and museums

• Housing/community development - Rent from public housing, street light installation

charges, and convention center charges

• Electricity and natural gas usage.

A.3.3 Bond Offerings

A local government may also raise revenue through bond offerings. Bonds are basically an

“IOU” issued by the local government for a specific amount. Holders or “buyers” of the bonds

are promised full repayment of the IOU plus interest. Local government can offer both 1)

general obligation bonds, and 2) revenue bonds. General obligation bonds, often referred to as

guaranteed bonds, are backed by the local government, and as such, are deemed to involve less

risk to the bond holder. The lower risk to the bond holder allows the local government to pay

lower interest rates. Issuing general obligation bonds are the least costly method of borrowing

for the local government, but are usually subject to a voter referendum to approve a tax increase

to pay the interest on and fulfill the obligations of the bond.

A revenue bond is backed by the specific project it was issued to support. For example, if a local

government issued bonds to build a wastewater treatment plant, revenue generated from

operating the wastewater treatment plant (i.e., sewer use fees) would be used to pay the interest

on and fulfill the obligations of the bond. Similarly, revenue bonds may be issued for

construction of a landfill with the intention that tipping

fees will generate revenue to repay the bondholders. 

Because these bonds are not guaranteed by the local

government, they involve a higher risk, but pay higher

interest rates. A voter referendum is usually not

required to issue revenue bonds. Such bonds may be

either short or long term.

It should be noted that many state constitutions and

laws impose, or have the ability to impose, restrictions

on a local government’s debt limit. These limits are

usually calculated as a percentage of the total assessed
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-17 Appendix A

For sewer and wastewater

projects, most local governments

depend on local revenue bonds or

State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans

as their major sources of capital

funding, while relying on user fees

to fund annual operating

expenses.

Local Government-Owned Utilities

Many local government operations pay for

environment-related services such as water

supply and solid waste disposal as a utility,

funding them through user fees set to cover to

the costs of the operation. Rather than

operating out of general funds, solid waste

disposal facilities may be operated with the

goal of paying its own way or making a profit. 

Fees may be collected for residential pickup,

with surcharges for non-citizens, commercial

entities, and industrial disposers. In some

local landfills, citizens are allowed to dispose of

any nonhazardous or hazardous waste without

charge, while commercial entities are required

to pay a fee.

value of real estate within the local government’s boundaries. The debt limit generally ranges

from 5 to 10 percent.

A.3.4 Intergovernmental Revenue

Three forms of intergovernmental revenue can be provided

to local governments by government entities at the state

and federal level: 1) categorical grants, 2) block grants,

and 3) revenue sharing.

Categorical grants are tied to a specific program that the

federal government initiated. They allow little flexibility or discretion on the part of the recipient

(i.e., local government). The state revolving fund for wastewater treatment plant upgrades is an

example of a categorical grant. A block grant, or discretionary grant is under direction of a

national administrator. Block grants are available to local governments for a number of projects

within broad guidelines. An example of a block grant is the federal Community Development

Block Grant program, which can be used for almost any infrastructure improvement program.

In revenue sharing programs, local governments may receive a percentage of fees collected by

another government entity, such as state liquor revenues. Revenue sharing may also include

formula grants, where the recipient is allowed to receive and budget expenditures for assistance

based on an established formula. Often, these formula grants are awarded on the basis that the

funds must be matched (i.e., if the local government puts up $1,000 for a project, the state

government will provide an additional $1,000) by the recipient government. Federal and state

agencies will often provide formula grants for

road construction or environmental projects

that benefit more than one local government.

With each of these intergovernmental revenue

sources, the funding can be front-end funded or

funded through reimbursement. In front-end

funding, the donor gives assistance as soon as

the spending plan is approved. Funding

through reimbursement allows for more control

by the donor government because funds are not

given by the donor until the project is nearly

complete. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-18 Appendix A

Throughout this appendix, the term

environment-related is used to describe

categories of both revenues and expenditures. 

While nearly all operations conducted by local

governments have environmental aspects and

impacts, the ones identified below are

considered environment-related for the purposes

of this statistical overview:

C Natural resources

C Parks and recreation

C Sewerage

C Solid waste management

C Water supply (Note: The Census Bureau does

not break out data for water supply for counties

and subcounties; it does, however, provide

data for special districts.)

A.3.5 Utilities and Liquor

Utility and liquor revenue includes revenue generated through user fees or other revenues

generated by a government-owned water supply, electric light and power, gas supply, transit

system, or liquor store. It does not include other revenues, such as those generated by utilities

owned by the local government, but leased to other governments or persons, or other

commercial-type activities such a sport facilities, airports, housing projects, radio stations, steam

plants, ferries, or similar activities that are considered “general government activities.” Its also

excludes any revenue from taxes (including excise or liquor taxes), special assessments, and

intergovernmental revenue.

A.3.6 Employee Retirement Revenue

Employee retirement revenue includes contributions required of employees for financing

government administered employee-retirement systems (e.g., social security), earnings on

investments held for such systems, and the receipts of state payments for employees covered by

government systems. 

A.3.7 Use of Various Funding Sources

Few projects will use only a single revenue source. Capital or construction projects such as

building wastewater treatment plants or adding capacity to a water supply system are often

funded by debt or grants, while operating, maintenance, and employee costs are generally funded

through taxes or user fees. It should be noted

that although bond offerings are a major

revenue generator, they are not included in

the data presented in this appendix. They are

included as debt and discussed later in the

appendix.

Revenue generation varies not only by type of

government, but also by government size. 

Smaller local governments may depend

heavily on one or two revenue sources, while

larger local governments may have more

diverse sources. Funding also varies among

environment-related projects. Based on a
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-19 Appendix A

survey of small local governments conducted by EPA, it appears taxes are the most commonly

used method for funding storm water management, UST and AST programs, while water supply,

wastewater treatment systems, and solid waste handling and disposal are most often funded by

user fees. For more detail on local government financing of various environment-related

activities, see Results of the 1994 EPA Survey of Small Local Governments, EPA Publication

270-R-97-001, 1997.

In 1992 alone, local governments generated $679.4 billion in revenues. Of that amount, only 4

percent was generated through environment-related operations (Exhibits A-12). When

examining the environment-related revenues, approximately 60 percent was generated by solid

waste management.

Exhibit A-12. Environment-Related Revenues

for Local Governments: 1992-1993

Category of Revenue Revenues

(thousands of dollars)

Natural resources $495,014

Parks and recreation $3,193,308

Sewerage $6,913,062

Solid waste management $15,829,079

Total environment-related $26,430,463

Non-environment-related $652,998,192

Total local government revenues $679,428,655

Source: United States Total State and Local Government Finances by Level of Governments: 1992-1993.

Local governments will use a combination of funding sources for most of their operations and

services. Exhibits A-13, A-14, and A-15 provide examples of revenue generation for solid waste

management operations, special projects, and wastewater treatment operations. Note that within

each operation, individual activities may be funded by different sources. In particular, capital

projects are often funded through general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, or grants, while dayto-day operations are often funded through taxes and user fees.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-20 Appendix A

Landfill

Construction

Operation and

Management Trash Hauling

Private

Investment

Funds

General

Revenue

Project

Specific

Funds

User

Fees

General

Revenues

Special

Assessments

General

Revenues

User

Fees

User Fees

--tipping fees

--special waste

disposal fees

User Fees

--pickup fees

--special waste

disposal fees

--recycling fees

Exhibit A-13. Funding Municipal Solid Waste Operations

Charges/User Fees

Project Specific Funds

- Categorical Grants

- Revenue Bonds

- GO Bonds

PROJECT

Intergovernmental Funds

- Categorical Grants

General Funds

- Property Tax Revenues

- Sales Tax

- Block Grants

Exhibit A-14. Funding Special Projects
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-21 Appendix A Construction Operations and Management Upgrade General Revenues GO Bonds Revenue Bonds Categorical Grants Property Tax Sales Tax Block Grants Project Specific Funds Private Investor Funds Revenue Bonds User Fees Special Assessments GO Bonds Revenue Bonds Categorical Grants Exhibit A-15. Funding Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-22 Appendix A

A.3.7.1 County Government Revenue Generation

County government revenues increased by more than 130 percent from 1982 to 1992, or over

five times the rate of inflation. The most common methods of generating revenue are taxes and

intergovernmental revenue. These two financing methods provided more than 70 percent of the

$155 billion in total county government revenues in 1992. As indicated in Exhibits A-16 and A17, county governments have used each of the revenue sources in nearly the same proportions for

each of the periods shown.

Exhibit A-16. Revenues of County Governments (in millions of $)

Category of Expenditure 1991-1992 1986-1987 1981-1982

Intergovernmental 55,292 37,268 28,002

Taxes 55,463 37,341 22,970

Charges and miscellaneous 37,612 26,681 15,682

Utilities and liquor 2,025 1,426 874

Employee retirement revenue 4,027 3,159 1,092

Total county revenues 154,419 105,875 68,620

Source: 1992 Census of Governments, Volume 4, Number 2, Table 1
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-23 Appendix A

35.8%

1982

35.9%

24.4%

2.6%

1.3%

1987

40.8% 33.5%

1.3% 22.9%

1.6%

Intergovernmental

Charges and Miscellaneous

Utilities and Liquor

Employee Retirement Revenue

Taxes

1992

35.2%

35.3%

1.3% 25.2%

3.0%

Exhibit A-17. Revenue Sources for County Governments

1992, 1987, 1982
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-24 Appendix A

A.3.7.2 Subcounty Revenue Generation

Subcounty revenue generation increased slightly less than 100 percent between 1982 and 1992,

or nearly four times the rate of inflation. Subcounty revenue generation was spread more broadly

among the available methods than was county revenue generation. The three most commonly

used methods--intergovernmental revenues, taxes and user fees--accounted for 80 percent of all

revenues. As shown in Exhibits A-18 and A-19, taxes were the most common revenue source,

followed by intergovernmental revenues and user fees. 

Exhibit A-18. Revenues of Subcounty Governments

 (in millions of $)

Category of Expenditure 1991-1992 1986-1987 1981-1982

Intergovernmental 54,476 41,735 34,519

Taxes 88,801 63,675 42,427

Charges and miscellaneous 52,462 39,267 23,933

Utilities and liquor 37,021 29,839 21,286

Employee retirement revenue 14,121 10,529 3,483

Total subcounty revenues 246,881 185,045 125,648

Source: 1992 Census of Governments, Volume 4, Number 4, Tables 1 and 14

.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-25 Appendix A

Intergovernmental

Taxes

Charges and Miscellaneous

Utilities and Liquor

Employee Retirement Revenue

1992

22%

36%

21%

15% 6%

1987

22.5%

34.4%

21.2%

16.0% 5.6%

1982

27.5%

33.8%

19.0%

17.0%

2.7%

Exhibit A-19. Revenue Sources for Subcounty Governments

1992, 1987, 1982
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

1 Note that the “Utilities” category, while separate from “Charges and Miscellaneous,” also includes user fees, such

as water fees that are based on water use. If these fees were included, the total for user fees/charges would be

closer to 50 percent.

January 1999 A-26 Appendix A

A.3.7.3 Special District Revenue Generation

As with other local governments, a special district may generate revenue through any of the

mechanisms described above, as legislated in the special district’s charter.3 As shown in Exhibits

A-20 and A-21, charges and miscellaneous revenues (i.e., user fees) accounted for the largest

percentage of revenues for special districts in all three years shown. 

Exhibit A-20. Revenues of Special Districts (in millions of $)

Category of Revenue 1991-1992 1986-1987 1981-1982

Intergovernmental 14,843 10,783 8,271

Taxes 8,087 5,491 2,846

Charges and miscellaneous 27,502 20,847 12,687

Utilities and liquor 17,626 13,115 6,940

Employee retirement revenue 490 416 217

Total special district revenues 68,548 50,652 30,961

Source: 1992 Census of Governments, Volume 4, Number 2, Table 1
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-27 Appendix A

1992

40.1%

25.7%

21.7%

11.8%

0.7%

1987

41.2%

25.9%

21.3%

0.8%

10.8%

1982

41.0%

22.4%

26.7%

0.7%

9.2%

Intergovernmental

Taxes

Charges and Miscellaneous

Utilities and Liquor

Employee Retirement Revenue

Exhibit A-21. Revenue Sources for Special Districts

1992, 1987, 1982
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

4 As presented in EPA’s Community Water System Survey Volume 1: Overview (from all sources, total annual

revenues for publicly owned water supply are $22.2 billion).

January 1999 A-28 Appendix A

Special districts often collect user fees to generate revenue from the operation of water supply or

solid waste management systems. For example, 86 percent of the revenues to operate and

maintain publicly owned water systems are generated directly from the sale of water to

customers. Water systems also generate revenue through other types of water-related user fees

such as connection fees, inspection fees, and interest earnings. Exhibit A-22 illustrates the

significance of user fees in providing drinking water. Note that approximately two thirds of all

water supply districts generate revenue through user fees.4

Exhibit A-22 . Revenue Sources for Water Utility Special Districts*

Revenue Source No. of Special

Districts

Total number of water utility special districts 3302

Charges/User fees

Service charges and sales 2260

Special assessments 644

Taxes

District-wide property taxes 1475

Other taxes (sales, payroll, etc.) imposed by the

district

99

Intergovernmental revenues

Grants, shared taxes, rentals, and

reimbursements from other governments

861

* The number of special districts in each revenue category will not add up to the total since

 reporting districts may have more than one revenue source.

Source: 1992 Census of Governments, Volume 1, Number 1, Table 19

The 395 solid waste management special districts obtain nearly half of their revenues through

special assessments and service charges and sales. The remaining revenues for these special

districts come from district-wide property taxes, other taxes (sales, payroll, etc.) imposed by the

district, and grants, shared taxes, rentals, and reimbursements from other governments. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-29 Appendix A

Natural Resource Related Charges

9%

11%

13%

67%

Parks and Recreation

Solid Waste Management

Sewerage

Exhibit A-24. Revenues Collected Through

Environment-Related User Fees Collected By

Special Districts, 1992

In addition to being a significant revenue source for environmental projects, user fees from

environmental projects represent a significant source of revenue for the special district as a

whole. In 1992, as shown in Exhibit A-23, environment related user fees (not including utilities)

accounted for nearly $4.7 billion, or approximately 17 percent of the $27.5 billion total revenues

collected through charges and user fees, and 7 percent of $68.5 billion total revenues collected. 

