5408
001 D76103
DRAFT NATIONAL SAFE DRINKING WATER STRATEGY
ONE STEP AT A TIME
NOVEMBER 1976
Prepared by the Office of Water Supply
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S. W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
.FT
Executive Summary
Statement of Purpose
The sub-title of this strategy, One Step at a Time, epitomizes
EPA's approach to implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
We begin by assuming that the State and local governments, and
the owners of public water supplies are actively interested in
assuring that the citizens of this country have safe water to drink.
We may differ in specifics, but that basic assumption of common
purpose will guide all of EPA's actions in this program. We plan
to approach the regulatory process embodied in the SDWA on
a step-by-step basis, recognizing that we cannot correct all problems
in a day or even in a decade in some places. Our flexibility,
however, should not be confused with lack of purpose or conviction.
We expect to provide flexibility where appropriate and consistent
with the discretionary aspects of the statute, but where the legislation
is specific we intend to uphold the law.
A draft version of this strategy, dated May 1975, was submitted
to extensive public and State review. This document contains many
of the same principles of tha.t initial effort, updated and revised after
an additional year of experience in the implementation of the Act.
Principles of Implementation
This strategy proposes the basic principles that EPA will use
in implementing the SDWA. They include a commitment to give
highest priority to matters of public health; to assist the States in
establishing their own programs, to involve local governments
and consumers in all aspects of the program; to attack the worst
problems first; to take costs into consideration in all phases
of the program; to build on existing state and local water supply
control programs; to decentralize decision-making to the EPA
regional offices; to consider the environmental side-effects of
actions taken under the SDWA; and to minimize "red-tape" in
all actions.
-------
-------
Goals, Objectives, and Priorities f
The goal of the Drinking Water program is "to ensure that all
citizens have safe water to drink. " I he social and economic costs
of reaching that goal will be considered in the programs developed
to meet it. A variety of sub-goals and objectives are proposed
which should facilitate the accomplishment of the overall goal in
a step-by-step manner.
Strategy Overview
I. The Public Water System Supervision Program
The Safe Drinking Water Act did not envision the creation of a
vast bureaucratic program, and EPA intends to assure that it does not
come out that way. The Act is designed basically to be self-
enforcing without the need for a complicated program structure.
It is clearly the responsibility of the local utility to perform the
required monitoring (§1415) and give public notice when its drinking
water is not up to standards (§1414(c)). EPA believes that, in
general, the most effective way to achieve compliance with the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) (both
interim and revised) is by assuring that the consumers are aware
of deviations from maximum contaminant levels so that they can
ensure that corrective action is taken. Where necessary,
of course, a State should take action under its own regulations,
or EPA may bring an action under §1414. But realistically, with
approximately 250,000 public water suppliers nationally, the States
and EPA must rely on the pressures generated from public
notification to produce compliance for many public water systems.
This strategy proposes several options for different levels of
Federal/State partnership in the enforcement of the primary drinking
water regulations. The options range from complete certification
of the State's program with no extensive Federal involvement (other
than the program grant), to non-certification. EPA desires to
certify all States for primary enforcement responsibility in
accordance with the mandate of the Act, The intent of this strategy
is to establish the groundrules for a true Federal/State/local
partnership, based on practical and pragmatic regulations and
policies that will facilitate cooperation and result in compliance
with the requirements of the SDV/A.
-2-
-------
-------
The SDWA clearly establishes that a State must adopt regulations
no less stringent than the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations before it can be granted primary enforcement responsibility.
The Act includes a variety of other requirements for primacy which
EPA believes can be accomplished on a step-by-step basis, building
on already existing State and local procedures and organizations. EPA
does not believe that all States should have identical programs in
order to have primacy.
The strategy recognizes that the major impact of the SDWA
program will be felt by the State, at the local level by the
suppliers of water and the consumers who must pay for it.
Because the Congress was concerned that the deadlines for
compliance contained in the SDWA may create undue financial
burdens and hardship on some communities, the Act provides
for exemptions to be granted from the drinking water regulations,
provided that the public health is adequately protected. However,
exemptions cannot be permanent. The Act provides a maximum
of five years for compliance schedules (seven years if regionali-
zation takes place) and requires that the schedules be presented
at a public hearing before adoption.
The strategy also recognizes that the monitoring requirements
contained in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
could present serious problems to small public water systems.
Consequently, the promulgated NPDWR have less stringent
monitoring requirements for non-community systems serving
primarily transient populations than for community systems
serving resident population.
One way to reduce the economic impact of the SDWA regulations
at the local level is to take advantage of the economies of scale
inherent in regional water supply systems and management.
Regionalization, moreover, is not limited to structural, physical
integration of impoundment, treatment and distribution systems.
It can mean shared laboratory services, training programs, billing
systems and a variety of other management services that can
perhaps be provided more efficiently to a group of water supplies.
EPA recognizes that there are a variety of factors which may
affect the viability of regionalization and does not intend to force
local communities to regionalize their systems or management;
that is a local decision best handled at the local level.
-3-
-------
-------
Finally, the strategy overview section analyzes some of the
inter-relationships of the SDWA and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA). Special attention will be paid to the relationship
between planning under Section 208 of FWPCA and protection of
groundwater quality.
For the protection of public water supplies the Office of Water
Supply has:
. published national interim primary drinking water regulations,
. published special monitoring regulations for organic chemicals,
. published final standards for maximum contaminant levels for
radioactivity,
. published State implementation program regulations,
. published State public water system supervision program grant
regulations,
. completed the Preliminary Assessment of Suspected Carcinogens
in Drinking Water Report to Congress.
. published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making requesting
public comment on the options for the control of organic
chemical contaminants in drinking water,
. published guidelines for State emergency response plans,
. awarded $7. 4 million in grants to States for public water
system supervision programs, and
. continued to develop, in cooperation with the States, a State
laboratory certification program.
In addition, the National Academy of Sciences is now reviewing
the special study concerning the identification of contaminants
and contaminant levels that may have adverse health effects.
During FY 77,' the NAS study will be completed; as a result
of this study the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWR) will be revised to address the control of organic chemical
contaminants in drinking water and any other areas of concern
identified by the NAS study: An intensive period of coordination
with the States will take place to help them meet primacy
requirements, and the economic impact of regulations on small
public water systems will be evaluated.
.4.
-------
-------
II. Underground Injection Control Program .
EPA plans to implement tlie Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program prescribed by the SDWA with the same step-by-step
approach adopted for the water supply management program. The
strategy reviews the following major issues of the UIC program:
. Extent of protection under Part C of the Act.
. How will EPA approach the problem of designating States
which should undertake UIC programs in response to the
SDWA.
. Regulation of injections related to oil and gas production.
The Act requires EPA to develop minimum requirements for
State programs to prevent the endangerment of underground sources
of drinking water from the uncontrolled underground injection
of fluids. After complying with such requirements, states will take
the lead for the implementation of the program. It is further
specified that the burden of proof of non-endangerment is placed
on the injector. The injector must maintain monitoring records
or report periodically to the State. All injectors, whether Federal,
State, or private individuals, must comply with the regulations.
In the area of groundwater protection, the Office of Water Supply
has:
. published proposed regulations for grants for State
groundwater source protection programs,
. published proposed regulations for State underground
injection control programs,
. completed a study on "Impact on underground water sources
of application of pesticides and fertilizers," and
. completed a "Report to Congres - Waste Disposal Practices
and their Effect on Groundwater" to be made available
December 1976.
It is expected that these proposed regulations will be published
in final form and that the first States will be listed early in 1977.
To this effect, the Office of Water Supply will continue a dialogue
with the States, environmentalists and any other interpsted parties.
III. Section 1424 (e) - Protection of Sole Source Aquifers
Section 1424(e) of the SDWA is intended to control potential
contamination of sole (or principal) source aquifers by regulating
Federal financially assisted projects (through a grant, contract,
loan guarantee or otherwise) in areas where contamination of the
aquifer could endanger the public health. Section 1424(e) does
-------
-------
not apply to injection wells unless they use Federal financially
assisted projects. EPA is building on the existing Federal agency
guidelines for the implementation of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) as
the basis for any reviews it might conduct of proposed Federal
financially assisted projects on aquifers determined to be "sole
or principal source" under the Act. Therefore, in most cases
review of major Federal financially assisted projects will take
place when the draft EIS is submitted for review. Regional
Administrators may, as appropriate, expand their review power
to projects other than those subject to NEPA. So far only the
San Antonio, Texas area, where the Edwards underground
reservoir provides the sole source of drinking water for over
1, 000, 000 persons, has been designated.
Finally and most importantly, EPA recognizes that all of
the answers to questions on providing safe drinking water and on
protecting sources of drinkir.g water have not been found. A wide
variety of "unknowns" continue to exist which will require
considerable study and evaluation, both by EPA and by other
levels of government, the water supply industry and the
scientific and academic communities. The scientific basis for
resolving questions about viruses, carcinogens, and other
toxicants in drinking water and for establishing criteria and
standards for wastewater reuse for potable purposes will
continue to be given priority. We intend, in particular, to stress
the need for developing improvements in water technology, health
research and related matters and for assessing the various
problems, (such as limited sources of trained manpower) which
might hinder the successful implementation of the program.
Public comments on this draft strategy are encouraged.
-6-
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Safe Drinking Water Strategy 9
Principles of Implementation 10
The Open Process 11
CHAPTER H - PROGRAM STATEMENT
Nature of the Drinking Water Problem 13
Brief Summary of the Legislation 14
Legislative Guidance 15
Federal, Regional, State, Local and
Consumer Relationships 15
The Water Supply Research Strategy 17
CHAPTER HI - GOALS, OBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
Program Objectives 21
Priorities 23
Criteria for Establishing Activity Priorities 25
First Priority Activities 26
Second Priority Activities 27
Third Priority Activities 27
CHAPTER IV - STRATEGY OVERVIEW
State Program Responsibility 29
Requirements for State Primacy 30
Flexible Implementation 31
Regulations and Guidelines 31
Technical Assistance 32
Sequencing 32
State Program Grants 34
Variances and Exemptions 35
Local Utility Impact and Regionalization 38
The Existing Situation 38
Supplying Safe Water 38
Regionalization 42
EPA Policy on Regionalization 43
Monitoring and Laboratory Facilities 44
-7-
-------
-------
Page
Availability of Laboratory Facilities ; . . 44
Sanitary Surveys and MCL Monitoring
Requirements of the NPDWR , 45
Training and Energy Requirement f 46
Relationship Between the SDWA and the
Federal Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) 48
CHAPTER V - PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND SOURCES
OF DRINKING WATER: THE UNDERGROUND
INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
Scope of Groundwater Use and Problems 50
Summary of Part C - The UIC Program 53
Goals of the UIC Program 54
Objectives of the UIC Program 55
Strategy Overview - Policy Issues 57
Definition of "Underground Injection" 57
Definition of "Underground Drinking Water Source" 58
Definition of "Endangerment of Underground Drinking
Water Source" 59
Listing of States 59
Regulating Existing and New Underground Injections .... 60
Regulating Injections Related to Oil and Gas Production ... 61
Implementation of Section 1424(e) of PL 93-523 62
Relationship of the UIC Program to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) 64
-8-
-------
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Safe Drinking Water Strategy
The safe drinking water strategy presented in this paper has been
developed to clarify EPA policy with respect to implementing the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
This strategy document is not law and does not have the status
of a regulation or official rule making. It is an operational plan,
and it describes what EPA plans to do in light of its legislative
mandate and the realities of existing Federal, State and local
capabilities and resources.
Comments on this strategy are welcome from all interested
parties and should be addressed to:
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Supply (WH-550)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Derived from this strategy is the annual regional guidance to
the Regional Administrators for their use in establishing regional
priorities and objectives. The Regional Administrators, in turn,
must propose to the Administrator a region specific strategy
for implementing the Act. The regional strategies will be
developed from the national strategy in consultation with the State
and local' governments and with the public. Regional strategies
are due to the Administrator each August 1.
-9-
-------
-------
Principles of Implementation
The following principles of implementation will continue
to guide EPA's decisions in carrying out the mandates of the
Safe Drinking Water Act:
. Public health considerations will receive highest priority
Questions of aesthetics, taste, and odor will be
considered, but the focus of research, monitoring,
and enforcement programs will be on providing the
maximum feasible protection to human health.
. The worst problems will be given first attention
The "worst" problems will be defined in terms of
the degree of health risk involved and the population
affected.
Take cost into consideration in all decisions made in the
Safe Drinking Water Program
- As required by the Act, EPA will take costs into
consideration in promulgating regulations, implementing
the regulations, and enforcing the law. The concept
of cost effectiveness will be applied to any determinations
under the Act.
. Utilize existing Federal, State and local resources and reduce
"the need for changes in current State operations
EPA and State governments will attempt to utilize existing
Federal-State-local programs for providing safe drinking
water. In particular, EPA and States should draw
on current research efforts, existing data sources,
ongoing programs for monitoring and enforcement and
existing training and technical assistance activities.
In granting primacy to States, EPA will allow reasonable
variations based on current State programs and operations.
-10-
-------
-------
Place maximum financial responsibility for implementation of
regulations on'uie ultimate users oTHrinking wateF"except
as provided by 'blate Taw
EPA recognises that in many sections of the country,
drinking water is either underpriced or inappropriately
priced. Safe drinking water, however, has a real price,
and EPA will generally encourage water suppliers to
develop rate schedules so that users pay the appropriate
costs.
Keep paper work and red-tape to the absolute minimum
Require adequate attention to the envifonmentaTmipact of
decisions madeUiTder the Act
The Open Process
Consistent with EPA's policy of obtaining maximum State,
local, and public participation, the following implementation
principles will continue to be carried out:
. Participation by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
The National Drinking Water Advisory Council was
created on December 16, 1974, pursuant to Section 1446 of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, Public Law 93-523. The
Council consists of fifteen (15) members appointed by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency after
consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare. The membership includes five members from the
general public, five members from State and local agencies,
and five members of private organizations or groups
demonstrating an active interest in the field of water hygiene
and public water supply.
At the request of the House of Representatives Sub-
Committee on Health and the Environment, the Council
encourages communication and cooperation between EPA and
other governmental agencies, interested groups, the general
-11-
-------
-------
D
public, and technical organizations involved in drinking water
quality. In developing the agenda for the Council meeting,
the Council attempts to schedule another governmental agency
to give a presentation, discuss its activities and how they
relate to EPA's responsibilities under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
The Council sets aside a portion of each meeting in order
to be responsive to the needs of the public. Any outside
parties interested in presenting an oral statement can petition
the Council in writing. Any person who wishes to file a
written statement can do so before or alter Council meetings.
Decentralize decision-making and operational responsibility
for the Act to the EPA Regional Offices and to the State and
local Governments
The Administrator will continue to delegate to regional
offices the decision-making authority on all elements of
the program. Regional offices will in particular be responsible
for assisting States in taking the lead in all aspects of program
implementation and for granting State primacy.
Encourage State and local participation in decision-making
In addition to encouraging State and local participation
in issuing regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
EPA will encourage the States to continue to play a major role
in advising the Administrator on other determinations made
under the Act.
Encourage consumer participation in deliberations and decisions
EPA will continue to implement the program in the most
open manner possible, assuring easy access by the public to
information concerning the program, and providing maximum
opportunities for citizen involvement and public participation.
For example, public hearings have been conducted by EPA across
the country to solicit comment on the proposed regulations for
the State Underground Injection Control Program.
-12-
-------
-------
CHAPTER H
PROGRAM STATEMENT
Nature of the Drinking Water Problem
The drinking water served to Americans varies in quality.
During the period 1961-1970 there were 130 outbreaks of disease
or poisoning attributed to drinking water, and these outbreaks
resulted in 46,374 illnesses and 20 deaths. This represents only
those cases that were reported, and for which the waterborne
route was established as the cause. More important, these
represent only the acute affects, and not the chronic effects that
may take many years to aggregate their impact.
While information on operational characteristics of systems is
not fully known, studies in select States have also shown that
(1) more than half of the facilities providing drinking water have
serious deficiencies, (2) more than three quarters of the operators
were inadequately trained, (3) the vast majority of systems were
unprotected from cross-connection with contaminated water, and
(4) more than three-quarters of the systems were not subjected
to adequate surveillance or monitoring. * Better data will begin to
become available after June 1977 when the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations become effective and monitoring is initiated.
*Community Water Supply Study, Analysis of National Survey Findings,
U.S. Department of Health, Education and. Welfare (July 1970")
-13-
-------
-------
Summary of the Legislation
In summary, the SDWA:
. Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to prescribe national drinking water regulations
for contaminants which may adversely affect the public
health.
. Requires Public Water Systems to deliver water, to
monitor and test, and to operate and maintain their systems
in compliance with the drinking water regulations.
,, Requires drinking water systems to notify their customers
of failure to comply with the drinking water regulations.
. Requires the Administrator to encourage maximum levels
of State involvement in the promulgation, implementation,
and enforcement of regulations and programs developed
r the Act.
Authorizes States which adopt and implement adequate
standards and enforcement measures to grant certain
variances from the national regulations and to grant
exemptions to extend the time for compliance by any
public water system; and to establish compliance schedules
including interim control measures and increments of progress.
Authorizes the Administrator to enforce national primary
drinking water regulations and to grant exemptions and
variances in States which do not have primary enforcement
responsibility.
Establishes Federal/State programs to protect
underground sources of drinking water.
Provides for Federal grants to assist State water supply
management programs under the Act.
Provides for certain additional grants, research and
demonstrations to assist States in carrying out the
above purposes.
-14-
-------
-------
Legislative Guidance
t
"While the Committee (on Interstate and Foreign Commerce)
views the problem of unsafe drinking water as a matter which is
and should be primarily the concern of State and local governments,
the Committee has determined that the Federal government also
has a responsibility to ensure the safety of the water its citizens
drink. "
Federal, Regional, State, Local and Consumer Relationships
Public Law 93-523 (the Safe Drinking Water Act) will affect
all the levels of responsibility for the provision of safe drinking
water. Briefly these new roles include, but are not limited to
the following:
. Federal Government
EPA is to provide national policy guidance and regulations,
offer technical and financial assistance to the States,
conduct research, assure that adequate technology is
available for meeting its regulatory requirements, monitor
State programs, and carry out the compliance programs
for the implementation of the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations and underground injection regulations
in those areas where the States have not been certified
for primary enforcement responsibility.
Other Federal agencies are to advise the Administrator
in his rule-making under the Act, and to ensure that
Federal facilities which manage public water supplies
meet the requirements of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations, and the Underground
Injection Control Program.
State Governments
The State governments, to the maximum extent feasible,
are responsible for supervising the public water systems,
implementing the provisions of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations and the underground
injection regulations within their States, and providing
technical assistance to public water suppliers to enable
them to meet the requirements of the applicable regulations.
-15-
-------
-------
ft f*» *.»
Local Governments and Utilities
Local public water systems are responsible for providing
drinking water which complies with the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations and for the costs of monitoring.
To the extent that local utilities are owned and operated
by local governmental entities, action to ensure compliance
rests directly within local jurisdiction. In the case of
investor -owned utilities, compliance is the responsibility
of the utility. Actions to ensure compliance in both cases
should be subject to routine surveillance by the appropriate
agency of the State government.