Wastewater or sewerage fees accounted for the largest percentage of this revenue (see Exhibit A24).

Exhibit A-23. Environment-Related User Fee Collected by Special Districts, 1992

Type of User Fee Revenue

(in thousands of dollars)

Natural resource related charges 417,000

Parks and recreation 516,000

Solid waste management 599,000

Sewerage 3,147,000

Total user fees collected 4,679,000

Source: 1992 Census of Governments, Volume 1, Number 1, Table 19
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-30 Appendix A

A.4 EXPENDITURES

The expenditures incurred by a local government are those dollars it spends to provide services to

its population. Such expenditures can includes salaries for local government employees,

operation of facilities (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, libraries, schools), maintenance of roads

and sewer systems, social service programs, or debt on outstanding loans. Except in the case of

categorical grants or block grants that limit a local government’s discretion, it is the decision of

the local government how and when it expends its budget to the extent it is authorized under state

law. 

In 1992 alone, local governments expended approximately $685.3 billion. Of those

expenditures, approximately seven percent was spent on environment-related operations (see

Exhibit A-25). Within the environment-related expenditures, approximately 44 percent was

spent on sewerage.

Exhibit A-25. Environment-Related Expenditures of Local

Governments: 1992-1993 

Category of Expenditure

Amount 

(thousands of

dollars)

Natural Resources 2,653,440

Parks and Recreation 13,321,667

Sewerage 21,594,594

Solid Waste Management 11,412,627

Total environment-related 48,982,328

Non-environment-related 636,332,492

Total expenditures 685,314,820

Source: United States Total State and Local Government Finances by Level of Governments: 1992-

1993.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-31 Appendix A

A.4.1 County Government Expenditures

Counties expended more than $155 billion in 1991-1992. Of this, slightly more than 6 percent,

or $9.5 billion, was directed toward environment-related operations (see Exhibits A-26 and A27). This percentage was only a slight increase from 1981-82, when environment-related

operations accounted for just less than 6 percent of all expenditures. The largest increase in

expenses was for solid waste management, which increased nearly 400 percent between 1982 and

1992, or sixteen times the rate of inflation (note that the consumer price index increased 25

percent during this time period). Expenditures for natural resources and parks and recreation

increased by more than 100 percent, while expenditures for sewerage/wastewater treatment

increased by 80 percent.

Per capita data enable comparisons of expenditures across counties of different sizes. Exhibit A28 presents per capita data for environment-related expenditures, based on population size. 

Exhibit A-26. Environment-Related Expenditures of County Governments

(in millions of $)

Category of Expenditure 1991-1992 1986-1987 1981-1982

Natural Resources 1,562 1,203 666

Parks and Recreation 2,810 1,770 1,242

Sewerage 2,406 1,951 1,333

Solid Waste Management 2,711 1,356 680

Total Environment-related 9,489 6,280 3,921

Non-environment-related 145,825 96,959 63,186

Total County Expenditures 155,314 103,239 67,107

Source: 1992 Census of Governments, Volume 4, Number 3, Table 1
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-32 Appendix A

Natural Resource Related Charges

Parks and Recreation

Solid Waste Management

Sewerage

1991-1992

17%

30%

28%

25%

1986-1987

19%

28%

22%

31%

1981-1982

17%

32%

17%

34%

Exhibit A-27. Environment-Related Expenditures by Counties

1992, 1987, 1982
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-33 Appendix A

Exhibit A-28. Per Capita Environment-Related Expenditures of Counties

(in dollars) for 1991-1992, by Population

Population

Expenditures

Natural

Resources

Parks and

Recreation

Sewerage Solid Waste

Management

Average for all

counties

6.95 12.49 10.70 12.05

<10,000 13.32 7.49 3.55 11.38

10,000 - 24,999 6.41 5.17 1.81 9.73

25,000 - 49,999 6.16 4.69 2.57 10.77

50,000 - 99,999 4.43 5.92 4.95 11.36

100,000 -149,999 3.60 7.88 9.81 11.86

150,000 -249,999 3.82 10.31 9.74 9.97

250,000 -499,999 4.20 13.65 12.13 12.27

>500,000 10.08 18.83 16.12 13.44

Source: 1992 Census of Government, Government Finances, Finances of County Governments, Volume 4,

Number 3, Table 12

A.4.2 Subcounty Expenditures

In 1992, subcounty governments (which include both municipalities and townships, unless

otherwise noted) expended more than $246 billion. Of this, 13 percent was spent on

environment-related expenditures. Exhibit A-29 provides historic environment-related

expenditures for subcounties. It should be noted that by percent, environment-related

expenditures did not change significantly in comparison to total expenditures over the 10-year

period examined. As for the percentages of specific environment-related expenditures, they did

not change over the 10-year period either. It should also be noted that data for natural resources

were not available for subcounties. It was, however, available for municipalities only, and is

presented on the following page.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-34 Appendix A

Exhibit A-29. Environment-Related Expenditures of Subcounty Governments

1992, 1987, and 1982 (in millions of dollars)

Category of Expenditure 1991-1992 1986-1987 1981-1982

Parks and Recreation 9,032 6,343 4,342

Sewerage 15,439 9,803 6,906

Solid Waste Management 7,808 4,970 3,424

Environment-related 32,279 21,116 14,672

Non-environment-related 214,396 157,643 108,298

Total Subcounty Expenditures 246,675 178,759 122,970

Source: 1992 Census of Governments. Government Organization, Volume 1, Number 4, Tables 1 and 14

A.4.3 Municipal Government Expenditures

In 1992, municipalities expended $224.3 billion. Environment-related expenditures, which are

broken out below, accounted for 12 percent ($27.6 billion) of those expenditures. Specifically: 

C Sewerage expenditures totaled $12.4 billion, which is 45 percent of the environmentrelated expenditures, and 5.5 percent of total municipality expenditures

C Expenditures for parks and recreation totaled $8.4 billion, or 30 percent of environmentrelated expenditures, and 3.7 percent of total municipality expenditures 

C Solid waste management expenditures accounted for $6.6 billion or 24 percent of

environment-related expenditures, and 2.9 percent of total municipality expenditures 

C Natural resources expenditures totaled $196 million, or just 0.1 percent of all

environment-related expenditures and .01 percent of total municipality expenditures for

1992.

Water supply expenditures, which are not included in the above numbers, totaled $15 billion. 

This amount represents 7 percent of the total municipality expenditures for the year.

Exhibit A-30 presents per capita data for environment-related expenditures, based on population

size. It is generally noted that as population increased, so did the cost of environment-related
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-35 Appendix A

services per person. For a comparison of expenditures of some geographically and

demographically diverse municipalities, Exhibit A-31 presents the total environment-related

expenditures, as well as per capita data, for five municipalities in various locations around the

United States.

Exhibit A-30. Per Capita Environment-Related Expenditures of Municipalities 

(in dollars) for 1991-1992, by Population

Population

Expenditures

Natural

Resources

Parks and

Recreation

Sewerage Solid Waste

Management

Average for all

municipalities

1.28 54.67 80.69 42.89

<10,000 0.64 29.35 68.28 32.94

10,000 - 24,999 0.53 42.28 73.46 38.96

25,000 - 49,999 1.17 51.36 74.66 36.99

50,000 - 99,999 1.54 57.71 63.16 34.26

100,000 -199,999 1.35 60.93 69.10 41.42

200,000 -299,999 1.83 82.67 78.99 51.95

>300,000 1.94 70.99 108.46 57.76

Source: 1992 Census of Government, Government Finances, Finances of Municipal and Township Governments,

Volume 4, Number 4, Table 13

Exhibit A-31. Environment-Related Expenditures of Selected Municipalities, 1991-1992

Municipality Population

 (1990)

Parks and Recreation Sewerage and Solid Waste

Management

Expenditures

(in thousand $)

Per

Capita

Expenditures

(in thousands $)

Per 

Capita

City of El Paso, TX 515,342 21,427 41.57 55,890 108.45

Santa Barbara, CA 85,571 8,019 93.71 6,242 72.95

Seattle, WA 516,259 112,370 217.66 162,440 314.65

Homestead, FL 26,866 8,241 306.74 2,180 81.14

New York City, NY 7,322,564 360,889 49.28 1,608,624 219.68

Sources: United States City Governments Having 500,000 Population or more: 1993-1994; and 1992 Census of Governments,

Government Finances, Finances of Municipal and Township Governments, Volume 4, Number 4, Table 18.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-36 Appendix A

A.4.4 Special District Expenditures

Exhibit A-32 presents special district environment-related expenditures. Since 1982,

environment-related expenditures have accounted for approximately 20 percent of the total

expenditures for special districts, compared to 13 percent for subcounties and 7 percent for

counties. Exhibit A-33 provides additional detail on the environment-related expenditures for

1992, while Exhibit A-34 provides data on the purpose of the special district expenditures.

It should be noted that environment-related expenditures are considered differently for special

districts than they are for counties and subcounties. Since most special districts are single

function, their budget goes to providing for that one function only (e.g., sewerage). As such, the

comparison of environment-related expenditures to total expenditures basically provides a

comparison of environment-related special districts to total special districts. 

Exhibit A-32. Expenditures of Special Districts 1992, 1987, and 1982

(in millions of $)

Category of Expenditure

Number of

Single-function

Special Districts

1991-1992 1986-1987 1981-1982

Natural Resources 6,288 1,169 1,291 707

Parks and Recreation 1,156 1,624 1,138 670

Sewerage 1,710 5,375 3,695 2,634

Solid Waste Management 395 724 221 63

Water Supply 3,302 6,852 4,821 2,523

Environment-related 12,851 15,744 11,166 6,597

Non-environment-related 16,185 55,187 41,273 28,224

Total Special District Expenditures 29,036 70,931 52,439 34,821

Source: 1992 Census of Governments, Volume 4, Number 2, Table 1
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-37 Appendix A

Natural Resource Related Charges

Parks and Recreation

Solid Waste Management

Sewerage

Water Supply

1991-1992

7%

10%

5%

34%

44%

1986-1987

12%

10%

2%

33%

43%

1981-1982

11%

10%

1%

40%

38%

Exhibit A-33. Environment-Related Expenditures of Special District

1992, 1987, 1982
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-38 Appendix A

Exhibit A-34. Purpose of Special District Expenditures, 1992

 Expenditure

Percent of Expenditures

Operation Construction Other Capital

Outlays

Interest on

Debt

Natural Resources 80% 16% 4% -

Parks and Recreation 77% 18% 5% -

Sewerage 53% 45% 2% -

Solid Waste Management 77% 17% 6% -

Water Supply 50% 34% 2% 14%

Source: 1992 Census of Governments, Volume 4, Number 2, Table 6

B.5 CASH AND DEBT TRANSACTIONS

To meet the daily financial demands of operation and, when necessary, replace or expand

infrastructure, it is necessary for local governments to have immediate access to cash or

securities that can easily be converted to cash. Cash is defined as funds that can be used for

immediate cash disbursements, such as a checking account or actual currency. It is held by local

governments for a variety of reasons, including:

C Daily transactions, such as paying suppliers or creditors

C Maintaining credit ratings

C Meeting unexpected cash needs.

Securities are defined as governmental or private stocks, bonds, notes, or mortgages that can be

sold on short notice without loss of principal or original investment. Investing in securities is

generally thought of “as temporarily putting cash balances to work,” since the securities provide

a higher rate of return than do checking or savings accounts. Local governments may hold

securities to:

C Pay for employee benefit programs, such as unemployment compensation, employee

retirement, and worker’s compensation
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-39 Appendix A

C Finance seasonal or cyclical operations

C Meet known financial requirements.

Debt represents the amount of money a local government owes another entity, such as a bank,

individual, corporation, or other government unit. It is defined by the Census Bureau as all longterm credit obligations and all interest-bearing short-term credit obligations. Short-term debt is

defined as any liability originally scheduled for repayment within one year; it is generally

incurred in the course of normal operations. Types of short-term debt include:

C Accruals, which are defined as recurring costs of operations, such as wages and taxes

C Accounts payable (i.e., money owed for materials, resources, etc.)

C Bank loans, such as a line of credit or loan.

Long-term debt, defined as any liability with a repayment period greater than one year, can

generally be divided into two distinct groups--guaranteed and non-guaranteed. Guaranteed debt

has the “full faith and credit” of the local government, which means it is virtually risk free to the

entity who holds the debt paper. Types of guaranteed debt include mortgages, notes, and general

obligation bonds. Non-guaranteed debt does not have the “full faith and credit” of the local

government unit and is usually issued in the form of revenue bonds that have been offered for

capital improvements or construction. These types of bonds are paid back based on the ultimate

financial success of the specific project for which the bonds were issued.

Data on both local government cash and security holdings and debt are presented in Exhibits A35 and A-36.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 A-40 Appendix A

Government Sectors

Dollars

(Millions)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

County Subcounty Special

Districts

1981-1982

1986-1987

1991-1992

1981-1982

1986-1987

1991-1992

1981-1982

1986-1987

1991-1992

Cash Securities Employee Retirement

Funds

Exhibit A-35 Cash and Security Holdings of Local Governments

Dollars

(Millions)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

County

1981-1982

1986-1987

1991-1992

Subcounty

1981-1982

1986-1987

1991-1992

Special

Districts

1981-1982

1986-1987

1991-1992

Government Sectors

Long-term, Guaranteed Long-term, Non-guaranteed Short-term

Exhibit A-36. Debt of Local Governments
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 B-1 Appendix B

APPENDIX B

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public participation is a critical component of local government environmental compliance in

that it adds a layer of accountability to the performance of the local government. Public

participation ensures that citizens are informed of environmental issues affecting them and that

citizens are involved in decision-making processes from the outset, to avoid conflicts,

misunderstandings, and any consequent potential delays in municipal operations. Opportunities

for public participation involve a variety of activities that can be divided into two basic

categories: public outreach and education, and public involvement. Public outreach and

education tools are designed to increase the public’s awareness, in this case, of environmental

issues pertaining to municipal operations. Public involvement tools are designed not only to

inform the public, but also (as is implicit) to encourage activism and involve the public in

decision-making processes. Public involvement also is important to foster good relationships

and open communication between citizens, operators of municipal facilities, local governments,

and other stakeholders. Tools that fall under each of these categories are described in greater

detail below. 

B.1 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATIONAL TOOLS

Public outreach and educational tools are designed to gather and disseminate information and

increase awareness among the public. They are usually conducted through a variety of methods,

including:

C Electronic access to environmental information

C Training sessions

C Public service announcements

C Educational materials

C Public surveys

C Publications.