Consumers
Individual consumers and groups representing them are
responsible for participating in the development of
regulations under Lhe Act; petitioning for public hearings
provided by regulation; ensuring that local utilities
are adequately financed; petitioning the Administrator
and State authorities to carry out the emergency
provisions of the Act; and finally, bringing civil suits
against the utility, the Administrator or State authorities
if it is believed that they have failed to properly
implement the Act.
Utilize the information derived from the public notification
procedures of the Act (when a utility is out of compliance)
as a guideline to indicate when consumer action is
warranted.
Paying higher prices for their drinking water, reflecting
any increased costs of treatment, and for the necessary
monitoring to assure that the water meets the requirements
of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
-16-
-------
-------
} A f»*p«
As-T
The Water Supply Research Strategy
The Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523) requires research and
technical assistance to establish a scientific basis for protection
of water supplies in the United States, provide information to
establish regulations and standards and to develop an economically
feasible technology to achieve a water quality that will meet
'the regulations.
To these ends the water supply research program is designed
to address the following questions:
1. What substances occur in drinking water supplies
that may adversely affect human health?
2. What are the effects of these substances and what are
the maximum contaminant levels necessary to protect human
health ?
3. What analytic procedures should be used to monitor
water to assure that the established regulations are met?
4. Since some of these substances are formed during
transport, storage, treatment and.distribution, what
changes in treatment practices are necessary to minimize
the formation of those compounds in water delivered
at the consumers tap ?
5. What treatment technology must be applied to reduce
contaminant levels to the concentrations given in the
regulations.
The major new emphasis of the research program will be on
providing an information base to deal with contamination of
water supplies by organic chemicals, especially those that are
suspected to be carcinogenic. For example, when the National
Cancer Institute study, done in cooperation with EPA, determined
that chloroform was a suspect carcinogen, a treatment guide to
minimize chloroform formation was developed. An Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting public input on
regulatory and technical options for control of organic chemicals,
including chloroform, was also published.
-17-
-------
-------
The ANPRM offered the following regulatory options for public
comment:
I. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Options
A. Establish MCL's for specific organic chemicals,
B. Establish MCL's for general organics indicators,
C. Combination of MCL's for specific compounds
and general organics indicators, .y
II. Designated Treatment Techniques to Control Either
Specific Contaminants or Total Organics
EPA is presently evaluating the public comments submitted
in response to the ANPRM which will, along with the economic and
toxicological data available, determine if regulations for the control
of organic chemicals are necessary and if so, the most reasonable
regulatory option.
A large scale national monitoring program has been established
to provide data on the concentration in drinking water of many organic
substances, including chloroform and pesticides. In addition, the
National Academy of Sciences is undertaking a comprehensive study
(mandated by the SDWA) of the health effects of exposure to many
substances in drinking water.
In the future additional research emphasis will be placed on
determining the long range health effects of the organic and inorganic
contaminants, individually and in combination. Better methods
will be developed for the removal of contaminants to the levels
required by standards or, in the absence of standards, technical
advice will be provided on reduction of contaminant levels. Micro-
biological contamination retains a relatively high public health
priority because outbreaks of waterborne disease still occur in
the United States, especially in poorly operated distribution systems.
Water treatment technology will be developed for small water
supply systems since it is these systems that experience more
difficulty in meeting drinking water standards. Problems of '
groundwater pollution will be defined, characterization methods
developed and guidelines offered to prevent such pollution.
-18-
-------
-------
EPA's research program is generally directed at resolving
these unknowns. Emphasis will be placed on determining the long
rather than short-term health effects of these organic and inorganic
contaminants, individually and in combination. Better methods
will be developed for the removal of these substances to the
levels required by the drinking water standards or to a "feasible"
level if the contaminant cannot be accurately measured in drinking
water.
Priorities for work to be done and emphasis in the various
research areas will continue to be developed jointly by the Office
of Research and Development and the Office of Water Supply.
These priorities will be guided by scientific and engineering
information identified by user groups outside government, EPA
regional offices and the operating programs as well as the Office
of Research and Development and the advice of the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council.
Every effort will be made to achieve a balanced research
program defining economical and effective treatment techniques,
improved analytic methods as well as providing results from
short and long range health effects studies. Research information
will be provided to the operating program and user groups through
interim and progress reports in addition to formal reports written
upon completion of research projects.
-19-
-------
-------
CHAPTER El
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PRIORITIES
The first step in developing a program to accomplish the
mandate of the Safe Drinking Water Act is to identify a set
of goals and objectives to provide a systematic national structure
to provide safe drinking water. The goals of the program must
be linked in an explicit and measurable manner to day-to-day
activities. Only a systematic approach will make the program
manageable.
The overall goal of the program can be stated as:
To assure that the public has
safe drinking water
Congress has made it clear in the Safe Drinking Water Act
that the programs which EPA develops to achieve this goal are,
in all cases, to take cost into consideration, and the strategy
will have to be made among all environmental programs and
that where goals among the programs conflict or are incompatible,
tradeoffs may be required.
Finally, EPA recognizes that a rigorous definition of the
term "safe" is not being provided and that problems may arise
in developing an acceptable definition. The primary emphasis
throughout the strategy, nevertheless, is on protecting the
public health.
\
Progress toward accomplishing this overall goal is generally
measurable, but not easily, and it certainly does not lend
itself to day-to-day metering to determine progress.
-20-
-------
-------
In order to accomplish this overall goal, we must conduct
three inter-related programs which have the following purposes:
A. To ensure that all underground and surface sources of
water which are (or potentially may be) used as drinking
water supplies are protected to the extent feasible so
that public water systems using those waters are not
prevented from attaining the standards established in
the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
B. To ensure that all public water systems meet the
requirements of the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.
C. To ensure that the drinking water provided to the public
meets the standards established in the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations.
Progress in accomplishing this mission is generally measurable,
and it is assumed that accomplishing them will, in most cases,
lead directly to the attainment of the overall goal, to assure
that the public has safe drinking water.
In order to be successful in implementing the three programs
(sub-goals) described above, EPA and the States will have to
establish a basic set of program objectives.
Program Objectives**
(including examples of measureable sub-objectives)
. To ensure an effective Federal-State partnership in the
implementation of the Act.
- certify States as having primary enforcement responsibility
for the implementation of the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations;
- certify'States as having responsibilities for the implementation
of the Underground Injection Control program.
. To provide technical assistance to supplement State programs
during early stages of implementation.
**Not necessarily in order of importance.
-21-
-------
-------
acquirG data from State agencies instates without primary
enforcement authority to assist EPA in its implementation of
the Act.
To publish and revise standards, regulations, and guidelines
required by the Safe Drinking Water Act in a timely manner.
To monitor State programs after the States obtain primary
enforcement responsibility.
To complete reseaj^h;_deTO projects
which will provice scientific and technical information needed
to accomplish the purposes of the Safe Drinking Water program.
- determine health effects of contaminants in drinking water;
- determine effective ways to keep contaminants out of surface
and underground drinking water supplies;
- conduct a rural drinking water survey;
- develop new treatment processes to remove contaminants
from drinking water;
- determine the extent of the occurrence of chemicals thought
to be hazardous through extensive monitoring;
- conduct demonstration projects.
To provide technical^jigsistance on a continuing basis to
State agencies, local utilities, and Federal facilities which
operate public water supplies.
To assure that the States develop and conduct a program which
will result in the granting of permits or rule making for
underground injections.
To provide a method for granting: variances and exemptions
from the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
consistent with the overall goals of the program.
To assist States in conducting surveillance activities aimed
at determining the extent of the drinking water problem and
the level of compliance with regulations.
- determine the number of water systems with contaminant
levels that do not meet the MCL's of the primary
regulations;
- determine the number of water supply systems in compliance
with primary drinking water regulations.
?
-22-
-------
-------
. To implement the enfprccnx'nt provisions of the Act to assure
compliance with regulations and the conditions of exemptions
or variances granted from the regulations.
. To conduct a national program of public information activities
so that the consumer will understand the nature of the problems
encountered in supplying safe drinking water and to encourage
consumer participation in implementation of the Act both on a
national level ard[in all States.
- ensure public participation in development and implementation
of regulations;
- ensure public access to information;
- ensure public awareness of problems in drinking water
systems.
Compared to the overall goal and the purposes, the program
objectives included here are readily quantifiable and progress
is fairly easily measured, except for the public information
objectives. Some of these objectives are almost exclusively
Federal activities (conduct research), but most are joint
responsibilities of the Federal Government and the States.
In order to accomplish the above program objecives,
EPA and the States must undertake a wide variety of program
activities. There are potentially hundreds of program
activities and only a few of them will be delineated here. All
program activities should be easily quantified and measured. They
generally fit the category of measurable objectives used by
EPA's "Management-by-ObjecHves" program to monitor day-to-
day progress of the Agency and the States. See Figure 1 for the
general relationship between goals, purposes, program objectives,
and a limited number of program activities.
Priorities
t
If the ultimate goals of the Safe Drinking Water Program are
to be accomplished on a rational basis, it is necessary to establish,
through a system of priorities, a hierarchy of activities which
indicates the relative emphasis that each should be given. More
specifically, a system of priorities may be used to determine the
levels of resources which will be allocated to each facet of the
overall program.
-23-
-------
-------
u
3
r<
r
o
H
P -H
V
A 0
t §
H i>
3 «-.
en cj
W «
cd
O id
P
a u
a +>
t S
3 ?
35
h 2
+J <9 >
tQ oj *3 O
o 3 p, «
u o "0 -a
3 -HO t, L
O <-H « K d
(0 .O +J -*J T3
aw oi a
fc & 5 5)
1) -P 4J
+J p X 0 f. m
+J +J 4J
+j n sj
u u f m u
S ^ ^ i B
O W *^ Dl tJ
>< C H C -H
p, 41 -H a; H
O £1
O O => O 3
* «
a
/
/
/
//
//
V
^
**
-<
>
\
^ \
\\
i
r-t O C
o a Vj o
>, 3 d .r)
Ai (^ ^-* *-*
1
(U
h ^
3 O *>
01 V< 13
a ti w
WWH
1
,-i
M .H
d o
H >
+* * b
3 <-> W O
a c >u c
o o c «)
u X a i-\
4>
J3 0
3 § g
r-( -H al
P rH M
a) P. =0
+> E; o
M O S
W u a -H
O O CO
L< aj o
(C H <
1
O<
o
rH
43 «J
0 t-i
a «i e
^10 +J
a n -o c
o
H
en '
u
o «
>-, n i-,
H 41 d
JC ti A
P -H 11
al > L,
O O H<
r-4 «
o ^ >p
,0 -H 4)
*J d H
« rJ o
w cy v
u
+J
d
+>
Cl
M
« t, n
+> o a
P U
C aj (0
d t, ^3 tl
> c en d
< 3 w vi
;»4
>
!*'
, ->t-
-vt
a-
-------
-------
Table I provides a list of the criteria which have been used
in establishing priorities for the program activities.
TABLE I
Criteria for Establishing Activity Priorities*
I. Is a deadline specified in the legislation ?
n. Have actions been mandated by courts or ordered by the
President?
III. How immediate is the relationship to the program's goal
and objectives?
This criterion calls for two calculations:
. How crucial is the activity to the attainment of the goal
of the program?
. How crucial is the conduct of the activity to the
attainment of one or more objectives?
IV. How sensitive is the desired program output to incremental
changes in resources ? Or, conversely, will a given
increment of resources yield more output in one program
as compared to others?
V. Will the activity foster or hinder active State participation
in the program?
VI. Does the activity create the conditions necessary for the
success of other programs that will be of high priority
in the future?
Factors to be taken into account in applying this criterion
are illustrated by:
. Do the skills and the resources exist at the Headquarters,
Region, State, local government and water authority level
to implement the programs ?
Is the scientific and techno logical base available to support
the program ?
* Not necessarily in order of importance.
-25-
-------
-------
VII. Will the activity or program lead to secondary environmental
impacts ? What is the relationship to other Federal programs -
overlap, conflicts, or combined effects?
VIII. Is there a high level of public or Congressional interest?
Utilizing the criteria in Table I, EPA and the States must begin
setting priorities for the activities which form the basis for the
overall Safe Drinking Water Program. Activities within each
priority grouping are not necessarily in order of priority.
First Priority Activities
Public Water System Supervision Program:
. To help States obtain primacy:
- certify States as having primary enforcement responsibility;
- provide technical training and assistance to States;
- certify State principal laboratories;
- design initial framework for State recordkeeping and reporting;
- develop program for variances and exemptions; and
- provide automatic data processing (ADP) support to the States.
. Prepare contingency program plans for States without primary
enforcement responsibility;
. Provide for consumer participation in program development
and implementation;
. Develop scientific basis for resolving questions about toxicants,
carcinogens, and viruses in drinking water and develop research
strategies for identification, evaluation, and control of toxicants
in drinking water;
Conduct studies relating to causes and control of disease;
. Establish monitoring programs to identify the national scope
of drinking water contaminants;
. Initiate compliance activities in States without primacy; and
. Develop program to implement the emergency power authority.
Groundwater Protection Program:
. Publish lists of States requiring Underground Injection Control
programs;
. Promulgate regulations for State Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Programs;
-26-
-------
. Promulgate UIC program grants regulations;
. Certify States as having primary enforcement responsibility for
the Underground Injection Control programs;
. Assist in the development of State permit programs and rulemaking
procedures for underground injection control; and
. Develop program guidance for the designation of sole source
aquifers and the review of Federal financially assisted projects
within such designated areas.
Second Priority Activities (Public^ Water System Supervision
Program and Groundwater Protection Program}:
. Initiate studies on underground drinking water problems;
. Initiate non-emergency enforcement actions;
. Carryout Rural Drinking Water Survey;
. Provide for surveillance of Underground Injection Control
Programs;
. Develop and implement Public Information Programs;
. Promulgate Secondary Drinking Water Regulations;
. Develop scientific basis for establishing criteria and standards
for wastewater reuse for potable purposes,
Third Priority Activities (Public Water System Supervision Program
and Groundwater Protection'Program):
. Begin demonstration projects;
. Provide technical assistance which is not directly related
to State acceptance of primary enforcement responsibility.
Finally, two conditions should be noted in utilizing the above
priority schedule. On occasion it may become necessary to take
action on a. low priority item in order to accomplish a higher level
activity. In those cases, the priority of the low level activity
should be upgraded in emphasis as may be necessary. Secondly,
different operating levels of government may require different
priority schedules. EPA recognizes this and variations in the above
priority heirarchy are both expected and encouraged to meet
regional or local needs.
-27-
-------
-------
CHAPTER IV
STRATEGY OVERVIEW
Congress intended to place the principal responsibility for the
implementation of the SDWA on the State and local governments.
Similarly, it is clearly the intent of the Congress and of EPA
to assure that consumers are aware of any problems in their
drinking water systems. Procedures for notifying consumers of
non-compliance of public water systems are an important part of
the program. As noted in the letter from. Russell Train to
Congressman Staggers, November 28, 1973, the Administrator
stated that:
"The enforcement approach that we favor is premised
on the belief that a Federal requirement that suppliers of
drinking water notify consumers of contaminants in their
drinking water will institute the necessary enforcement
action. An informed public is the best guardian of its
own health and safety. Accordingly, I believe the
legislation should require that whenever water delivered
by a water supply system fails to meet the health standards,
the supplier be obligated to notify its users of such failure
and the possible resultant health effects. Such notification
provision, coupled with the citizen suit provision would,
I believe render enforcement actions by Federal, State or
other regulatory agencies largely unnecessary. .. .The
possibility of a citizen suit provides a strong additional
incentive to suppliers to maintain compliance with the
standards."
-28-
-------
-------
State Program Responsibility*
~ 'U "" ^ T" " "" --!--- -.._.L.L !..._..,«-_ ,
There are a variety of factors which will determine whether
or not most Sates will be willing to bear a significant degree of
responsibility for the Act, including: the political situation in
the States; the level of resources available to the States; the
potential advantages (or disadvantages), as viewed by the
States, of accepting responsibility for the program; and the
quality of workability of the program as developed by EPA.
The first issue with which EPA is faced is determining the
form of the State program. The three questions to bear in mind
in reviewing a State program are:
. Will the program provide a system whereby the actions
undertaken by the State will lead to the goals of the
SDWA?
. Will the program lead to the most efficient use of State
and Federal total resources, given Congress' intention
that the States should ha\re primary responsibility ?
. Will the program satisfy the legal requirements of the
Safe Drinking Water Act ?
State assumption of primary enforcement responsibility and
the viability of the ensuing program may be constrained by a
number of basic obstacles. These obstacles include:
. Lack of funds;
. Complexity of program;
. Lack of trained personnel;
. Distrust of Federal programs;
. Legitimate disagreement with or misunderstanding of the
program, including the need for a national safe drinking
water program, the objectives of this program, and the
role States are expected to play.
^Contents of "this program dealing with State Underground Injection
Control activities are dealt with in Chapter V.
-29-
-------
-------
fr,y, r:
""
.*
The degree to which EPA and the Slates are able to overcome
these obstacles will in large part determine the buceess we
achieve in accomplishing the important goal of fostering an effective
Federal-State partnership for the implementation of the major
programs under the SDWA. Together with the States we believe
these obstacles can be overcome, The _ intention of EPA is not
to force a Federal superstructure o.u y^^f^^rc^arns~b~ut to fit
and foster State capabilities to assume the rail responsibility
Requirements for State Primacy
The Safe Drinking Water Act specifies the requirements which
States must meet before they may be certified for primary
enforcement authority. Section 1413 (a) of the Act establishes
the five requirements for certification of State programs for
primary enforcement of the NPDWR. Basically, the State must have:
. Adopted primary drinking water regulations no less
stringent than the current Federal standards.
. Adopted and implemented procedures for enforcement
of the regulations.
. Prepared to keep records and make necessary reports.
. Adopted procedures for variances and exemptions not
less stringent than the Federal procedures" JpHTtne
State chooses to give variances and exemptions at all.,)
. Prepared an adequate plan for emergency provision of
safe drinking water.
To obtain primacy the States must meet all of the above statutory
requirements, there are, however, differ entile vels or forms of
State/EPA cooperation which may be used. In descending order
of preference to EPA, they are:
I. Fully operational State programs, certified for primary
enforcement responsibility, without limitations or extensive
Federal assistance beyond the State Program Grants.
II. EPA retaining primary responsibility for the program with
provisions for working agreements whereby the State would
carry out certain aspects of the program.
?
III. EPA retaining full responsibility for the program with the
State assuming no part of the program.
-30-
-------
-------
The promulgated regulations for the Implementation of the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations specify the minimum,
requirements for State primacy, as outlined above. Under the
statute, no provisions exist for "shared or conditional primacy. "
The States still have to meet all of the statutory requirements to
obtain primary enfo cement responsibility. However, once the
State has met those minimum requirements, EPA may, at the
State's request, assist in achieving a more desirable level of
implementation and enforcement through technical assistance as
outlined on the following page.