The following sections describe the various mechanisms used to facilitate public participation

and provide specific examples of each mechanism.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 B-2 Appendix B

B.1.1 Access to Environmental Information

Citizens, local governments, and industry can access environmental information in many

different ways. Hotlines, clearinghouses (accessible electronically or in-person), bulletin board

systems, and networks all exist to facilitate access to environmental information. 

For example, the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse operated by and located at

EPA’s Headquarters in Washington, D.C. provides information on a wide range of national, state

and local pollution prevention and environmental management topics geared toward a variety of

audiences. EPA also provides telephone hotlines on a variety of topics including safe drinking

water and related regulations/compliance/protection measures. The National Pollution

Prevention Center for Higher Education at the University of Michigan collects, develops and

disseminates educational materials on pollution prevention, primarily for industry, academia,

government and non-profit organizations. 

EnviroLink claims to be the largest on-line environmental information resource “on the planet.”

The EnviroLink Library contains a comprehensive listing of organizations, publications,

government agencies, and more on almost 200 environmental topics, organized by environmental

medium. The Sustainable Earth Electronic Library serves as a clearinghouse for environmental

related publications. EnviroLink’s Environmental Education Network is a clearinghouse of

environmental education materials. See www.envirolink.org for more details.

The Committee for the National Institute for the Environment operates an online National

Library for the Environment, which can be accessed at: www.cnie.org/nle. For the Chesapeake

Bay Program, the Chesapeake Regional Information Service (CRIS) furnishes a hotline that

thousands of citizens, students and teachers have used to find publications, fact sheets, technical

reports, referrals, and personal assistance to learn more about the Bay. The hotline can be

accessed by calling: 1-800-662-CRIS. 

The Great Lakes Information Network links data, information, and individuals in the Great Lakes

region via the Internet. Linked information providers include the Great Lakes Commission,

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory/NOAA, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,

Michigan State University, and many others on topics, such as the environment and natural

resources; commerce, industry, and the economy; and education. The Network provides fact

sheets, newsletters, draft documents for review, current events, and more. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 B-3 Appendix B

B.1.2 Training Sessions

Training can be provided to a variety of audiences including teachers, municipal and/or industry

representatives and the general public. Training can be presented through workshops, seminars,

or conferences. Increasingly, training courses are provided to a select group of local trainers who

then train others and thereby create on-going, sustainable education programs. This latter format

is known as “training-the-trainer.” 

In 1995, the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation, in conjunction with

five other federal agencies, held a workshop entitled “Sustaining Healthy Ecosystems: Building

Partnerships for the Future.” This workshop brought together representatives from public and

private organizations to work toward the design of an ecosystem management education program

for various target audiences. Workshop participants reviewed critical ecosystem concepts for

environmental education, defined target audiences, identified existing materials, and determined

strategies for teaching ecosystem management educational concepts and programs. This

workshop was designed to develop a strategy to teach ecosystem management; the products of 

this workshop could include training sessions that teach these concepts to public citizens, and

private, public and non-profit organizations. 

One Chesapeake Bay Program activity involved four workshops for residents of the Susquehanna

watershed entitled “Into the Susquehanna, Into the Chesapeake.” These workshops were

designed to educate residents on the impacts of their pollution not only for the Susquehanna

River, but often ultimately for the Chesapeake Bay. The workshops identified the variety of

general sources of pollution; exposed pollutant pathways from a typical home to these water

bodies; and the impacts of such pollutants on these water bodies, particularly on water quality

and on wildlife. A major activity of the workshops was a “hands-on” project of painting the

sewers and drains with “Chesapeake Bay Drainage” stencils as a constant reminder to area

residents of the final destination of their pollution. 

Other examples of actual training programs already in existence are as follows. In Michigan, for

instance, the Department for Environmental Quality’s Environmental Assistance Division

provides outreach and training activities to Michigan municipalities, institutions, businesses, and

the general public on topics such as technical compliance, pollution prevention, waste reduction,

clean air, innovative technology and site redevelopment. The Illinois Department of Energy and

Natural Resources sponsored a major conference on energy-efficient residential construction. 

The conference was cosponsored by ENR and the Energy Resources Center of the University of

Illinois at Chicago. For more information contact: Jan Halford, (217) 785-3412.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 B-4 Appendix B

B.1.3 Public Service Announcements

Public service announcements are designed to inform the public about events that have occurred

or will occur, and promote these upcoming events and/or products, using the various media

(radio, television, press). In Washington, the Department of Ecology produced 30-second public

service announcements for local radio stations across the state to inform the public about Earth

Day and related events, and thereby promote environmental awareness and encourage public

participation in environmental activities. The message asked listeners, "during April, try one

new way to help the environment." The Department of Ecology also discussed television

coverage with local television stations. Press releases were distributed to media statewide. In

addition, county/city coordinators sent Earth Day packets in response to 1-800-RECYCLE

requests from citizens in their area.

As another example, to follow up on a number of television newscasts on energy efficiency, the

North Carolina Energy Division decided to expand its energy awareness program through

television programming. In October, the Division began a television series on various

energy-related issues affecting state residents. The first one-hour show gave viewers an

understanding of the energy regulatory process in North Carolina. Another show had a "how-to"

format that provided a wide variety of measures that homeowners and businesses can take to save

energy and reduce their energy bills. The second show was timed to encourage energy

conservation measures before the onset of winter. Other TV shows slated for the future include

discussions on day lighting, renewables, energy efficiency on the farm and another how-to show.

The shows are done through the North Carolina Agency for Public Telecommunications, which

is a state agency. 

B.1.4 Educational Materials

Dissemination of educational materials means distribution of these materials. Dissemination can

occur at the federal, state, and local levels on a variety of environmental topics pertaining to all

environmental media. Dissemination of information on any topic or issue facilitates access to

information on that subject. Information dissemination thereby heightens awareness of the target

audience -- in this case, the public/local audiences, encourages public involvement and, in some

cases, promotes behavior change. Dissemination can occur electronically via the Internet;

through physical distribution of pamphlets and brochures (e.g., via mail); and through local

businesses or organizations that serve as distribution centers, (e.g., libraries, grocery stores,

utilities, and environmental organizations). 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 B-5 Appendix B

One outreach program, the “Planet Protection Program,” is run by EPA’s Atlanta office and the

National Retail Hardware Association. EPA’s local office provides (i.e., disseminates)

educational materials and point-of-purchase displays to 46,000 hardware stores and home centers

to encourage consumers to buy energy-efficient home products. 

Similarly, municipal facilities (e.g., utilities) can disseminate information to consumers to

promote energy conservation and environmental protection. Electric utilities, for example, often

include information that is mailed along with monthly billing statements regarding installation of

compact flourescent lighting (CFLs) to save energy, and ultimately save on electric bills and the

cost of replacement bulbs. Utilities will often conduct free home audits to identify measures

such as this one that will reduce energy use and save money. Other measures include use of

newer, energy-efficient refrigerators. Home/office insulation improvements can be made to

reduce heating costs and energy loss. 

The Water Environment Federation sells bill stuffers (mailers) that utilities can include with

monthly billing statements on topics such as groundwater protection, water recycling, disposal of

household hazardous wastes, and more. WEF also publishes brochures, magazines, and other

outreach and educational materials. Over one million copies of the brochure, “Nature's Way:

How Wastewater Treatment Works For You,” have been distributed to municipalities,

corporations, and consultants who want to provide consumers with an overview of the

wastewater treatment process. 

B.1.5 Public Surveys

A survey or poll is one method of collecting information directly from people about people

usually through the use of a written questionnaire or an in-person or telephone interview. 

Information obtained through surveys provides descriptions of individuals’ ideas and feelings

regarding a particular issue; knowledge of an issue; beliefs; social, education, and economic

background; and plans for the future. 

The Chesapeake Bay Attitudes Survey identified a difference between the public perception of

the Bay’s problems and the realities. The public identified industrial pollution as the primary

source of the Bay’s contamination; in reality, nutrient pollution poses the greatest risk to the Bay. 

Using the results of this survey, the Bay Program can educate the public to rectify this

misconception, heighten awareness, and encourage greater involvement in restoring the estuary

and preventing further pollution. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

1

 ICLEI is designed to serve as an international clearinghouse on sustainable development and environmental

protection policies, programs, and techniques being implemented at the local level; to initiate joint projects or

campaigns among groups of local governments; to organize training programs and publish reports and technical

manuals on state of the art environmental management practices; and to serve as an advocate for local government

before national and international governments, agencies and organizations to increase their understanding and

support of local environmental protection and sustainable development activities. 

January 1999 B-6 Appendix B

B.1.6 Publications (newspaper articles/newsletters/journals)

Countless publications, articles, and magazines contain articles on the environment as a forum

for informing the public about items ranging from regulations to events/conferences,

environmental degradation, remediation efforts, and sustainable development efforts. EPA’s

Landfill Methane Outreach Program is designed to recover methane from landfills to use the

methane for energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). EPA recognizes program

participants and increases public awareness of state, utility and industry efforts to reduce GHGs,

while developing an alternative energy source, through newsletters, articles, media events, and

public service advertisements. 

For example, Pollution Prevention Northwest is a newsletter published bimonthly by the Pacific

Northwest Pollution Prevention Research Center (PPRC). This newsletter regularly contains the

following sections: Featured Topics (up to three each month), which contains in-depth articles on

selected topics; Pacific Northwest Government Newswatch - summaries of pollution prevention

related activities occurring in the government agencies of the Pacific Northwest; Pollution

Prevention Digest - short bits of interesting information on pollution prevention from around the

country; a P2 Calendar - listing of some major meetings and conferences related to pollution

prevention; and About the PPRC - a brief introduction to the PPRC, including contact

information.

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is the international

environmental agency for local governments. ICLEI was established in 1990 through a

partnership of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Union of Local

Authorities, and the Center for Innovative Diplomacy.1 ICLEI publishes a newsletter, Initiatives,

that disseminates information to its members and to the general public.

B.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TOOLS

Public involvement tools differ from public outreach in that they actually give citizens an

opportunity to take part in decision-making and information gathering. Such mechanisms for

public involvement include:
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 B-7 Appendix B

C Public meetings

C Community visioning/brainstorming

C Citizen/volunteer monitoring

C Citizen advisory groups/committees

C Referenda.

The remainder of this section discusses each of the above public involvement tools and provides

specific examples of each.

B.2.1 Public Meetings

Public meetings provide a forum for citizens and members of different agencies, groups, and

associations to come together to share information and voice opinions regarding a particular issue

and address the issue at hand using an organized, inclusive approach. For example, the Southern

Appalachian region is experiencing degradation of environmental resources, due to human

development pressures. An assessment was conducted to acquire information on the ecosystems,

determine the actual extent of environmental damage, and examine development trends. Public

meetings were held to solicit public concerns regarding terrestrial health, atmospheric quality,

aquatic environments, and social/cultural/economic issues. Citizens and members of national,

state, and local agencies cooperated to create a vision to manage resources in the region in a

sustainable, balanced manner. Based on the concerns raised and on this vision, technical teams

were established to address individual issue areas and promote sustainable ecosystem

management. 

An EPA Region 5 “Gateway” initiative has resulted in a consent decree with Trade Waste

Incinerator (TWI) (Sauget, Illinois), which included a $200,000 allocation for the disposal of

tires and other garbage that have accumulated in vacant lots and abandoned housing. 

Fly-dumping (the unauthorized disposal of construction and household waste material) is one of

the Gateway community's highest concerns. Town meetings will be held to enable community

members to provide input as to where TWI will place large disposal containers within East St.

Louis, Alorton and Washington Park.

B.2.2 Community Visioning/Brainstorming

Community visioning involves uniting stakeholders (public, private, and civic) from across a

community to create a vision for the future, define short and long term goals, and, in most cases,

establish plans or a strategy for action. Community visioning may also be referred to as strategic
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 B-8 Appendix B

planning, because visioning projects inherently are planning projects (rather than

implementation). Community visioning/planning is based on a form of group dialogue that relies

on conflict resolution facilitation that attempts to build on decisions and ideas that are reached by

group consensus. Community visions are designed to reflect the full range of values of the

community’s members, as well as a community’s social, physical, and economic strengths and

needs. (Note that visions will include impacts (e.g., physical) that are both positive and

negative.) In certain instances, visioning/planning initiatives may be comprehensive, in terms of

including planning and implementation. 

Chattanooga, Tennessee, was voted as the city with the worst air pollution in the United States in

1969. Its residents also faced deep problems of job layoffs, a deteriorating city infrastructure,

racial tensions and social division. Recognizing these recurring and deeply impacting problems,

several community leaders, including people from the Chamber of Commerce and the City's

Planning Commission, created Chattanooga Venture - a nonprofit organization with the goal of

using city-wide planning, with the full participation of the community, to restore the City’s air

quality and develop a model of environmental, economic, and social maintainability.

Chattanooga Venture's first monumental task was to design and implement a project called

"Vision 2000," which brought together more than 1700 people, to take part in city planning over

a four-month period in 1984. During a series of meetings led by involved community members

trained in facilitation, strategic visioning, and nominal group technique processes, community

members were encouraged to dream about the way they wanted their city to be, and to organize

these dreams and ideas into a formal list of shared ideals. The community participants

collectively set goals and established priorities for improving their city. Diverse groups of

community members brainstormed, debated, categorized and organized their concerns. The result

of the many community meetings was a set of 40 goals for the city to achieve by the year 2000.

These goals fell under the categories of future alternatives, places, people, work, play and

government. The goals ranged from creating a distribution and transportation center to

strengthening the downtown area to solving air, water, toxic waste and noise pollution problems. 

Today, many of these original goals have been realized. 

The action from the goals led to 223 projects and programs with an investment in the community

of more than $800 million, and the creation of 1,381 jobs and 7,300 temporary construction jobs. 

Because of the success of this visioning process, it is currently being modeled in cities

throughout the United States as well as internationally. Chattanooga Venture has compiled a

step-by-step guide for community groups to assist them with brainstorming, visioning,
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 B-9 Appendix B

developing plans, and making choices. The projects that have resulted are varied in scope, but all

work to create a more sustainable community - as defined by the people who live there. 

Environmental problems, the impetus for this community-wide action, led to the creation of the

Environmental City project, which is working for the expansion or relocation of "clean industry"

(unpolluting) to the area, the retention of environmentally sound businesses, and the creation of

environmental awareness throughout the city. Public/private partnerships have proven extremely

successful in the Environmental City project. The Chattanooga Environmental Initiative, another

project, strives to have the city become the nationwide center for environmental information and

business and is complemented by clean air work to maintain EPA standards (which have been

met since 1988) and create a zero emissions industrial park; electric bus technology, which has

led to the creation of the largest fleet of free, electric buses in the U.S. and free public parking

downtown; and the Greenways Planning Project, which is creating a network of protected areas

of open space and linear parkways through eight counties. 

Information communication has been paramount to all of these projects. The Chattanooga News

Bureau serves as a central source of information for the community projects and is remarkably

active in initiating, coordinating, and facilitating regional, national and international news

coverage on stories from Chattanooga and the surrounding area. Nearly a hundred cities from

around the world have solicited information on economic development and urban design, the

Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterprise, the electric buses, community visioning and citizen

involvement. There is also an initiative to create a Chattanooga Community Link, which would

share information online for all interested community members and further provide the essential

local-global link to the many sustainable community initiatives in Chattanooga. 

Another example involves communities in Hawaii that are developing proactive visions and

strategic initiatives aimed at a sustainable future (i.e., one that promotes development of local

economies while protecting resources). These communities are using a new communications

structure (i.e., consensus-based) and modern technology to transfer information within and

among communities across the globe to help achieve such visions. Promoting sustainable

tourism would be one method for achieving sustainable development in Hawaii. 

B.2.3 Citizen/Volunteer Monitoring

Citizen monitoring involves citizens in environmental compliance by having them participate in

monitoring programs and activities, such as water quality monitoring, ground water protection,

environmental cleanup activities, or even voluntary environmental audits.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 B-10 Appendix B

The Chesapeake Bay Program encourages citizen/volunteer monitoring through a variety of

activities. One project, conducted in Quarryville, PA, aimed to demonstrate the value of

establishing erosion control measures along streams flowing into the Chesapeake Bay, and

procedures for preserving and increasing aquatic life through various stream bank conservation

control measures. A significant component of this project involved teaching high school students

the importance of stream monitoring and development of water sampling protocols. Once stream

bank conservation control measures had been implemented, the students took water samples

every two weeks and tested for nitrates, phosphates, pH, dissolved oxygen, water and air

temperature, and established a baseline for chemical and physical parameters for the site. The

sustenance of invertebrates indicated the stream was capable of supporting all forms of aquatic

life and provided an ideal marine freshwater habitat.

Audits are assessments or site visits that are conducted to identify areas where environmental

improvements or conservation measures can be undertaken. Increasingly, audits are designed to

use a holistic approach to environmental management, and beyond that, to incorporate

environmental management into overall business management procedures and decision-making

processes. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, for example, encourages

companies, local governments and individuals to diagnose and remedy environmental problems

by voluntarily conducting environmental compliance audits. Problems disclosed and corrected

are not penalized.

B.2.4 Citizen Advisory Groups/Committees

A citizen’s advisory committee serves as a forum for a municipal entity or business to interact

and work cooperatively with the surrounding community. The Ohio Prevention First is a

voluntary planning initiative for business, industry, municipalities, and citizens to help reduce the

amount of pollution generated throughout Ohio. The goal of the Ohio Prevention First initiative

is to reduce pollution in Ohio by 50 percent by the year 2000. One effort that can be undertaken

to achieve this goal involves the formation of citizen advisory committees to work cooperatively

with local government or industry on environmental action plans or pollution

prevention/pollution reduction programs that address one or more types of pollution.

The goal of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement is to reduce the nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus

entering the Chesapeake Bay as part of an overall program to restore and protect this estuary (and

its resources). A local government advisory committee was formed to communicate information

about the ongoing and evolving Chesapeake Bay Program activities to local governments. The

committee also is responsible for communicating the opinions, concerns, and recommendations
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 B-11 Appendix B

of local governments to the Chesapeake Executive Council. In addition, the committee provides

comments on strategies and other documents, giving a local perspective on Bay issues. The

committee also provides a forum for the Executive Council to disseminate information to local

governments. 

B.2.5 Referenda

Initiatives or referenda are binding laws that are initiated by, or referred to, the public for

approval or rejection, usually by petition or popular vote. The Washington Department of

Ecology and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced they will spend $700,000 this year to

begin the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. This is the first expenditure in an

effort that could cost $185 million over the next ten years to improve water supply for irrigation

and increase flows for fish. Voters approved a referendum for state funding ($50 million bond)

for initial improvements in irrigation water systems. 

As shown throughout this chapter, public outreach/education and public involvement tools can

be used for the different types of municipal operations discussed in this document. Most of these

tools can be tailored to a variety of these operations and are useful in a variety of settings. A

range of tools is provided here, so that the most appropriate tool(s) can be selected for each

specific situation and for each type of operation.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 C-1 Appendix C

APPENDIX C

EXAMPLES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

POLLUTION PREVENTION AND PURCHASING PROJECTS

C.1 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

The City and County of San Francisco employs an active pollution prevention program focused

on reducing the amount of hazardous waste generated, as well as decreasing the amount of

pollutants that enters the City’s sewer system. The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer’s

Hazardous Waste Management Program started pollution prevention activities in 1988 in

response to passage of a 1986 state law that authorized counties to develop County hazardous

waste management plans for the reduction and management of hazardous waste to the year 2000. 

The program was initially established to target specific small businesses that had the potential to

significantly reduce waste, to minimize illegal disposal, and to achieve the year 2000 goal of 10

to 40 percent waste reduction. (In San Francisco, small quantity generators generate most of the

hazardous waste.) The program now also focuses on larger businesses extending its on-site

assessments and information to all businesses in the City and County. It also addresses

hazardous waste generated by City agencies and households through multimedia pollution

prevention information. 

The Department of Public Work’s Bureau of Environmental Regulation and Management created

a Water Pollution Prevention Program (WPPP) in 1990 as a result of criteria outlined in the

City’s “Best Management Practices Implementation Plan,” which was required by the City’s

Oceanside NPDES permit requirements. The WPPP was charged with qualifying and

quantifying the City’s pollutants of concern, identifying the pollutants, developing and

implementing source reduction/pollution prevention strategies, and initiating evaluation

methodologies to determine the effectiveness of the program. Its activities target business,

industry, and residential sectors through educational and technical assistance materials. 

D.2 BROWARD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION, FLORIDA

The Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection established its Pollution

Prevention Section of the Pollution Prevention and Remediation Programs Division in 1992 as a

non-regulatory program with the mission of encouraging businesses to operate more efficiently,

comply with regulations, and prevent pollution at the source. This multi-pronged program

focuses its pollution prevention efforts on both the business community and County facilities. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 C-2 Appendix C

The section’s program approaches pollution prevention from two angles: 1) collaborate with

regulated business and the industrial community, and 2) set an example by examining pollution

prevention opportunities in County buildings and operations. The department hopes to

accomplish environmental protection through voluntary pollution prevention and increased

regulatory compliance. Through its Pollution Prevention in County Operations Program and

Pollution Prevention and Best Management Practices (P2-BMP), which is a collaborative

approach to regulatory compliance and pollution prevention in the regulated community, the

pollution prevention section hopes to help the County achieve its goals. The program has three

P2-BMP programs in place: 1) the marine facilities P2-BMP, 2) the metal finishing facilities P2-

BMP, and the automobile salvage yards P2-BMP. 

C.3 LINCOLN-LANCASTER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, NEBRASKA

The Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department (LLCHD) runs a pollution prevention program

that integrates pollution prevention into all of its media programs, thereby moving up the waste

management hierarchy to prevent the generation of waste. The program evolved from a waste

disposal permitting program that began in 1986. The program stemmed from a recommendation

of their local Hazardous Pollutants Advisory Committee to define public concerns and issues

dealing with threats to environmental health. As a result, LLCHD has formed the following

programs to infuse pollution prevention into all its activities. 

The department has a pollution prevention program that increases public awareness of chemical

toxicity in relation to decisions made on product purchase, use, handling, storage, and disposal. 

LLCHD has also integrated pollution prevention into the following programs: special waste

program (regulatory and toxics use on-site assistance); household hazardous waste program

(identification and reduction of public chemical consumption); outdoor air quality program

(small business technical assistance on multimedia pollution prevention information to improve

air quality); water-wastewater program (pollution prevention in planning new subdivisions and

sewer extensions); wellhead protection program (identification of potential contamination

sources and on-site farm pollution prevention assessments); clean community system (education

displays on non-point source water pollution for schools, citizen groups, and neighborhoods);

and special recognition program.

C.4 CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA

The City of Santa Monica, California, transformed its purchasing practices to promote

environmentally-friendly products without compromising performance standards or budgetary
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 C-3 Appendix C

requirements. As a result, Santa Monica has reduced its annual use of chemicals considered to

be hazardous or toxic by 3,200 pounds and has proven the City’s commitment to provide a safe

and healthy environment for its employees and the public. Other accomplishments include:

C Replaced cleaning products with less toxic or nontoxic alternatives in 15 or 17 product

categories, reducing spending on custodial products by approximately 5 percent

C Reduced pesticide use by developing an effective integrated pest management system

covering all City facilities, saving 30 percent in pest management costs

C Purchasing re-refined motor oil, which costs up to 25 percent less than virgin motor oil,

for all vehicles maintained by the fleet maintenance division and using less-toxic, waterbased brake cleaners and parts washers 

C Powering 20 percent of its 585-vehicle fleet with less-polluting alternative fuels,

including compressed natural gas, electricity, and propane

C Purchasing a wide range of recycled products, including office paper, recycled paint,

trash can liners, and retread tires.

For more information about Santa Monica’s environmental purchasing efforts, including

specifications for Integrated Pest Management and custodial products, contact Deborah Raphael

of the Environmental Programs Division at 310-458-2255. To receive a copy of the Santa

Monica Environmental Purchasing Case Study, contact the U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention

Information Clearinghouse at 202-260-1023 or E-mail: ppic@epamail.epa.gov To learn more

about local government environmental purchasing, contact the National Association of Counties

(NACo) Environmental Purchasing Project, 202-393-6226 or

www.naco.org/programs/environ/purchase.cfm 

NACo’s Environmental Purchasing Project assists counties with environmental purchasing

initiatives and is developing a clearinghouse of information including model purchasing

resolutions, sample product specifications, case studies, environmental criteria, and product

resources.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 C-4 Appendix C

Resources

“Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties: A Compendium of Case Studies,” NPPR, 

NACo, NACCHO and U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1995. 

U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse, 401 M Street, SW (7409), 

Washington, DC 20460 (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2home)

Enviro$en$e, U.S. EPA Operations Research Development Division, 401 M Street, SW (MC8722R), Washington, DC 20460 (http://www.epa.gov/envirosense)

National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, 2000 P Street NW, Suite 708, Washington, DC 20036

(http://www.p2.org)

National Association of Counties, 440 First Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 

(http://www.naco.org)

National Association of City and County Health Departments, 440 First Street NW, Suite 450, 

Washington, DC 20001

U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1620 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 

(http://www.usmayors.org/uscm)

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 801, 

Washington, DC 20036 (http://aceee.org)
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

1

This matrix may include some activities that are not specifically discussed in Chapter 3.

2

This table indicates whether federal requirements may apply. Even if federal requirements do not apply, state requirements may apply. The

local government needs to be aware of state requirements.

January 1999 D-1 Appendix D

APPENDIX D

STATUTORY MATRIX OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

AND ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES1

OPERATION

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES2

CWA CAA CERCLA EPCRA FIFRA RCRA TSCA SDWA NEPA ESA RHA

3.3 CONSTRUCTION/PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

3.3.1 General Activities

1. Zoning issues

2. Coordination of activities

(e.g., BMPs) across

local governments

3. Planning and design

(apply EMS concept)

4. Monitoring contractors

Although there are no specific federal requirements, these activities can affect the significance of

the environmental impacts associated with local government operations. When conducting these

activities, the local government should consider the potential environmental impacts.

3.3.2 Roads/Bridges/

Tunnels

U U U U U U U U

3.3.2.1 New Construction U U U U U

Clearing and grading

activities U U U

Storm water management

(e.g., stream stabilization)

Erosion and sediment

(E&S) control 

U

Dredging (wetlands) U

Road spoils/debris disposal

(if hazardous) U

Redoing utility (power, gas,

sewer) lines (in wetlands) U

New construction (roads) U U

Fly ash in concrete

(hazardous wastes

mixed in asphalt/

concrete)

U

Laying asphalt U

Recycling asphalt

(make up mineral

content by adding

shredded glass,

slag); VOCs from

asphalt

U
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

OPERATION

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES2

CWA CAA CERCLA EPCRA FIFRA RCRA TSCA SDWA NEPA ESA RHA

3

 Under State Implementation Plan.

January 1999 D-2 Appendix D

New construction (curbs

and sidewalks) U U U

Concrete laying

Chemicals used to

harden sidewalks

U U U

Noise abatement No specific federal regulatory requirements.

Dust control U

3.3.2.2 Maintenance and

Renovation U U U

Street sweeping U

Maintaining storm sewers

and impoundments U See Section 3.7— Wastewater Management.

Salt application and

removing snow U

Painting (e.g., guardrails)

Removing and disposing of

lead-based paints

U U

3.3.2.3 Traffic

Management

Design (e.g., painting,

speed bumps, yield

signs preferable to stop

signs)

U

3 U

Modeling air pollution U

3

Traffic boxes

Old batteries (e.g.,

replace Pb batteries with

solar packs)

U

3.3.3 Buildings U U U U U U U

3.3.3.1 New Construction See New Construction under Section 3.3.2— Roads/Bridges/Tunnels.

3.3.3.2 Maintenance and

Repair U U U U U U

Monitoring indoor air quality No specific federal regulatory requirements.

Boiler operations

(hazardous waste fuels,

used oil for fuel)

U U U U U

Cooling systems/CFCs U U U

Pesticide application See Section 3.4— Pesticide/Vector Management.

Energy conservation issues No specific federal regulatory requirements.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

OPERATION

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES2

CWA CAA CERCLA EPCRA FIFRA RCRA TSCA SDWA NEPA ESA RHA

January 1999 D-3 Appendix D

Fluorescent bulbs No specific federal regulatory requirements.