The development of a program that is realistic and manageable
would in itself be a powerful incentive for encouraging State
involvement. Such a program would, of course, minimize red tape.
minimize Federal "big-brotherism" and maximize the real
responsibility in the hands of the State. Throughout this discussion,
it has been noted that most States have existing programs in this
area, and have had them for some time. The more that base can
be utilized and built upon, the more the prospects for State
involvement are enhanced. Other general incentives are:
Flexible Implementation
The SDWA requires EPA to establish and implement a nationally
consistent program. Nonetheless, that consistent program has to
be implemented in 56 States and territories that vary in terms of
existing laws, environmental conditions, ability, financial strength
and governmental arrangements. EPA will push its discretion to the
limit in all phases of the program to ac commodat e the di ver sity it
faces. RgJonaTii c e oTE Avir h '
..
progr am s which matc the palrEc^HaFlie^dT^'Q^capabTlit.ies of the
individual States.
In particular, EPA will recognize the capability of local (e. g. ,
county or municipal) governments in satisfying certain responsibilities
under the program and will give due credit to such capabilities when
evaluating State programs for certification.
Regulations and Guidelines
The promulgation of regulations and guidelines under the Act
which the States will accept requires EPA's acknowledgement of the
general capabilities of the States in terms of their available
resources, their administrative abilities, and their organizational
and administrative structures. EPA will endeavor to minimize the
provisions of the regulations which involve an unreasonable increase
in resource requirements or entail organizational changes.
-31-
-------
-v'-/' -£ *
Technical Assistance "* vu.~v»j d
Although resources arc currently very constrained, EPA will,
to the degree possible, offer other financial arid program services
to assist States in operating safe drinking water programs. These
may include:
. Implementing a comprehensive program to aid tha State in
the development of their programs. This assistance would
include the preparation of a model State program. By
"model," of couse, we do not mean that all State programs
should be the same and the model will provide various
strategies which States, if they choose, might employ.
. Provide training sessions for State and local personnel in
matters of administration, inspection, and enforcement.
A variation of this is to give a professional association
such as the American Water Works Association or the
Conference of State Sanitary Engineers a grant to provide
training.
^\ /" '
. Detailing EPA employees both from EPA Headquarters and
v : the regions to assist States in the development of drinking
water programs. EPA will advise States in both substantive
areas (developing monitoring and enforcement capabilities
variance and exemptions programs and certification
State laboratories and technical assistance in the same,
etc.), in procedural areas (developing adequate administrative
structures, writing draft legislative programs, etc.)
. Providing public information programs to educate the
public in the provisions of the law especially related to
the public notification provisions of the Act. States
will be encouraged to become actively involved in public
information programs.
Sequencing
Full implementation of the requirements of the SDWA for all
250,000 public water suppliers will take several years. Efforts by
EPA and the States must be sequenced and ranked so as to attack
the problem in the most effective manner.
-32-
-------
The levels of EPA/State participation on page 30 represent
the range of relative activity, and make it clear that to obtain primacy
the States must meet all of the primacy requirements. Our goal is
to help the States to establish fully operational State programs but
this will take time, resources, and continuous State-Federal cooperation.
State capability must be considered in sequencing program
implementation. A State must have enacted the necessary statutory
requirements for primacy (§1413(a)(l)). Then the State's initial capability
to fully implement the new program must be assessed with the full
realization that the State may need several years to reach maximum
effectiveness. If the State is not certified for primary enforcement
responsibility, then EPA will be responsible for all aspects o* the
program in the State. Also, if a state is not approved, it may not
receive a grant under §1443 after the first year.
The next point in sequencing is to determine what and where
are the most serious drinking water problems, and what must be
done first to treat those problems. The circumstances will be
different in every State, and the approach should be flexible to
fit with each situation, and should be largely based on the State's
own evaluation of the problems it faces.
EPA should provide some general guidance to the States (and
for its own use) on the emphasis to be given to various sized water
systems in the implementation and enforcement of the programs.
Nevertheless, regional and State offices shall have considerable
flexibility in determining which problem areas should have highest
priority and in determining how and where resources may best
be utilized. In general, EPA will initially emphasize the need
for assuring that large systems are in compliance with new
standards.
State program managers will have to consider a variety of
factors in determining where to allocate resources. Historically,
the larger systems have been better funded, better monitored,
better maintained, and have produced better water. Smaller
systems have traditionally had difficulty raising funds for
construction and maintenance, been less subject to State and
local surveillance, and have been the cause of a higher proportion
of acute disease outbreaks. This presents each program manager
with the need to determine the necessary balance between the
focus on large or small systems. Included in such a model
-33-
-------
-------
'"ould be, at least, the four rucsc significant variables which
should determine the level of emphasis given to a particular
system or set of systems:
1. Population served by a system or class of systems.
2. Relative health risk from the system or class of systems.
V
3. The potential the State has for impacting on the system(s).
4. The relative cost of surveillance and enforcement for that
class of systems.
Stat-3 Program Grants
Implementation of the requirements of the Act is likely to require
significantly increased activity on the part of the States. To help
defray these added administrative expenses, the Act authorizes
EPA to make grants to the States. Rinds are authorized to be
appropriated in F5T 76 and FY 77, and it is clearly the intent
of Congress and of EPA that these funds be made available to assist
States in the development of water supply supervision and under-
ground water source protection programs that meet the primacy
requirements. During FY 76, $7. 4 million were awarded in State
Program Grants for the implementation a water supply supervision
programs, over $17 million will be awarded for FY 77 and this figure
is likely to increase for the next fiscal year.
EPA recognizes that many States lack sufficient resources to
fully implement the Safe Drinking Water Program and will require
some continued financial assistance for several years. At the
same time, it is recognized that the initial program, grants are
qrdte modest in comparison to total resources needed to implement
all aspects of the program.
Initially, EPA will not utilize a system of positive incentives
in its State program grants. EPA will set general standards of
minimum performance, and a State will receive a base grant which
may be withheld if a State is clearly not conducting a satisfactory
program as required under §1413 for primary enforcement responsi-
bility. There will be no EPA national policy that States should
allocate any specific amount of the grant to any particular program
activity. Rather the funding shall be flexible to accomodate the States
own needs and priorities.
-34-
-------
-------
Variances and Exemptions
The Congress included provisions for variances and exemptions
in the SDWA to assist those drinking water systems which will face
particular difficulty in meeting the standards of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations. They are designed to provide
additional time to these supplies to meet the standards while at
the same time assuring that the public health is not endangered.
EPA's basic policy toward the variance and exemption provisions
of the Safe Drinking Water Act is that they are procedures to be used
selectively by the States to bring public water systems into compliance
with the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The objective
is to bring.public water systems into compliance as quickly as
feasible.
The following general and specific guidelines will characterize
EPA's program for variances and exemptions:
. States will have a reasonable degree of flexibility in determining
how they utilize variances and exemptions, how they monitor
the increments of progress in the variances and exemptions,
how they set compliance schedules within variances and
exemptions and how they apply variances and exemptions
to various size systems within their jurisdiction; so long as
they meet the requirements of the SDWA.
. The number of systems in compliance with the standards and
meeting compliance schedules will be considered the general
measure of progress in achieving the goals of the Safe Drinking
Water Program. The number of systems granted variances and
exemptions or meeting schedules which will eventually bring
them into compliance will not be included in the measure of
progress.
. Variances and exemptions are not enforcement tools designed
to beat utilities into compliance; nevertheless, EPA's procedures
for granting variances and exemptions will no't be so flexible
that they do not effectively ensure that utilities will be
brought up to acceptable standards in a reasonable amount
of time.
-35-
-------
-------
i*:-'
. Based on an opinion of the Office of General Counsel, EPA's
policy will be that variances and exemptions will be granted
only for failures to meet Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCL's) and may not be granted for other program requirements
of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations such
as the requirements for monitoring, siting, public notification
and reporting.
9
. EPA will proceed on the assumption that the need and the
justification for variances may vary due to regional and
State circumstances and EPA regional offices will have
considerable authority in applying guidelines which reflect
these circumstances. In general it will be recognized that
what may be the best available treatment in one case might
not be applicable in all other cases.
. EPA will require only that amount of technical and economic
information on applications for variances and exemptions
which is absolutely necessary for the evaluation of the
application. More specifically, EPA will permit smaller
drinking water system ( and in particular, non-community
systems) to provide considerably less economic justification
for exemptions than will be required of larger systems.
Finally, and most importantly, EPA's key administrative
objective in the implementation of this program is that all possible
steps will be taken to reduce the management burden of granting
variances and exemptions. In particular, we intend to reduce,
to the extent feasible, the paperwork required of the utilities, the
States and of EPA itself and to streamline the procedures to be
used in applying for and in processing variances and exemptions.
EPA intends to draw on its experiences with the NPDES program
under PL 92-500 as a guide; recognizing the problems which that
program faced and attempting to avoid them. Some of the
administrative lessons of the NPDES program which would guide
implementation of the SDWA variance and exemption procedures
are that:
. The technical problems involved in granting variances
and exemptions are likely to be more manageable to an
Agency like EPA or its State counterparts than are the
administrative (or paperwork) problems. Staffing for
the program in both the EPA Regional offices and the
States should be balanced with both technical and
administrative personnel.
-36-
-------
-------
States are reluctant to assume responsibility for programs
where the guidelines are not known in advance.
Public notification and public hearing requirements are
costly and will have positive impact only if handled
creatively and if the program managers genuinely
desire public input.
Data systems to handle and keep track of variances and
exemptions should be simple and direct, and should
rely on easily-available "canned" programs. All data
processing systems will be developed in cooperation
with State agencies. EPA is working with States to
develop workable ADP systems.
Applications for variances and exemptions will not be
used as general information collecting devices and data
which are requested will be only that relevant to the
granting of a variance or exemption.