Mercury-containing

bulbs U

Mercury-thermostat

(covered under

Universal Waste rule)

U

Parking lots/storm water

management U

Chemical

storage/hazardous

materials management

(e.g., paints, solvents)

U U U

Management of generated

wastes U U

Food wastes (school

cafeterias) U

Laboratory/medical

wastes (schools,

coroner’s office, police

department)

U U

Laundry (jails) U U

Furniture finishing (jails) U U

3.3.3.3 Renovation and

Demolition U U U U

Building dewatering/

contaminated groundwater U

Demolition wastes

Pressure-treated wood U

Asbestos U U

Lead-based paint U U

3.3.4 Outdoor Recreation

Facilities (including

stadiums and golf course)

U U U U U U U

3.3.4.1 New Construction See New Construction under Section 3.3.2— Roads/Bridges/Tunnels.

3.3.4.2 Facility

Maintenance and

Renovation

U U U U U U U
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

OPERATION

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES2

CWA CAA CERCLA EPCRA FIFRA RCRA TSCA SDWA NEPA ESA RHA

January 1999 D-4 Appendix D

Swimming pool

Adjusting ozone,

chlorine, and chemical

composition

Testing for and adjusting

pH

Maintaining and

repairing filter systems,

recirculation pipes,

valves, fittings, and

pumps (welding,

brazing, fabricating)

Operation of electrical

and heating systems

Solid waste

management

Backwashing filters,

circulating water, and

filter water

Installing, maintaining,

and repairing electronic

control systems and

timers

Drainage issues

(pretreatment program)

Chemical storage/

hazardous materials

management (e.g.,

chlorine)

Parking lots (storm

water management)

U U U U U

Stadium, playing field, and

golf course

Field maintenance

Watering, fertilizing,

resodding, pesticide

spraying, mowing,

aerification, soil

sampling, overseeding,

weed control

Planting, pruning trees

and shrubs

Mowing fields, operating

hydraulic mowers, lawn

sweepers, forklifts,

skiploaders, small

tractors, self-propelled

roller compactors,

renovators, verticutters,

top dressers, paint

sprayers, aerifiers, sod

cutters, rototillers, dump

trucks, and motor

sweepers

Grading land and

moving soil

Pesticide management/

IPM

Landscaping/xeriscape

Bio-retention facilities

U U U U U U U
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

OPERATION

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES2

CWA CAA CERCLA EPCRA FIFRA RCRA TSCA SDWA NEPA ESA RHA

January 1999 D-5 Appendix D

Stadium, playing field, and

golf course continued

Food preparation and

disposal

Parking lots (storm

water management)

WWTP (used only on

weekends)

Cleaning stadium,

buildings, and grounds

Using cleaning

chemicals

Solid waste

management

U U U U U U U

3.3.5 Vehicle/Equipment

Maintenance See Section 3.10— Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance.

3.4 PESTICIDE/VECTOR MANAGEMENT

3.4.1 Purchasing

Pesticides

Purchasing proper

amounts

Selecting appropriate

pesticides

Determining shelf life

No specific federal regulatory requirements.

3.4.2 Applying Pesticides U U U

Mixing pesticides U

3.4.2.1 Applying

Pesticides Indoors U

3.4.2.2 Applying

Pesticides Outdoors

Helicopters/tractor

drives

Maintaining green ways

- herbicides/round up for

right of way wild flowers

U U U

3.4.2.3 Cleaning

Application Equipment U

3.4.2.4 Certifying

Applicators U

3.4.2.5 Keeping Records U

3.4.3 Storing Pesticides U U U U

3.4.3.1 Risk Management

Planning

(CAA Section 112(r))

U U

3.4.3.2 Notification of a

Canceled or Suspended

Pesticide

U
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

OPERATION

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES2

CWA CAA CERCLA EPCRA FIFRA RCRA TSCA SDWA NEPA ESA RHA

January 1999 D-6 Appendix D

3.4.4 Disposing of

pesticides U U U

3.4.5 Vehicle/Equipment

Maintenance See Section 3.10— Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance.

3.5 PUBLIC SAFETY

3.5.1 Emergency

Planning

U

3.5.1.1 Planning

Catastrophic events

Flooded rivers (e.g.,

flood control)/debris

management

Solid waste debris

management from

catastrophes

No specific federal regulatory requirements, but local governments participate in planning for and

responding to these types of events. Check with the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(http://www.fema.gov).

3.5.1.2 Providing

Chemical Information to

the Public

U

3.5.2 Fire Protection and

Emergency Response

U U U U

3.5.2.1 Fire Protection U U U U

3.5.2.2 Emergency

Planning See Section 3.5.1— Emergency Planning.

3.5.2.3 Fire Response and

Suppression

Practicing Firefighting

U U

3.5.2.4 Hazardous

Materials Response

Generation of hazardous

wastes

Management and

disposal of

contaminated media

U U

3.5.3 Police Protection U U U U U

3.5.3.1 Photoprocessing U U U

3.5.3.2 Firing Ranges U U U

3.5.3.3 Laboratory

Operations

(forensics, fingerprinting)

U U U U

3.5.4 Vehicle/Equipment

Maintenance See Section 3.10— Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

OPERATION

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES2

CWA CAA CERCLA EPCRA FIFRA RCRA TSCA SDWA NEPA ESA RHA

January 1999 D-7 Appendix D

3.6 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

3.6.1 Collecting and

Storing Municipal Solid

Waste

U

3.6.1.1 Collection

Yard materials, batteries,

large appliances

Federal guidelines, but no specific federal regulatory requirement.

3.6.1.2 Storage Operation

of Transfer Stations

Truck wash areas (e.g.,

spray units to clean bottom

of trucks)

U

3.6.2 Recycling and

Composting U U U

3.6.2.1 Recycling No specific federal regulatory requirements.

3.6.2.2 Composting U U U

3.6.3 Source Reduction

Pollution prevention/

waste minimization

programs

No specific federal regulatory requirements.

3.6.4 Disposal U U U

3.6.4.1 Landfill Operation U U U

Waste analysis U

Leachate collection U U

Methane gas collection U

Daily cover U

Pesticide application See Section 3.4— Pesticide/Vector Management.

Disposal practices U

3.6.4.2 Municipal Waste

Combustion U U

Monitoring (air quality

issues) U

Disposal of residual ash U

3.6.5 Household

Hazardous Waste

Collection and Storage

No specific federal regulatory requirements.

3.6.6 Vehicle/Equipment

Maintenance See Section 3.10— Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

OPERATION

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES2

CWA CAA CERCLA EPCRA FIFRA RCRA TSCA SDWA NEPA ESA RHA

January 1999 D-8 Appendix D

3.7 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

Construction of

lines/planning design See Section 3.3— Construction/Property Management.

Construction of wastewater

treatment plant

Upgrades for additional

capacity

See Section 3.3— Construction/Property Management.

3.7.1 Operation and

Maintenance of Sewer

Systems

U

3.7.1.1 Sanitary Sewer

Systems U

3.7.1.2 Combined Sewer

Systems U

3.7.1.3 Municipal Separate

Storm Sewer Systems U

3.7.1.4 Water Line

Repair/Replacement U

3.7.2 Wastewater

Treatment U U U U U U U

3.7.2.1 Wastewater

Treatment Process U U U U U U

Air emissions (MACT

standard) U

Nuisance odor control Generally regulated under local ordinance.

Pesticide/vector control See Section 3.4— Pesticide/Vector Management.

Digester operation and

maintenance (methane

burners, scrubbers)

U U

Painting U U

Debris (e.g., grit)

management (if hazardous) U

Stand-by generators

Diesel spills See Section 3.10— Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance.

Transformers-PCBs U

Vehicle maintenance See Section 3.10— Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance.

3.7.2.2 NPDES Permit

Compliance U

Beach monitoring (CSOs) U

Nontraditional treatment

systems U
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

OPERATION

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES2

CWA CAA CERCLA EPCRA FIFRA RCRA TSCA SDWA NEPA ESA RHA

January 1999 D-9 Appendix D

Artificial wetlands U

Groundwater monitoring

in NPDES permit

application

U

Surface applications U

Point/nonpoint pollution

trading No specific federal regulatory requirements.

3.7.2.3 Laboratory

Operations U U

Toxicity evaluation

reduction U

3.7.2.4 Pretreatment

Program U

Source control to improve

compliance, biosolids reuse U

Hauled wastes/manifest/

waste characterization U

3.7.2.5 Biosolids

Management and

Disposal

(land application, surface

disposal, incineration,

landfilling) 

U U U

3.7.2.6 Chemical

Storage/Hazardous

Materials Management

(e.g., solvents for building

maintenance,

chlorination, chemicals to

control erosion)

U U U

3.7.3 Vehicle/Equipment

Maintenance See Section 3.10— Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance.

3.8 WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

3.8.1 Surface Water Protection

3.8.1.1 Best Management

Practices

No specific federal regulatory requirements, but local governments are encouraged to develop

surface water protection programs.

3.8.1.2 Nonstructural

BMPs

Street sweeping

Vegetative buffer areas

Marsh vegetation

Watershed monitoring

Reservoir management

Pollution prevention

No specific federal regulatory requirements, but local governments are encouraged to develop

surface water protection programs.

3.8.2 Groundwater (Wellhead) Protection
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

OPERATION

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES2

CWA CAA CERCLA EPCRA FIFRA RCRA TSCA SDWA NEPA ESA RHA

January 1999 D-10 Appendix D

Zoning and subdivision

ordinances

Site plan reviews

Design and operating

standards

Property or easement

purchases

Public education

Household hazardous

waste collection

Groundwater monitoring

States must develop their own wellhead protection programs. No specific federal regulatory

requirements, but local governments are encouraged to become involved in wellhead protection

programs.

Dams, canals, levees

New construction

Design issues (NEPA)

See Section 3.3— Construction/Property Management.

Flood control/

management (e.g., flood

walls)

Storm water channeling

Dam decommissioning/

demolition

Erosion and sediment

control

U

3.9 WATER SUPPLY

3.9.1 Water Treatment U U U U U U

Treating water U

3.9.1.1 Chemical

Storage/Hazardous

Materials Management

U U U U

3.9.1.2 Laboratory

Operations U U

3.9.1.3 Residual

Management U U

3.9.2 Water Distribution

System Operation and

Maintenance

U U U U U

3.9.2.1 Cross Connection

Control and Backflow

Prevention

No specific federal regulatory requirements.

3.9.2.2 Water Pipe

Flushing U

3.9.2.3 Water Main Repair/

Replacement

Lead pipes

Lost water through old

or broken pipes

U U U U

3.9.2.4 Storage Tank

Maintenance (painting) U U

3.9.2.5 Pump Maintenance See Section 3.10— Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

OPERATION

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES2

CWA CAA CERCLA EPCRA FIFRA RCRA TSCA SDWA NEPA ESA RHA

January 1999 D-11 Appendix D

3.9.2.6 SDWA

Compliance U

Water reuse

Water conservation No specific federal regulatory requirements.

3.9.3 Vehicle/Equipment

Maintenance See Section 3.10— Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance.

3.10 VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE

3.10.1 Vehicle Repair

Shops U U U U

3.10.1.1 Changing

Vehicle Fluids

(hydraulic fluids, used oil,

use coolants, radiator

fluid)

U U

3.10.1.2 Washing Vehicle

Parts U U U

3.10.1.3 Maintaining

Vehicle Batteries U U

3.10.1.4 Repairing Air

Conditioners U

3.10.1.5 Washing

Vehicles and Shop Floors U

3.10.1.6 Repairing or

Replacing Exhaust

Systems

U

3.10.1.7 Painting Vehicles U U

3.10.1.8 Storing Materials

Outside

Storm water

management

U

Used asbestos brake

pads U

Used tires No specific federal regulatory requirements.

3.10.2 Fueling Stations U U U

3.10.2.1 Fuel Storage U U

3.10.2.2 Fuel Dispensing U

3.10.2.3 Disposing of

Unused Fuel U

3.10.2.4 Storm Water

Management U

3.10.3 Purchasing (e.g.,

vehicles, chemicals) U
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

January 1999 E-1 Appendix E

APPENDIX E 

EXAMPLES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT VIOLATIONS OF

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS (1992-1997)

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

CLEAN AIR ACT

Township of North Brunswick,

NJ (1992) 

An intentional disabling of catalytic converters on eight township-owned

police vehicles was found. The Township agreed to a $16,000 penalty.

City of Vero Beach (Indian River

County, FL) (1993)

The recorder for a continuous opacity monitoring system had been removed. 

Subsequent reports were submitted, and the City failed to mention downtime

of the recorder. The City chose an in-kind penalty option to pay $71,528 to

be used in construction of a wet lab for a learning center.

New York City Board of

Education, NY

(1993)

A complaint was filed against the Board of Education and seven contractors

for failure to notify EPA of renovations involving asbestos removal in City

schools. The defendants violated EPA’s asbestos “notification rule.” The City

is to pay $200,000 in civil penalties.

New York City, NY

(1993)

Of the over 300 gasoline dispensing stations leased and/or operated by the

City, approximately 55 of the facilities were not equipped with Stage I and /or

Stage II vapor collection systems. The City is to award contracts to

construction managers who will provide enforceable work schedules to bring

the facilities into compliance. The City is to pay $200,000 in civil penalties. 

Columbus Solid Waste

Reduction Plant, Office of

Regulatory Enforcement, OH

(1994)

Columbus agreed to shut down the Columbus Solid Waste Reduction Plant in

response to an administrative order and community concerns about dioxin

emissions. The order required the facility to design systems to achieve

lowest dioxin emissions. The City decided to authorize closure of facility.

City and County of Denver, CO

(1995)

Violations included: an exceedance of performance standards by air

emissions from the treatment plant on two occasions; failure to notify EPA

and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; failure to

recycle vapor-phase carbon units and implement changeout procedures; and

failure to submit a schedule for proposed corrective measures. The City will

pay $79,550.

City of Providence, Central High

School, (1995)

The City failed to meet opacity emissions limits, to operate opacity monitors in

accordance with regulations, and to combust fuel with the required sulfur

dioxide content under federal regulations. The City agreed to pay a $91,000

penalty, purchase fuel with the required sulfur dioxide content, and to operate

its opacity monitor as required by regulations.

Allegheny County Department of

Aviation, PA (1997)

Demolition activities at the airport resulted in a disturbance of asbestos

materials. CAA NESHAP regulations were violated. The facility was cleaned

up and a work plan was developed.

CLEAN WATER ACT

City of Adrian, MI (1992) The City must pay a civil penalty of $25,000. The City will: (1) install a

dechlorination system at the wastewater treatment facility [$15,000]; (2)

perform a water quality study of the South Branch of the River Raisin

[$38,937]; and (3) perform a comprehensive study of the Pho-Strip process

[$61,000]. 
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-2 Appendix E

City of Altamonte Springs, FL

(1992)

A settlement included a civil penalty of $55,000 and the construction of a

distribution system for reuse of the City’s wastewater treatment plant effluent.

Construction activities are valued at $3,300,000. 

City of Beaumont, TX (1992) The City will pay a civil penalty of $400,000 for failing to implement an

industrial pretreatment program. 

Clifton Water District, CO (1992) Clifton Water District will pay a $20,000 penalty for constructing a municipal

water supply diversion structure in the Colorado River in violation of §404 of

CWA. The discharges affected the reach of river inhabited by the Colorado

Squawfish and the razorback sucker. 

Escambia Counties Utilities

Authority (ECUA), Pensacola,

FL (1992)

Violation of NPDES permit limits of fecal coliform and total residual chlorine at

the Main Street wastewater treatment facility, discharging to Pensacola Bay

were found. The Authority must pay a civil penalty of $26,000 and be

involved in an eighteen-month water quality data collection effort in

Pensacola Bay and parts of contiguous water bodies. The effort is valued at

$50,000.

Township of Franklin Sewerage

Authority (1992)

The Township of Woodbridge, the Borough of Carteret and the City of Perth

Amboy are to pay a collective civil penalty of $950,000 for past violations of

CWA at sewage treatment plants.

Village of Sauget, IL (1992) The Village failed to develop an approvable pretreatment program and

exceeded NPDES effluent limits for BOD, iron, mercury, TSS and zinc. The

Village also failed to demonstrate compliance with the whole effluent toxicity

limit. A penalty of $750,000 was assessed. The Village must also make a

payment to EPA of $50,000 for at least one year that will be used to hire an

independent consultant to act as on-site “observer” of the implementation of

Sauget’s Pretreatment Program. 

Washington City, UT (1992) The City will pay $70,000 in administrative penalties for unauthorized fill in

wetlands. The discharges of fill material affected nearly six acres of springfed desert wetlands that contained the uncommon wetland plant Yerba

Mansa. The City performed wetland restoration and mitigation work on site. 

City of Bossier, LA and State of

Louisiana

(1993)

The City failed to properly operate and maintain a publicly owned treatment

works, to comply with effluent limitations of a NPDES permit, and to fully

implement its industrial pretreatment program. The City agreed to pay a civil

penalty of $200,000 and conduct a SEP that will promote EPA’s policy of

providing beneficial use of municipal wastewater sludge. As part of the SEP,

the City will also install sludge treatment facilities that will produce a reusable

final product. The cost is estimated at $375,000.

City of Cocoa, FL

(1993)

The City violated §301(a) of the CWA for failure to monitor pH on continuous

basis and for exceeding other NPDES permit limitations at various times. The

City is to pay $32,593 and implement SEPs valued at $1,963,600. The SEPs

involve the installation of 5,000 feet of storm water swales; expansion of the

City’s wastewater reuse; restoration of a 300,000 gallon storage tank and

accelerated compliance with the Florida Indian River Lagoon Act.

City of Reading, PA

(1993)

The Reading Sewage Treatment Plant had mercury seal trickling filters at the

plant for years that have leaked, resulting in an estimated 5 tons of mercury

released. DER’s policy was changed to prohibit the use of mercury seal

filters in any sewage treatment plant in PA. The City is to have the Academy

of Natural Science perform a study of the Schuylkill River to determine the

effects on fish and to determine the fate of mercury released. The City will

replace the mercury seal filters with mechanical seal filters.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-3 Appendix E

City of Rock Springs, WY (1993) The City was cited on failure to properly implement and enforce federal

pretreatment regulations. An order was issued to correct deficiencies of its

pretreatment program and comply with the NPDES permit. A civil penalty of

$45,000 is required. The development of a household hazardous waste

program, on-site assistance program for small communities, and workshop on

pollution prevention assessment and waste minimization for WY pretreatment

coordinators is required. The cost is estimated at $41,000.

City of Starke, FL (1993) The City had numerous violations of permit limits for BOD, TSS, TN, TRC, pH

and fecal coliform, and schedule and reporting violations. The City must pay a

penalty of $10,300. A land application/reuse project to reduce discharge to

Alligator Creek by 40% at an estimated cost of $1.6 million is required.

Easton, PA

(1993)

The Easton Area Joint Sewer Authority is to pay a civil penalty of $389,000

for past violations of the NPDES permit. The Authority is also required to

maintain compliance and to implement a pretreatment program. The

Authority will pay $120,000 to the Coalition of Religious and Civic

Organizations, Inc. The City is required to pay a $45,000 penalty for permit

effluent and pretreatment violations.

New Albany, IN

(1993)

The City violated effluent limits of the NPDES permit, bypassed wastewater,

failed to implement and enforce a pretreatment program, failed to provide an

adequate alternative power source and violated an administrative order

issued by EPA. The city will pay a penalty of $140,000 to the U.S. Treasury

and $35,000 to Indiana, and will conduct extensive work on the publicly

owned treatment works and sewer system at a cost of $17 million.

Port of Portland, OR

(1993)

The Port of Portland had unpermitted toxic discharges posing a potential

hazard to human health and the marine environment. A penalty of $92,000

is required. Port of Portland must also conduct analysis and removal of

contaminated sediments by studying priority pollutants in sediments near

storm water drains. Costs are estimated at $58,000.

Town of Fort Gay, WV

(1993)

Violations included: numerous effluent limitation violations, failure to submit

timely discharge monitoring reports, failure to report bypasses and CSO

discharges, and operation and maintenance problems. The town is required

to pay a $10,000 fine.

Town of Taos, NM

(1993)

The town failed to adequately treat land-applied sludge with a process to

significantly reduce pathogens. The town must pay a civil penalty of

$125,000 and is required to immediately install a temporary means of treating

sludge.

Wells County Water Resources

District, ND

(1993)

The Wells County Water Resources District drained 2,400 acres of prairie

pothole wetlands without the necessary authorizations. The County will

restore drained wetlands on an acre-for-acre basis. 

City and County of Honolulu, HI

(1994)

The City and County had poor maintenance of the sewer system, which

resulted in over 300 spills of raw or partially-treated sewage, and failed to

implement an adequate pretreatment program to regulate the discharge of

toxics from industries into the sewer system. Under a consent agreement,

the City and County will pay $1.2 million and improve the operation and

maintenance of its sewer system. The City and County agreed to spend $30

million on SEPs for treating and reusing wastewater and sludge.

City of Bossier, LA and State of

Louisiana (LA) (1994)

The City agreed to pay $200,000 and to conduct a SEP. The City violated the

CWA by failing to properly operate and maintain its POTW, failing to comply

with its NPDES permit, and failing to implement an industrial pretreatment

program. The project cost of the SEP was $375,000.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-4 Appendix E

City of Hoboken, NJ

(1994)

The Hoboken, Union City, Weehawken Sewerage Authority (HUCWSA)

agreed to pay stipulated penalties in the amount of $2.8 million for its

violations of a January 1991 consent decree. This $2.8 million includes a

payment of $1,152,000 that will be made to EPA, $850,000 to the New

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the remainder to the

Interstate Sanitation Commission. 

City of Kenner, LA and State of

Louisiana (LA) (1994)

The City violated its NPDES permit, including failure to adequately implement

an approved pretreatment program, which caused an unpermitted discharge

of pollutants. The City agreed to pay a civil penalty of $215,000.

City of Middletown, OH (1994) The City failed to adequately carry out an approved pretreatment program,

had past NPDES effluent limit violations, and filled in the river channel of the

Great Miami River. A civil penalty of $288,000 was assessed by the consent

decree.

City of Ocean Shores, WA

(1994)

The City placed fill in interdunal wetlands adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. After

negotiations, the City removed the unauthorized fill, replanted the site, and

restored the adjacent site. The compliance action resulted in a net gain of

wetlands functions and values.

City of Philadelphia, PA (1994) The City intentionally pumped raw sewage into the Pennpack Creek. A

consent decree required payment of $225,000 in civil penalties (evenly

divided between the United States and Pennsylvania) and injunctive relief

necessary to prevent future violations.

City of Port St. Joe, FL

(1994)

St. Joe Forest Products Company violated pretreatment prohibitions by

contributing pollutants in excessive quantities that caused interference and

pass through of the City facility which caused the City to violate its NPDES

permit. A consent decree provided a civil penalty of $25,000 by the City and

a $325,000 civil penalty by the Company.

City of Sioux Falls, SD (1994) The City agreed to pay $26,250 as a civil penalty and to undertake a SEP. 

The City violated the CWA, its NPDES permit and General Pretreatment

regulations. The SEP involves a household hazardous waste recycling

program between $150,000 to $200,000.

City of Tacoma, WA (1994) Secondary treatment violations were cited. The City agreed to pay a

$525,000 penalty. In addition, a SEP valued at $100,000 for the sewage

treatment plant hookup of low income housing that discharges untreated

wastewater directly to Commencement Bay is required.

County Sanitation Districts of

Los Angeles County (CSDLAC),

CA (1994)

CSDLAC is required to pay a civil penalty of $300,000 to the U.S. and

$200,000 to the state, to complete a program to promote the beneficial reuse

of its wastewater, and to implement a household hazardous waste collection

program at an estimated cost of $1.2 million.

Delaware County Regional

Water Quality Authority

(DELCORA), PA (1994)

A consent decree required the construction of an additional secondary

clarifier at its wastewater treatment plant which will cost $3.5 million and a

civil penalty of $350,000.

Jacksonville Beach, FL (1994) The City agreed to pay a Class I administrative penalty of $3,500 for failure to

submit a timely and complete storm water permit application for the City’s

municipal storm water system.

Manatee County, FL (1994) The County agreed to pay a Class II administrative penalty of $60,000 for

discharging from its wastewater treatment plant into the receiving stream.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-5 Appendix E

Metropolitan Dade County, et.

al., FL (1994)

The County entered a consent decree to address an emergency claim,

contingency plans and short term measures due to concern of the structural

integrity of sewage pipelines under the Biscayne Bay. A grand jury

investigation concluded that the aged and corroded sewer system presented

the greatest threat to the health of the river. Claims also addressed systemwide unpermitted discharges, improper operation and maintenance, and

reporting violations. 

Municipality of Penn Hills, PA

(1994)

The municipality was sentenced to 5 years probation and a $150,000 fine for

illegally disposing sewage sludge and other pollutants from three of five

sewage treatment plants. 

Polk County, FL (1994) Discharges occurred from the Wilson Acres wastewater treatment plant

without an NPDES permit. The County agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty

under the consent agreement and order. $15,000 will be credited to the

County if the Wilson Acres WWTP connected to the City of Auburndale

collection system.

Wayne County-Wyandotte, MI

(1993 and 1994)

Wayne County and 13 tributary communities that illegally discharged

untreated wastewater into Detroit River and Lake Erie will pay a civil penalty

of $413,000. The injunctive relief involves rehabilitation of the sewer system, 

plant improvements, and the construction of a tunnel storage system to hold

rain water during storms at an estimated $230 million. The implemented

project plan will expand carrying capacity of the sewer collection system and

increase capacity of the Wyandotte POTW.

City of Akron, OH (1995) The City must pay a civil penalty of $290,000 for violations of the CWA

related to the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater to Cuyahoga

River, and the discharge of raw sewage from the City’s separate sanitary

sewer during storm events. The City must improve its wastewater treatment

facility to meet NPDES permit limits. The City will perform a $1.5 million SEP

to eliminate septic tank systems by providing connections to sanitary sewers.

Clay County, FL (1995) Several violations of NPDES permit conditions and the discharge of 2 million

gallons of wastewater from a break in an onsite pond berm were found. 

Settlement included a $12,000 penalty and completion of a SEP. The SEP

was to construct a force main from the Ridaught Landing WWTP to a nearby

re-use facility to eliminate discharge to the Little Black Creek. After tax net,

the present value of the project is $1.879 million with a capital outlay of

$2.149 million.

Metropolitan Dade County, et.

al., FL (1995)

The deteriorated condition of a large sewage pipeline running under the

Biscayne Bay, as well as chronic and widespread overflows of raw sewage

into homes, streets, businesses and public waterways, including the Biscayne

Bay and the Miami River were cited. Short-term preventative measures are

required in addition to a cash penalty of $2 million. The County is expected to

pay more than $800 million rehabilitating its system to prevent chronic

overflows of sewage. A water reuse and conservation SEP totaling at least

$5 million is required.

City of Fort Morgan, CO (1995) There was a failure to implement a pretreatment program to the degree that

one of its industrial users caused the City to violate its own discharge permit. 

The penalty includes payment of $268,000 in civil penalties in addition to

taking significant steps to achieve compliance with federal pretreatment

regulations under the CWA. A payment of $110,000 to the Colorado

Department of Public Health and Environment is also required.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-6 Appendix E

City of Lynn, MA (1995) Combined sewer overflows occurred near a shellfish bed and onto a public

beach. An agreement was reached to add a schedule for the construction of

combined sewer overflow controls, at a cost of approximately $50 million, to

an existing consent decree.

City of New Bedford, MA (1995) The City refused to construct the secondary treatment plant that was required

in an earlier consent decree. The City must construct the secondary

treatment plant, pay a $51,000 penalty to the United States, and pay $51,000

to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The payment to the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts could be waived if New Bedford complies with certain terms

of the modified consent decree.

City of Pensacola, FL (1995) City failed to submit a complete NPDES Part II storm water permit application. 

The settlement was for $35,000.

City of Watertown, SD (1995) As the result of a consent agree, the City agreed to come into full compliance

with the terms of its permit by December 31, 1997. Costs in excess of $17.3

million were estimated for a new POTW. The City agreed to properly staff,

operate and maintain the facility; adopt legal authority to enforce

requirements of Sections 307 and 402 of CWA; implement its industrial

pretreatment program as approved by EPA; issue permits to all SIUs

providing for the payment of not less than $500 per day per violation for any

noncomplying SIU; and conduct and document inspections and independent

compliance monitoring of all its SIUs.

Kiski Valley Water Pollution

Control Authority, PA (1995)

The Authority failed to conduct sampling visits to its significant industrial

users (SIUs) during 1992 and failed to adequately enforce violations of one of

its categorical SIUs. The POTW also violated its NPDES permit effluent

limitations for suspended solids, BOD5, and flow.