A single public hearing may be held in certain cases to
review variance applications from a number of systems
and to adopt implementation schedules for both
variances and exemptions for more than one system.
EPA will operate its program for variances and exemptions
through its regional offices except for the provision of an
overall program guidance and, to some extent, the review
required by the law, which will remain Headquarters
activities. Determination on acceptable alternative
treatment techniques will also be made by Headquarters.
Regional Administrators will be responsible for assisting
States in the development of programs, initial reviews of
variances and exemptions granted by States and in
developing and maintaining adequate recordkeeping systems.
In States without primary enforcement responsibility,
Regional offices will operate an EPA program for variances
and exemptions.
-37-
-------
-------
Local Utility Impact and Regionalization
The ultimate responsibility for complying with the primary drinking
water regulations set in the Safe Drinking Water program lies
not with EPA or the States but with the local public water supplies
that provide the nation's drinking water. At the same time, EPA
recognizes the heavy burden which the Act may place on some
local utilities and water suppliers and intends to develop its programs
so as to reduce, to the degree possible, the difficulties they
will face in complying with the new standards.
The Act, nevertheless, makes clear that local utilities will be
responsible for providing any treatment facilities necessary to
reach the standards contained in the regulations and for monitoring
required by the regulations except as required by State law.
Moreover, local water suppliers will be responsible for obtaining
the resources which will be needed to meet the program's
requirements. EPA does not foresee any direct Federal subsidies to
local water suppliers, nor any Federal construction grants program,
and expects in most cases that traditional sources of funds such
as charges for water and services, municipal bonds and so forth
will be utilized to provide suppliers with necessary resources.
The Existing Situation
The Community Water Supply Study of 1969 (our most recent
data) showed that a large percentage of local utilities and water
suppliers will most likely face significant problems in meeting the
requirements of the new regulations. Tables 2-3, taken from the
CWSS, give some indication of the severity of the existing problem.
As the tables show, a significant number of water systems have
been unable to comply with both the mandatory and recommended
Public Health Service standards. Moreover, a majority of systems
of all sizes were not meeting the monitoring criteria set in the
PHS regulations. It should be noted that in all cases, the most
severe problems are found among the smaller systems.
Supplying Safe Water
An evaluation of the information and data currently available
to EPA suggests that a significant number of local water suppliers
may face serious financial problems in meeting the interim NPDWR.
-38-
-------
)RAFT
Because many systems do not currently provide the treatment
necessary to remove many of the contaminants listed in the NPDWR,
there will be a substantial need to upgrade facilities. Many systems
will need to invest significant sums of capital because of the high
cost of some of the treatment techniques. On the other hand, other
systems are in compliance or near compliance with the NPDWR
and will not require substantial expenditures.
-39-
-------
-------
no n trr
**miHr 1
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY EVALUATION
Population Group Served
Number of Systems:
Less Greater
Than 500 Than
500 100,000 100,000
446
501
22
All
Population
969
Evaluation of Systems:
Percent of Systems
Met Drinking Water
Standards
67%
73%
59%
Exceeded Recommended
Limits
23%
27%
25%
Exceeded Mandatory
Limits
24%
11%
0
16%
Note:
Study Population
in Each Group in
Thousands
88
4,652
13,463 18,203
-40-
-------
-------
TABLE 3
MEETING BACTERIOLOGICAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Population Group Served
Less Greater
Than 500 Than All
500 100,000 100,000 Population
Number of Systems: 466
501
22
969
Percent of Systems
Met Criteria
4%
15%
36
PL
10%
PL
Did Not Meet
Criteria
96%
85%
90%
Source - Community Water Supply Study of 1969
-41-
-------
-------
The NPDWR and the State program regulations clearly
recognize that some utilities and water suppliers will not be
in compliance with the maximum contaminant level standards
immediately. The provisions of variances as discussed above and
the time phased monitoring program set forth in the NPDWR will
enable a step-by-step program to achieve compliance. So long as
the public health is protected, EPA will encourage States to
utilize a high degree of flexibility when dealing with local water
suppliers and to take into account the particular problems
these systems may face in meeting the regulations.
Regionalization
Another approach which EPA considers to be a viable solution
for certain water systems for meeting the drinking water standards
is regionalization. While it is recognized that regionalization
may be a reasonable alternative only under certain limited
conditions, it may prove to be a valuable alternative for some
systems, particularly because regionalization does not necessarily
have to be synonymous with total structural consolidation.
In many places, regionalization can reduce the cost and/or
improve the quality of the water supplied. While regionalization
customarily involves at least some structural links between
systems, such as interconnecting pipelines, significant
savings may be possible when merely the management of
systems is combined. This allows activities such as
operation, maintenance, monitoring, financial and administrative
management, overhead, etc. , to be carried out by a single staff.
Many factors affect whether there is a cost saving, in both
structural and non-structural regionalization. These factors
include: the number of service areas, the distance between them,
the relationship between distance and flow, future population
growth, hydrologic and topographic features, the type of treatment
employed, labor costs, and even the particular functions to be
combined (i. e. , impoundment, conveyance, treatment, distribution,
operation and labor, and management).
Despite the impact of local site characteristics on economies
of scale, regionalization is a desirable alternative in many areas
for the following reasons:
-42-
-------
M
. Small systems, for which advantages of structural and
non-structural regionalization are greatest, are much
more likely to be in violation of drinking water standards
and thus be required to make extensive alterations in
their facilities.
. Since economies of scale are generally greater for
impoundment facilities than they are for treatment,
regionalization will be advantageous where it is necessary
to tap new sources rather than merely upgrade existing
treatment processes.
. Apart from economies of scale, small communities can
benefit considerably from pooling capital resources, thereby
obtaining a more favorable market for their bonds.
Even where its benefits are apparent, some important barriers
to regionalization remain:
. Fear of relinquishing control over water supply to a larger
political body.
. Disputes over how control of the regional entity and cost
of facilities are to be shared by participating localities.
. Genuine preference by a community for its present source
of supply.
EPA Policy on Regionalization
EPA's policy with respect to regionalization will be guided by
the following points:
. EPA will encourage regionalization wherever it is clearly
appropriate, however, the Agency does not intend to dictate
any regionalization plan to any public water supply or group
of supplies. The benefits and costs of structural and/or
management regionalization are local decisions, and the
EPA will not interfere with those decisions.
. EPA expects that prior to (or simultaneous with) applying
for variances and exemptions based on cost or raw water
source, smaller systems, especially those serving less
than 5,000 people, will explore opportunities for
regionalization.
-43-
-------
-------
. The States should assess the potential for regionalization
(including integration of waste water treatment and water
supply), and where cost-savings would be significant,
should attempt to provide a climate conducive to regionalization
including the necessary legal authorization.
Within the limits of its resources, EPA will provide technical
assistance and support to States and communities which
pursue regionalization and which can significantly benefit
from doing so.
. EPA intends to implement fully the provision of the SDWA
for extending by two years the compliance period for
systems holding exemptions if they have "entered into
an enforceable agreement to become a part of a
regional public water system. . . "
Monitoring and Laboratory Facilities
With the adoption of the interim NPDWR, most drinking water
systems will be required to increase significantly the frequency
of monitoring Moreover, many will begin for the first time to
test for many ^anic, inorganic and radioactive contaminants.
The step up-ii. onitoring will be reflected in the significantly
increased costs.
t
EPA does not intend to provide direct financial assistance to
local utilities and water suppliers to cover routine costs of
monitoring; however, EPA will continue and may expand its program
for providing information to utilities and to laboratories on improved
methods of performing monitoring. In particular, EPA will attempt
to publicize information on low cost monitoring techniques which
utilities and laboratories may employ.
Availability of Laboratory Facilities
In order for water suppliers to meet the requirements of the
primary drinking water regulations, there also must be an adequate
number of qualified laboratories, capable of performing the monitoring
tests. EPA currently is developing a program for certifying
State principal laboratories for analyzing bacteriological, chemical
and radiological contaminants using criteria developed by EPA
as guidance. Regulations covering the certification of State principal
laboratories may be written into the revised primary regulations.
Presently there appears to be a large number of laboratories
-44-
-------
-------
h
capable of testing for bacteriological contamination and, at least
for larger and medium sized water utilities, there will probably
be no significant problem. States appear to be tooling up to
perform the required chemical analysis, but it is anticipated that
EPA technical assistance will be needed to aid them with the radio-
chemical work.
EPA believes that the decision on whether to expand State
laboratory capability* or to depend on the expansion of private
laboratories should rest with the State. It is nevertheless EPA's
policy that users should bear the ultimate costs of providing safe
drinking water and hence individual drinking water systems should
be responsible for monitoring costs. EPA may take certain steps
to assist States, local governments and public water suppliers in
complying with the monitoring requirements including:
. Expanding the EPA training program or finance training
programs which might be conducted in universities, State
facilities or Federal laboratories where new monitoring
and testing techniques might be taught.
. Develop, with State assistance, a directory of all existing
public and private laboratories.
Develop, with State assistance, a laboratory quality control
program.
Provide technical assistance to water supply laboratories.
Sanitary Surveys and MCL Monitoring Requirements of the NPDWR
A sanitary survey means an on-site review of the water source,
facilities, equipment, operation and maintenance of a public water
system for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy of such source,
facilities, equipment, operation and maintenance for producing and
distributing safe drinking water. Monitoring a public water system
for contaminants is part of a sanitary survey.
* An analysis of a sample of State monitoring programs suggested
that over 85/c of States currently pay for 50% or more of the
costs of laboratory services for municipal systems.
-45-
-------
-------
EPA recognizes that a comprehensive sanitary survey of a
public water system conducted by a qualified person is essential
to locate and identify health hazards which might exist in the system.