Town of Brookline, MA (1995) Illicit connections of sewer lines to storm drains resulted in discharges of

sewage into the Muddy River in violation of the CWA. A consent agreement

was to locate and remove all such connections by 1997, and undertake a

variety of storm water management practices. The town will pay a $25,000

penalty if it does not comply with the schedule.

City of Blackhawk, CO (1996) The City allowed the illegal construction of a water supply pump station on

Clear Creek (without an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act

permit), including excavation and backfilling of about 1,800 square feet of

river bed on the north fork of Clear Creek. The result was a temporary loss of

wetlands and destruction of aquatic life. The penalty payment is $61,515.

Cobb County Department of

Community Development, GA

(1996)

Failure to adequately implement and/or maintain erosion and sedimentation

control devices for a road widening project resulted in erosion of road fill into

tributaries of Willeo Creek, degrading stream water quality and resulting in

sediment deposition in downstream lakes. Payment of $10,000 and training

for its employees and road contractors for land disturbing activities is

required.

Jefferson County Commission,

AL (1996)

The Commission had effluent violations of NPDES permits, intentional bypass

of treatment works resulting in discharges of untreated sanitary sewage into

the Cahaba and Black Warrior Rivers, and discharge without a NPDES

permit. A penalty of $750,000 is required. The Commission will also

undertake a $30,000,000 Greenway project to acquire and maintain protected

areas along designated rivers and streams. A three-phase approach to

improve and correct infiltration/inflow problems will be used. A sewer system

evaluation will also be initiated.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-7 Appendix E

New Orleans Sewerage & Water

Board, LO (1996)

Unpermitted discharges of contaminated water to surface waters due to the

poor condition of sanitary sewer and collection system of New Orleans was

found. An alternative dispute resolution for technical dispute was used. Nonbinding mediation was unsuccessful. The case was settled in FY 1998.

Town of Essex, MA (1996) Septic system problems (i.e., failing systems and illegal connections to town

storm drains) resulted in bacterial contamination of the Essex Bay estuary

and local clam flats. The town must initiate a comprehensive program to

inspect and correct septic system and illegal connection problems and

institute a town-wide oversight and management program.

Borough of Naugatuck, CT

(1997)

An administrative complaint was for violations of effluent limits contained in

an NPDES permit for a publicly owned treatment plant. The penalty was for

$70,000.

City of Erie and Erie Coke Corp.,

PA (1997)

Erie Coke, a significant industrial user of a sewer system, violated national

pretreatment categorical standards for iron and steel and the city of Erie local

pretreatment limits. A consent decree requires a $450,000 cash penalty and

the installation of pretreatment technology that meets discharge limits. This

technology will cost over $2 million.

City of San Diego, CA (1997) A stipulated final order settled an enforcement action that addressed

deficiencies with San Diego’s sewage treatment facilities. The order calls for

the City to continue work on infrastructure projects, replace 200 miles of

decaying concrete sewers, audit pump stations and force mains, increase

efforts to reduce grease loadings to the system and upgrade its data

collection and modeling capabilities. The order also requires $60-$200

million for projects. 

City of Sedalia, MO (1997) Administrative orders for compliance and complaint were issued due to the

City’s failure to develop and implement an enforcement response plan; failure

to implement procedures to ensure that industrial users are in compliance

with pretreatment standards and requirements; failure to issue permits or

other mechanisms containing correct discharge limits for two industrial users;

and failure to perform local limit analyses for two pretreatment plants. The

City must correct the violations and pay a penalty of $50,000.

City of Watertown, SD (1997) The discharge of pollutants from the City’s wastewater treatment plant

exceeded acceptable levels. A consent decree required the City to pay a

penalty of $550,000.

Crook Creek Farms, Inc., City of

Destin, and the Niceville,

Valparaiso, Okaloosa County

Regional Sewer Board, Inc., FL

(1997)

APOs were issued to a land application site operating company and two

municipalities that transport their biosolids to the land application site for

disposal. Violations of vector/pathogen attraction, operational standards and

recordkeeping were found. Penalties ranged from $6,000-$16,466.

Onondaga County, NY (1997) A consent agree requires a 15-year plan for the POTW upgrade, combined

sewer overflow elimination and other measures in the range of $300-$400

million to ensure that water quality standards are met for Lake Onondaga. 

The County must pay a penalty of $50,000 and SEPs worth at least $387,500

to control non-point source pollution to the lake.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and

Sewer Authority, PR (1997)

CACOs issued require a $200,000 SEP to install telemetry equipment at 20

pump stations in the San Juan Region that will allow for the monitoring of

equipment at the pump stations and will detect malfunctions. Equipment will

help to reduce the instances of bypasses and discharges of inadequately

treated sewage. The Authority must pay a penalty of $35,000.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-8 Appendix E

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and

Sewer Authority, PR (1997)

A CACO required a penalty of $10,000 and the completion of $30,000 SEP. 

Under the SEP, the Authority will conduct workshops to inform industrial

users of pretreatment requirements and methods to comply.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and

Sewer Authority, PR (1997)

The Authority violated its permit by discharging 10 million gallons per day of

primary level treated sewage from the Mayaguez Regional Wastewater

Treatment Plant. A consent decree was for $150,000 in civil penalties and

$400,000 to the Mayaguez Watershed Initiative. The Authority must

construct facilities to bring the plant into compliance.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and

Sewer Authority, PR (1997)

A payment of $375,000 represents a settlement of uncontested and

contested dollar amounts requested as penalties as identified in 27 quarterly 

motions to enforce 1985 and 1988 orders. The Authority must pay $83,800 in

stipulated penalties for violations of a 1985 court order and $251,400 for

violations of the pump station stipulation entered in 1995.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and

Sewer Authority, PR (1997)

An administrative penalty complaint was issued for the Arecibo sewage

treatment plant. Violation of effluent limits in the NPDES permit and

instances of improper operation and maintenance of the plant were found. 

The complaint seeks a penalty of $100,000.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and

Sewer Authority, PR (1997)

An administrative penalty complaint was issued for the Lares sewage

treatment plant. Violation of effluent limits in the NPDES permit and

instances of improper operation and maintenance of the plant were found. 

The complaint seeks a penalty of $125,000.

Virgin Islands Department of

Public Works, VI (1997)

An amended 1996 consent decree set a compliance schedule for the DPW to

construct improvements at eleven existing POTWs, construct two new

POTWs, and pay $675,000 in stipulated penalties for violations of a prior

court order. The estimated cost of the injunctive relief is expected to cost

between $35 and $40 million. 

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

City of North Adams, MA (1992) The City violated maximum contaminant levels for turbidity and coliform and

for violating monitoring requirements. The City must pay a civil penalty of

$67,200. An order requires the City to construct a water filtration plant and

achieve compliance with SDWA and implement significant interim measures

to ensure delivery of safe water until the treatment plant is operational.

Bethlehem Village District, NH

(1993)

The district voted not to provide necessary funding to comply with the Surface

Water Treatment Rule, but now has voted to comply with state and federal

regulators. Approximately $2.5 million will be spent on a filtration plant and

other system improvements to comply. The district agreed to pay a civil

penalty.

Selleck Water System, WA

(1993)

An injunctive relief against Selleck Water System was to remedy an imminent

and substantial endangerment to public health caused by the fecal

contamination of drinking water provided to 150 people, including a day-care

facility. An emergency administrative order directed Selleck to properly

operate and maintain a treatment system, advise users to boil water, and

submit a corrective action plan. Selleck refused to comply and court action

followed.

Virgin Islands Housing Authority

(VIHA) (1993)

Under an amended decree, VIHA was to undertake capital and O&M

improvements at six of its housing projects encompassing over 60 public

water supplies and imposed a monitoring program for various contaminants

subject to MCLs. VIHA is to pay a $12,000 penalty from original decree.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-9 Appendix E

Town of Meeteetse, WY (1994) An administrative order was issued to the town when tests indicated a

presence of Giardia in finished drinking water. The test, after the order was

issued, detected Cryptosporidium in finished water. An emergency order

required the town to: provide an alternate source of potable water; provide

public notice; issue a boil water notice; perform an evaluation of the system;

and submit quarterly reports on progress.

Cities of Abilene, Axtell, Attica,

Beverly, Kirwin, Osborne, Portis,

Preston, and Raymond, KS

(1995)

Exceedances of nitrate maximum contaminant level of 10 mg/L were found in

the public water supply. Within a 24-month period, the cities must undertake

tasks to achieve compliance such as provision of alternate water supply to

pregnant woman and children aged six months or less and public notification

for each prior violation of the Act. 

City of Marianna, FL (1995) The City failed to comply with the monitoring and reporting requirements of

the lead and copper rule. A payment of $50,000 in civil penalties is required.

Fort Thompson Water System,

Fort Thompson, SD and Lower

Brule Water System, Lower, SD

(1995)

Filtration systems at both sites are ineffective. EPA Region 8 issued

emergency administrative orders under Section 1431 of the SDWA.

Kansas Bureau of Water

(1995)

The Kansas’ Bureau of Water issued 25 wastewater treatment orders against

various municipalities and trailer courts in Kansas. The consent orders to

cities, including Lawrence, Topeka and Leavenworth, initiate projects to

eliminate the discharge of water treatment sludge to streams. The orders to

trailer courts in Pittsburg, KS, have resulted in ongoing efforts to form sewer

districts that will be connected to the Pittsburg wastewater treatment plant. 

The sewer districts will help to eliminate sewage discharges into abandoned

mine shafts.

Town of Cushman, AR

(1995)

The town violated the state order to install a filtration treatment system to

treat unprotected spring water prior to consumer use. The penalty was for

$15,000 and agreement to install a filtration system and hire a state certified

operator. 

City of New York, NY (1997) In 1992, the City entered into an administrative stipulation that provided that

the City would construct and operate necessary filtration facilities for the

City’s Croton Water Supply by 2000. Construction is not expected to be

finished by 2000. The government is seeking a schedule for the construction

of a filtration plant, interim watershed protection measures, and an

expeditious penalty.

Town of Hempstead, NY (1997) The town had violations of unpermitted discharge into an underground

injection well and the endangerment of a Department of Highways facility in

Roosevelt. An AOC was issued that requires the town to implement a

compliance/closure plan, pay a $5,500 penalty, perform a facility audit, and

provide employee training. The town will inventory and address facilities

where there may be Class V injection wells, test for pesticides, and keep the 

public informed of the status of closure implementation at the Roosevelt

facility.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-10 Appendix E

OCEAN DUMPING BAN ACT AND MARINE PROTECTION RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT

Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey

(1993)

The Port Authority had a permit to dredge dioxin-contaminated material from

the New York Bay, ocean-dispose of it at a specific site, and cap it with clean

material. Authority contractors dredged material and disposed 5000 cubic

yards worth in the wrong location and capped it with 30,000 cubic yards of

clean fill. The Authority must pay a penalty of $35,000 and perform a SEP. 

The SEP involves providing a $15,000 grant to a private, non-profit

organization for the purpose of purchasing and preserving wetlands in the

New York Harbor area.

Westchester County, NY (1995) The County must achieve long-term compliance through implementation of a

beneficial use sludge management program. Payment of $200,000 in

penalties evenly divided between the United States and New York is required. 

Bergen County Utilities

Authority, NJ (1993 and 1997)

Bergen County Utilities Authority was ordered to pay a penalty of $55,000 in

one order. A second order required a penalty of $500,000, and to deposit

$780,000 into an escrow account, to be returned if it complies with the

consent decree. A third action was brought for violations of a long term

schedule for alternative sludge disposal, which required New York City to pay

$1.5 million into an escrow account to be recovered if it commences

construction of Phase II facilities, pay $250,000 to the U.S., and $750,000 to

an escrow account to purchase wetlands or open space in New York City. A

stipulation and order required all sludge to be available for beneficial use by

composting. In 1997, a stipulated penalty of $75,000 was assessed for

violations of the earlier consent decree that required that sludge be available

for beneficial use.

Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey (1997)

Administrative penalties were for violations of a dredge material disposal

permit. The Authority disposed of material at unspecified locations and failed

to report improper disposal. Civil penalties totaled $125,000.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT

City of Columbus, OH, and Solid

Waste Authority of Central Ohio

(SWACO) (1994)

An administrative order was issued to the City and SWACO to conduct

measures to abate a potentially imminent threat to public health and the

environment posed by emissions of dioxin as a result of the burning of trash

in an incinerator.

Westchester County,

Sportsmen’s Center, NY

(1994)

Under an administrative order, the County was required to assess the

contamination (predominantly lead) from shooting activities at the

Sportsmen’s Center. The County was required to design and implement a

plan for the remediation of the contamination and to devise a plan to prevent

re-contamination.

City of New York Department of

Transportation, NY (1995 and

1997)

During bridge repainting operations, the City generated and transported

hazardous paint chips without a RCRA identification number and manifests,

and stored wastes without a permit or authorization. A joint penalty (with

contractor) of $25,000 was assessed. An administrative CACO was issued. 

The City drafted a lead-based paint removal protocol, the implementation of

which will cost the City over $5 million. The City must pay a civil penalty of

$145,000.

Land Authority of Puerto Rico,

PR (1997)

The Authority failed to provide leak detection for underground storage tanks

and failed to permanently close a tank. An administrative complaint requires

penalty of $165,310.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-11 Appendix E

New Jersey Transit Corp., NJ

(1997)

The Transit Corp. failed to properly close underground storage tank systems

in accordance with applicable rules; failed to satisfy release detection

requirements for underground storage tanks and associated piping; and failed

to use spill and overfill equipment. An administrative CACO required a civil

penalty of $130,000 and completion of two SEPs at a cost of $190,000. The

SEPs will involve the removal and disposal of asbestos insulation at two

facilities.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and

Sewer Authority, PR (1997)

An administrative complaint was for failure to comply with underground

storage tank requirements at 19 facilities. The complaint seeks a civil

penalty of $305,297.

COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT

City of Algoma, Algoma

Municipal Landfill, WI (1992)

The consent decree requires the City of Algoma Municipal Landfill for the City

and eight PRPs to implement the remedy selected by ROD. Defendants will

reimburse EPA and the state for their future oversight costs and pay 90% of

EPA’s past oversight costs. Settlement is for $1.3 million. Monitoring

detected an exceedance of MCLs for cadmium, iron, and manganese.

City of Jacksonville, FL et. al.,

Pickettville Road Landfill Site, FL

(1992)

Thirteen defendants, including the City of Jacksonville, agreed to undertake

implementation of a remedy valued at $9 million at the Pickettville Road

Landfill Site and to pay the U.S. 100% (roughly $400,000) of its remaining

unreimbursed costs.