On-site visits also present the opportunity to provide often needed
technical assistance to the water supply system operating personnel.
Ideally, a sanitary survey should be conducted of each public water
system annually, in addition to the monitoring established in the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR).
EPA purports that a sanitary survey and water quality
monitoring are both necessary for making a judgment on the
satisfactory operation and acceptable quality of water supplied
by a public water system.
EPA's policy with respect to supporting the sanitary survey
and the monitoring requirements for MCL's promulgated in the
NPDWR should be guided by the following:
. Encourage the use of the sanitary survey to locate and
identify existing and potential health hazards that might
exist in a public water system.
. Support training of EPA Regional and State water supply
program personnel to provide training to State and
county personnel to conduct comprehensive sanitary
surveys.
Provide a manual for use in conducting a sanitary survey
and as a reference in providing technical assistance at
the time of the survey.
Training and Energy Requirements
The most effective strategies are usually those which utilize
existing organizational structures and systems. The Office of
of Water Supply intends to build upon the Agency's commitment
to its regional structure and to the major role to be played
by the States. The principal communications and training efforts
will be implemented by the States as part of the function of exercising
primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) under the SDWA.
-46-
-------
-------
H
It will be the responsibility of the Regions to equip the States to
implement this role, to provide guidance and support, and to
monitor State operations and performance. EPA will provide
basic materials, plans, and resources, and will also support
the Regions with staff training to sharpen their skills as communicators
and trainers, and with policy guidance and information to ensure
consistent, accurate interpretation of the regulations.
The overall objective of the training strategy is to support
the effective implementation of the Act by providing the information
and training required by all who are affected by it. The
targets, then, of this information and training plan include:
. the general public
. water utility owners and operators
. industries and others engaged in underground injection
. State and local officials (elected and program)
. State water system agencies
. State agencies affected by UIC Regulations
. Indian reservations and Federal facilities
. EPA Regional office personnel
. other groups (national associations and organizations)
. other Federal agencies, educational institutions, interstate
carriers.
EPA intends to give serious attention to the potential
overall consumption of energy and the ability of local water suppliers
to afford increased energy costs. The interim NPOWR do not
currently appear to require significant increases in the amount
of energy which will be necessary to provide treatment by local
utilities. EPA will, however, analyze the possible effects of
other treatment techniques (e. g. , activated carbon) which might
be needed at some later date.
-47-
-------
DK*
nvy y ij,
Finally, EPA in general expects non-government owned
utilities to be treated equally with publically owned facilities
in terms of technical assistance, access to laboratories, and
so forth, except as may be required by law. EPA does not view
the Safe Drinking Water Act as a tool to be used to force
investor owned utilities into government operation nor conversely
to pressure local governments into taking over private water
companies.
Relationships between the SDWA and the Federal Water Pollution
Control AcfTFWPCA)
There are several areas of potential interface between the
SDWA and the FWPCA. These include:
. FWPCA water quality standards include the designation
of beneficial uses, including the quality of water needed
to serve drinking water supplies.
. . Standards promulgated under §304,307, and 311 of the
FWPCA would prevent contamination of surface water
sources by some organic chemicals, and any reduction
in organic load in raw water would help a water utility
maintain good finished water quality.
. NPDES permits issued under the FWPCA control the
release of pollutants to many of the same waters used
as public water supplies.
. Some forms of underground injection may be controlled
under the SDWA and through NPDES permits; the
relationships need to be examined.
. Planning under §208 of FWPCA requires consideration
of the protection of both ground and surface water quality.
. Research programs must explore the unknown along the
whole range of contaminant production, transport,
treatment, and toxicity.
-48-
-------
-------
These and the other SDWA and FWPCA programs, such as
technical and financial assistance, training, etc. , should be
treated as programs that have significant areas where the
work can be coordinated. These areas require careful treatment,
more detailed than can be handled in this paper. EPA plans
to manage its water pollution control and drinking water programs
concurrently, giving each the priority attention it deserves.
-49-
-------
-------
CHAPTER V
PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER:
THE UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
Scope of Groundwater Use and Problems
Ground water is an immense potential source of drinking water.
It is estimated that the ground water is 2, 000 to 3,000 times as
plentiful as all fresh surface water combined. Although much of
this ground water is brackish, it is estimated that it constitutes
about 97 percent of all fresh water available in the United States.
It is also estimated that 50 percent of Americans rely on underground
sources for their drinking water. This constitutes a reliance on
ground water by approximately 80 percent of all public supply
systems supplying one-third of the population and over 95 percent
of all rural domestic supplies.
Ground water is found in water bearing strata (aquifers). The
groundwater flow rate is generally quite slow, ranging from a
few centimeters per day to few meters per year, although in some
locations flow rates can be much higher. For much of the
country only episodic information is available on the extent of
groundwater contamination. There are only a few areas where
there is adequate data to determine the total groundwater quality.
Groundwater contamination comes in many forms and from
many sources. One study prepared for the EPA identifies twenty-one
sources of contamination (See Table 4). The severity of contamination
from these sources varies from source to source and State to State.
-50-
-------
-------
TABLE 4 ,
SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION*
1. Landfills, dumps, and excavations - significance of hazard
is dependent upon the nature of deposit, disposal means
and local geologic conditions.
2. Wastepiles and stockpiles - may lead to contamination due
to infiltration from salt supplies (for winter road
spreading), certain ore stockpiles, etc.
3. Animal feedlots - infiltration of wastes from feedlots can
result in excessive concentrations of nitrate, chloride,
ammonia, bacteria, etc.
4. Application of fertilizers - mainly a pollution problem for
surface water, but it has resulted in groundwater
contamination.
5. Application of pesticides - constitutes a potential problem
for shallow aquifers or where pesticides are applied near
groundwater sources of water supply.
6. Accidental spills - spills of toxic substances have posed
immediate health hazards for nearby water supplies.
7. Wastewater sludge and effluents - sludge and effluents
disposed by various means (land application, evaporation
pits) can result in groundwater contamination.
8. Highway salting - can cause serious problems where excessive
amounts are used to melt snow and ice on highways.
9. Polluted surface water - can result in infiltration and direct
interchange to aquifers from polluted surface waters
(addressed by P. L. 92-500)
10. Air pollution - could be considered a form of land spreading
of waste (controlled by the Clean Air Act)
*Not necessarily in order of importance
-51-
-------
-------
11. Holding ponds and lagoons - widely used by industry and
municipalities; poor construction or operation can result
in infiltration and consequent groundwater contamination.
12. Septic tanks - potential for contamination is dependent on
population density, contraction methods, and soil type.
13. Storage transmission facilities - contamination results from
leakage from sanitary sewers, buried gasoline tanks, etc.
14. Drainage wells and sumps - often used to dispose of surface
runoff, especially in areas with little natural surface
drainage.
15. Artificial recharge - used to combat salt-water intrusion,
subsidence, declining water tables by percolation -
infiltration or other means; can result in contamination
if not properly performed or monitored.
16. Disposal wells - includes brine re-injection wells and
industrial waste injection wells.
17. Secondary recovery of oil and gas - poor well design and/or
construction of the wells can result in contamination of
the fresh water aquifer.
18. Water supply wells - contamination can be caused by
improperly constructed or abandoned wells.
19. Exploration holes and abandoned wells - abandoned oil, gas,
and coal exploration and production wells have created
considerable groundwater contamination problems.
20. Mining - contamination from highly mineralized and/or acidic
mine leachates may be generated long after mining
operations have ceased.
21. Groundv/ater development (pumping) - overpumping of fresh
v/ater aquifer can result in salt-water intrusion.
-------
-------
9 n >,fs* ,9 a ft_ I
iJ:\^\jj* |
There is at the present time not sufficient data available to rank
these sources of contamination in order of importance according
to the quantities of pollutants discharged to ground water, their
relative adverse impact on human health, and feasible control
techniques. Although EPA will give priority to the control of
activities as mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, i. e.
injection wells, all of these sources of contamination are of
concern to the Agency which will, in conjunction with the States,
study their threat to groundwater quality as the UIC Program
becomes operational.
Summary of Part C- the UIC Program
Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to develop
programs for the "protection of underground sources of drinking
water. " These Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations
will contain minimum requirements for programs to prevent
endangerment of underground drinking water sources by
contamination by underground injection. Section 1421(b)(l)
specifically requires that a State program:
"A) shall prohibit... , any underground injection... which
is not authorized by a permit issued by the State (except that the
regulations may permit a State to authorize underground injection
by rule);... "
"B) shall require.., that the applicant for a permit to inject
must satisfy the State that the underground injection will not
endanger drinking water sources, and... that no rule may be
promulgated which authorizes any underground injection which
endangers drinking water sources;... "
"C) shall include inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements;... "
MD) shall apply.. .to underground injections by Federal
agencies, and to underground injections by any other persons
whether or not occuring on property owned or leased by the
United States. "
The program to be developed is a joint Federal/State
regulatory system. Federal regulations will be developed which
will serve as the foundation for State enforced UIC programs.
-------
-------
Following proposal of UIC regulations, EPA will list in the
Fedgj al Register the States for which a UIC program is necessary
to assure that underground injection will not endanger drinking
water sources. Since well injection is practiced in all States,
all Staces will be listed over a few years span. Listing of a
State does not imply that El PA has made any evaluation of the
adequacy of the State's existing underground injection control .
programs but rather that there is a need for a UIC program
because of the presence of injection wells in that State.
Each State, so listed, will have 270 days after promulgation
of the UIC regulations to submit an application for primary
enforcement responsibility showing that the State has satisfactorily
adopted and will implement a UIC program. Within 90 days after
the State's application, the EPA Administrator will either approve
or disapprove the State program. When the program is approved,
the State will haye primary enforcement responsibility (primacy).