Elkhart, Indiana (Main Street

Well Field Site) (1992)

UAO’s were issued to 9 PRPs to conduct remedial activities including soil

vapor extraction, installation of interceptor wells, and continued operation and

maintenance of an air stripper. Costs were estimated at $1.5 million in

construction costs plus $130,000 in annual operation and maintenance costs.

Lexington County, SC (1992) The County accepted hazardous wastes at the Lexington County Landfill. 

The County will perform an RI/FS and pay all of EPA’s past costs totaling

approximately $174,233, as well as future oversight costs. 

Municipal Landfill, Dover, NH

(1992) 

A RD/RA action consent decree for the Dover Municipal Landfill is for 24

PRPs to perform cleanup activities at the site and reimburse EPA response

costs.

Washington and Ramsey

Counties, MN (1992)

A UAO requires Washington and Ramsey counties to continue operating a

pump-and-treat system at Washington County Landfill to prevent

contamination from moving toward drinking water wells offsite. 

Augusta/Hyde Park (Augusta,

GA) (1993)

EPA Region 4 expended $1 million to address groundwater contamination in

the area of the Park and the surrounding area that is a lower income and

predominantly African-American neighborhood. Over 1,000 samples of

surface soils, surface water, groundwater and sediments were taken in 18

industrial sites within the neighborhood that tested for up to 176 constituents.

AVX Corporation, et. al. (1993) The City of Bedford owned and operated the dump for local industrial waste

and solid waste. The City agreed to perform a remedy along with 15 entities

with varying degrees of involvement. AVX agreed to perform all work

consisting of remedial action plus operations and maintenance. The City

agreed to perform specific portions of remedial action and secure access and

institutional controls. The settlement required PRPs to excavate an

ecologically sensitive marsh, where sediments are to be disposed of beneath

a cap to be constructed at the first operable unit.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-12 Appendix E

City of Newport, et. al., KY

(1993)

Two civil consent decrees representing partial settlement of CERCLA cost

recovery litigation for the Newport Dump Superfund site, Wilder, Kentucky,

involved five of six PRPs named in the original complaint. Settlement

provides for recovery of $2.4 million, representing 50% of total past costs and

for performance of operation and maintenance activities.

Town of Bedford, MA

(1993)

Six defendants agreed to pay a penalty assessed by a consent decree of

$1.17 million in the settlement of past costs incurred at the Katonah Well

Superfund site, which settled an action filed in 1990. The town performed

remedial design pursuant to a 1988 EPA consent decree and completed

remedial action construction under the terms of an earlier consent decree. 

Other defendants had previously declined to participate in clean up work at

the site.

City of Cedartown, Polk County,

GA (1994)

A UAO issued to the City, County, and 12 companies required them to

maintain existing landfill cover, repair seeps, maintain institutional controls,

and monitor groundwater quality.

City of Clinton, IA (1994) The City has held title to the Chemplex Superfund Site since 1967 as part of

an industrial development bond sale-leaseback arrangement. There was no

evidence the City had any involvement with the site other than nominal title

holder. The City is required to provide site access to EPA and other PRPs,

and comply with deed restrictions; in exchange, the City received a covenant

not to sue and contributions protection. 

City of Jacksonville, AR (1994) Two consent decrees were lodged for the Jacksonville and Rogers Road

Municipal Landfill Superfund Sites. Both sites have soils that are

contaminated with dioxin that was produced by a herbicide manufacturer. An

estimated 800 cubic yards of soil are contaminated. The City agreed to pay

$100,000 in past costs.

Town of North Hempstead, NY

(1994)

The town recovered $2.64 million in past EPA cleanup costs incurred at the

Port Washington Landfill. The town undertook the remedial work at the

landfill at an estimated cost of $45 million.

City and County of Denver, CO -

Lowry Landfill Site (1995)

A UAO was issued for the landfill site based on the refusal of Denver and

other parties to implement a remedy selected in the ROD and pay more than

76% of the US’s past response costs. Most of the 31 de maximus PRPs have

been sued by Denver and other parties in private cost recovery litigation and

have settled with those parties.

City of Cedartown and Polk

County, GA (1995)

The City and County, with eight industrial generator PRPs, agreed to pay

$668,302 for past remedy costs at a municipal landfill site.

City of Wichita, KS (1995) A state de-listing pilot project was based on the state and city agreeing to

address the contamination at the 29th and Mead Superfund Site. The city is

to take responsibility for clean-up activities at the site with the Kansas

Department of Health and Environment.

City of Wilmington and New

Hanover County, NC (1995)

Reimbursement, by three responsible parties, of $545,723 plus interest of

$19,269 to EPA and Department of Justice is required.

Lexington County Landfill Site,

SC (1995)

A UAO was issued for the landfill site. Selected remedies include:

consolidation/containment/gas recovery/groundwater extraction and treatment

and disposal at the POTW/monitoring.

Mason City, IA (1995) The City agreed, jointly with another non-performing respondent, to contribute

money towards the cost of the response action and payment of EPA’s costs

to conduct a non-time critical removal action of buried coal tar.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-13 Appendix E

Pike County Drum Site, MS

(1995)

Cost recovery agreement for the reimbursement of $198,292 to Superfund by

responsible parties is required.

Board of County Commissioners

for Cecil County, (1996)

A consent order called for a $6 million cost recovery regarding the Woodlawn

Landfill. Payment of $4.75 million plus interest in installments over 5 years is

required.

City of Burbank, CA (1996) A consent decree is for the City to co-construct and/or fund the capital

portions of Burbank Operable Unit interim remedy. This requires the

extraction of 12,000 gpm, blending to reduce nitrate concentrations, and

delivery of treated water to the City of Burbank water supply system for 20

years.

City of Marianna, FL

(1996)

A consent decree is for the payment of $500,000 towards past response

costs for the incineration of pesticide-contaminated soil removed from one of

the City’s municipal airport runways (S&S Flying Service site).

City of Memphis, TN

(1996)

A consent decree is for cost recovery incurred at the City-operated North

Hollywood Dump for the dumping of toxic wastes. The ROD requires a

number of remedial measures, including the solidification and/or removal of

contaminated sediments in the surface impoundments and the installation of

a permanent cap on the landfill.

City of Somersworth et. al., NH

(1996)

A consent decree is for the remedial design and action at a landfill Superfund

site.

Montgomery County Solid

Waste District (MCSWD),

Moraine, OH (1996)

Excess waste from an MCSWD-operated incinerator was sent to a municipal

landfill. Thirty-one municipalities are members of MCSWD. The landfilled

waste contained commercial or industrial waste containing hazardous

substances. The defendants will pay $60,000 for previous oversight costs

and 50% of remaining oversight costs.

North Facility Soils/Wastewater

Treatment Plant, Magna, UT

(1996)

An AO on consent to conduct a non-time critical response action at the

Kennecott North Facility Soils/Wastewater Treatment Plant was issued.

Davie Landfill Site, FL (1997) The site was used as a disposal site for sludge from a municipal wastewater

treatment plant and other wastes. A consent decree settled the case against

Broward County, FL. $66,368 was recovered in past response costs incurred

and $65,000 for 1995. In addition, $25,000 was recovered for 1996 and

subsequent years.

North Hollywood Operable Unit,

CA (1997)

A consent decree recovered $4.8 million in site costs. The costs are

attributable to construction and operation of the North Hollywood Operable

Unit interim remedy groundwater extraction and treatment system. The unit is

operated through a cooperative agreement with the State of California and

the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. 

Puerto Rico Electric Power

Authority, PR (1997)

An analysis of soil and sediment samples collected at the Palo Seco Ward

Plant Site revealed the presence of hazardous substances at elevated

concentrations. A UAO was issued requiring a remedial investigation and

feasibility study. The study is designed to determine: (1) nature and extent of

contamination and threat caused by release or threatened release and (2)

alternatives for remediation or control of release or threatened release.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-14 Appendix E

TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT/ FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT/

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT

City of Garland, TX (1992) A TSCA PCB administrative order was issued to the City of Garland. The

order required expenditures of $500,000 and a 10% case penalty of $14,200. 

The City must implement a PCB identification program which identifies

through sampling and laboratory testing and label inspection all transformers

that contain PCBs at 2 ppm or greater.

The Housing Authority of New

Haven, Connecticut (1993)

The Authority was cited for failing to properly dispose of PCBs, failing to

maintain records concerning PCBs, and failing to properly mark and store

PCB transformers. The Authority is required to spend $112,000 on an

environmental compliance program to protect public housing residents from

future environmental risks. 

City of Boston, Boston City

Hospital, MA (1994)

Failure to comply with the marking and recordkeeping requirements

pertaining to PCB transformers was found. The City agreed to pay $117,300

in civil penalties from a consent decree and final order. The removal of ten

underground storage tanks located throughout the City is estimated to cost

over $80,000.

Town of Wallingford, CT (1994) The town agreed to pay $40,050, test all town-owned transformers for PCBs

at a cost of over $1 million, and remove all that were previously improperly

disposed. 

Memphis/Shelby County Airport

Authority, TN (1995)

Payment of $9,000 to resolve past violations of EPCRA Section 304 and

CERCLA Section 103 is required. Implementation of a $475,000 pollution

prevention SEP that involves the purchase of equipment that will assist in the

de-icing of runways is also required.

City of Hearne, TX (1996) A violation of PCB regulations was found. The City must identify all existing

oil-filled electrical equipment within the City of Hearne electrical system. The

City must also remove and dispose of all PCBs and PCB equipment that

contain PCBs at 50 ppm or greater within 2 years. The estimated cost is

$99,000.

City of Providence, KY

(1996)

An AOC was issued for past removal costs at the Gray PCB site. Settlement,

based on Ability to Pay Determinations, of $25,000 in two payments of

$12,500 was required.

City of Wrangell, AL (1996) The City must pay a penalty of $1,359 and spend $2,258 to remove and

properly dispose of three large high voltage capacitors containing 257 pounds

of PCBs.

New York City, NY Board of

Education (1995 and 1996)

The case involved an allegation that the head of the Board’s Asbestos Task

Force knowingly submitted false information on 375 AHERA management

plans. A CA/CO was issued under AHERA. It requires a payment of 

$1,500,000, systematically reinspecting each of 1,069 schools for asbestos,

and preparing new management plans to ensure that all buildings are in

compliance.

Bill Anskis Company, Inc. and

the Panther Valley School

District, PA (1997)

Violations of Asbestos NESHAP and AHERA occurred while renovation work

was performed in the district. An administrative action assessed a penalty of

$77,000.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-15 Appendix E

New Jersey Sports and

Exposition Authority and Atlantic

City Convention Center

Authority, NJ (1996 and 1997)

The Authority failed to comply with TSCA regulations concerning the

management of PCBs and equipment containing PCBs. With respect to

certain PCB containing equipment, the Authority failed to take the following

actions: compile annual documents; conduct quarterly and annual

inspections; register with the fire department; mark PCB capacitors; and store

PCBs for disposal in an appropriate storage area. A CACO was issued in

settlement of TSCA administrative proceeding. PCBs are to be removed from

the Convention Center. The complaint seeks a civil penalty of $98,000.

Puerto Rico Department of

Education, PR (1997)

A CACO was issued for failure to affix PCB mark, register the PCBs with the

fire department, maintain records of quarterly inspections and maintenance

history, compile and maintain annual documents and dispose of PCBs in a

proper manner. The Department must pay a civil penalty of $15,000 and

perform a SEP costing more than $95,000. The SEP involved the removal of

PCB transformers at locations where violations occurred.

School District of Philadelphia,

PA (1997)

A complaint and consent decree was filed that seeks to demand the cleanup

and disposal of PCBs that are in 29 transformers located at 12 schools. The

school must also comply with the PCB Rule and implement a PCB

Management Plan. The Plan would provide for the repair, inspection,

cleanup, and proper disposal of PCB contaminated materials. The school

district must remove or upgrade all of the PCB transformers within three

years. Bi-monthly progress reports must be submitted to EPA which will

provide for the monitoring of the school districts cleanup efforts.

MULTIMEDIA

City of Gary, IN (1992 and 1993) The Court issued an order entering a Second Modified Consent Decree in this

case, that involves both CWA and TSCA claims regarding the POTW. Gary

is to undertake and complete capital and operational improvements at its

wastewater treatment plant, adequately fund operations and maintenance,

and pay a civil penalty of $1.25 million. The City must (1) repair, rehabilitate,

and maintain the wastewater treatment plant and sewer system pursuant to a

schedule; (2) implement a pretreatment program to control industrial

discharges; and (3) remediate a PCB-containing sludge lagoon. Due to

previous violation of settlements, the County will appoint a Special

Administrator to oversee compliance with the Decree. A SEP, at an

estimated cost of $1.7 million, for the study and development and

implementation of remedial plan for sediments in Grand Calumet River,

covering area of submerged lands, must be completed.

City of Independence, MO

(1996)

CWA/RCRA violation of special terms of the City’s NPDES permit, which

allowed the City to accept for treatment trucked-in hazardous and other

wastes at its POTW plant, was found. RCRA violations of permit-by-rule

provisions and storage of drums of hazardous wastes without a permit and

failure to have interim status for POTW were also found. A payment of a civil

penalty is required. In addition, the City must make available a household

hazardous waste program to City residents.

City of Haverhill, MA (1997) Violations of RCRA included storing or disposing of hazardous waste without

a license and land disposal restrictions. Violations of CWA included failure to

have a SPCC plan in violation of Oil Pollution Prevention regulations. A

consent agreement and final order required a $17,000 penalty and a

minimum of $104,580 as a SEP. The SEP includes building a permanent

household hazardous waste collection facility and conducting quarterly

household hazardous waste collections.
Sector Notebook Project Profile of Local Government Operations

Local Government Summary of Violation/enforcement Action

January 1999 E-16 Appendix E

Puerto Rico Electric Power

Authority, PR (1997)

Violations of CAA, CWA, UST requirements of RCRA, EPCRA, SPCC

requirements of CWA and notice of provisions of CERCLA were found at five

facilities throughout Puerto Rico. A consent decree issued requires a 

payment of a $1.5 million civil penalty, Land Conservation Acquisition for $3.4

million and HazMat Training for a local fire department for $100,000. The

Authority is required to spend over $1 million on an environmental review

contractor to oversee compliance with the consent decree. The Authority

must conduct an overhaul of compliance programs where violations occurred.