If the program is disapproved, EPA must prescribe and administer
a UIC program in the State. The Administrator may also approve
a part of a State's program, but the State does not have primary
enforcement responsibility nor can it obtain additional program
grants 2 years after the effective date of the first grant unless its
entire program is approved.
Part C (Section 1424) also establishes a program in areas
relying on ground water as a "sole or primary source" of drinking
water.
The Act emphasises the strong role that States are to play
in implementing the "QIC program and EPA intends to work closely
and in cooperation with the States to insure that the intent of
the Ace is upheld.
Goglg_of_the UIC Program
EPA's basic goals and policies in implementing Part C of the
SDWA are essentially the same as those stated earlier in this
paper for the rest of the program:
. Coir principal goal is to protect the public health to the
extent feasible, giving due consideration to the economic
and social costs which might result.
-54-
-------
-------
Bs'AFT
. We intend to adopt a flexible, step-by-s.tep approach to
the implementation of this program, and desire that
the States play the principal role in its implementation
as defined by Congress in the legislation.
. The bulk of EPA's activities in this area will be
conducted by the Regional Offices, and not by
headquarters, with the exception of research and
regulation-preparation. These headquarters activities,
however, will be closely coordinated with the Regions
and the States.
. Since resources are limited, EPA must utilize Federal
and State resources in ongoing programs wherever possible.
Objectives of the UIC Program
Chapter 3 of this document detailed the general goals of the
SDWA, including the UIC Program, and outlined the objectives
of the Office of Water Supply. Figure 2 shows a tentative time
frame for the implementation of the UIC program based on the
proposed UIC regulations. The objectives of Part C for the
protection of underground sources of drinking water are:
. Certification of States to assume primacy for the
implementation of the UIC program.
. Protection of aquifers which are the sole or principal
source of water supply.
To reach the objectives the following activities will be necessary:
. Listing of States requiring a UIC program
. Promulgate regulations for the following:
State UIC program
State program grants
. Develop guidance on the following:
Endangerment of underground sources of drinking water
Interpretation of permit applications
Coverage of the UIC program
Review of State Programs
Area designation and project review under Section 1424(e)
-55-
-------
-------
f
\'-4
"
*l :
o
. s
&.
u
H
S
tM
O
fJU
U
s
H
J
\__CM '
w"
g
g
CO Cd 4J
H B CO
CU r-l -H
. M 3 CU ^l O
2} _, ,n o to d S cu 4-i
3 d W CO IM to o
°r~1 ft) *r-< 60 rH C
|| cfss ;^" S2,"fp
g?L='l? sg^slaL"
3 £ 8 » £ 8 S.3 * ^ 0M0 ^ ^ w °- *" ° -^
C014-ICU4JCO CUOUJ '
HCUd ^(drH-H uijitj
O^^ 4-JrHX PuruV
cutdcoiococdcu KMtMw
K T) 4J cU d
CO 4-1 -H . /t*
< n) to 1
w o co xi x: 1 cu
-. CO 4-1
'T -H r td
f --( -d 4J
^8 H' "J -a
Li >1 4-) -H C
12; . g;E-
* ^ s s s w g ^^
td td a, <; M ^
, td td
00 4J C1 M
a> n) is o' M
* a! M T3 4j o '
r-t M«PI«MM»H\ lj
0) 3 ' O CU A,
4J E [^ 4J
"30 fM td lJ
4-1 )-l IN 4J O 4J
co ex co 14-1 en td B
XJN. -rl fd
ai d oo
r-H 4J -r-l O
w * cd td ^ ^
'X -, -H 4J -rH (X
O CU 4J CO 3
H 4-i co -a -H tr u
u cd E cu emcUM
*^^2S MOPS
3 50 CX s*^
Date of First 2 Years State Deadline fot
Grant Awarded to Achieving Primacy
State
01 O M
Gj 14-1 CX
ex.
U
in
-------
. Provide technical assistance to the States on permitting,
inspection, monitoring, reporting, and enforcement procedures.
Strategy Overview - Policy Issues
This section addresses the most pressing significant policy
issues facing the program.
Extent of Protection under Part C
1. Definition of "underground injection"
2. Definition of'underground drinking water source"
3. Definition of "endangerment of an underground drinking water
source. "
Program Implementation
A. The Underground Injection Control Program
4. Listing of States
5. Regulating existing and new underground injections
6. Regulating injections related to oil and gas production
B. Sole Source Aquifer Protection
7, Implementation of Section 1424(e)
8. Relation of the UIC program and PL 92-500.
Issue # 1 Definition of "Underground Injection"
Section 1421(b)(l)(A) of the Act prohibits any underground injection
which is not authorized by permit or rule. Underground injection is
defined as "the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection"
(Section 1421 (d)(l).
The Act does not further clarify the definition "well," "injection,"
or "well injection. " The legislative history clearly states that the
Act applies to "deep well" injection and also to wells for the disposal
of oil field brines or injection for the purpose of additional recovery of
oil or natural gas. The legislative history also indicates that the
definition should not be limited to waste disposal or waste injection but
also cover any contaminant which may be put below ground level and
which flows or moves whether the contaminant is in a semi-solid,
liquid, sludge, or any other form or state. There are several
-57-
-------
practices which fit the definition of underground injection: industrial
and municipal waste disposal wells, solution mining wells, storage
wells, geothermal wells, wells lor the injection of brine brought
co the surface in connection with oil and gas production, injection
JLO.T- secondary or tertiary recovery of oil and gas, drainage wells,
subsidence control wells, barrier wells and recharge wells. Less
clear, however, is the inclusion of surface impoundments under
the definition of underground injection. As defined by Meinzer in
7ai.or Hydrology and Deiini Lions surface
_
impoundments are "dug" v;eiis"a"nd, LhereioreT may be considered
for inclusion. But as the ineent of the Act is to include only well
"injection," it is difficult to determine when impoundments are
designed to inject and when they are not.
Consequently, in consultation with the States, EPA has proposed
a Gsfinition of well injection in the UIC regulations proposed in the
Federal Register on August 31, 1976, as the "subsurface emplacement
of fluid through a bored, drilled, or driven well, or through a dug
we.ll where the depth is greater than the largest surface dimension,
whenever the principal function of the well is the subsurface emplace-
ment of fluids, " This definition excludes surface impoundments from
the permit/rulemaking portion of the regulations but the regulations
require that impoundments be inventoried and their impact on
underground drinking water sources be determined,
Issue #2 Definition of "Underground Drinking Water Source"
Underground drinking water source is not defined in the Act
but the legislative history indicates that any underground water
containing 10, 000 mg/1 total dissolved solids or less should be
protected. Consequently, EPA has chosen to define an under-
ground drinking water source as "(1) an aquifer which currently
supplies a public water system, or (2) an aquifer which contains
water having less than 10, 000 mg/1 total dissolved solids. " This
definition allows protection of aquifers which are currently being
used as a source for public water supplies and aquifers which have
the potential to be used at some future date.
EPA has, however, provided flexibility to the States to designate
areas where no underground sources of drinking water exist or
to designate aquifers which, though underground sources of
drinking water by definition, need not be protected because they
are oil producing, contaminated or located in a way that would
make their use impractical. The UIC program would not apply
to any underground injection in those designated areas or aquifers.
-58-
-------
Issue #3 Definition of "Endangerment of Underground Drinking
Water Sources"
Section 1421(b)(l) of the Act prohibits underground injection
which endangers underground drinking water sources. Endangerment
is further defined by Section 1421(d)(2) to mean "if the presence of
such contaminant may result in such (public water) systems not
complying with any national primary drinking water regulation
or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons. "
This definition presents a problem because there are several
contaminants which may be found in underground sources of
drinking water that are not covered by current national primary
drinking water regulations and secondly, many new contaminants
may be added to revised drinking water regulations. Allowing
the injection of such contaminants today may make the water
supply system to fail the standards tomorrow. This would be
endangerment.
To alleviate these difficulties EPA has clarified the definition
of "endangerment" in the Act to mean that endangerment occurs when
(1) a public water system currently using the source must apply
additional treatment, (2) a public water system using the source
in the future must apply more extensive treatment than would
otherwise have been necessary than if the injection had not occurred,
or (3) if the health of persons is otherwise adversely affected
by adding a substance that would make the source unfit for human
consumption.
Issue #4 Listing of States
Section 1422(a) requires that the Administrator publish a list
of States that require a UIC program. The States on that list then
have nine months after the promulgation of the State program
regulations to apply for enforcement authority under the SDWA;
EPA will be providing financial assistance to States to help them
obtain primacy. If some of these States do not apply or EPA
determines their programs to be inadequate, EPA must prescribe
a UIC program in those States.
The House Committee Report (p. 32) suggests that all 50
States should be listed. Section 1422(b)(l)(A) of the Act
allows, nevertheless, for a staggered listing ol the States:
-59-
-------
-------
A ET
v, , -, i 5i
. - a
"Each State listed under subsection (a) shall,
within 270 days after the date oi promulgation
of any regulation under Section 1421 (or, if
later, within 270 days after such State is first
listed, under subsection (a)) submit to the
Administrator an application.. . "
In applying both the Committee's intent that all 50 States.
be included and the Act's flexibility to stagger the listing of
the States, EPA proposes a strategy of listing all 50 States
in stages, over a few years time. This will allow EPA
to establish criteria (number of injection wells, groundwater
use, etc.) for listing the States most urgently needing a UIC
program, followed the next year by a second group, etc. At
the end of a specified period, all 50 States will be listed.
The value of this policy is that it allows EPA to concentrate
limited resources in areas such as technical assistance to the States
with the highest priority need for a UIC program, rather than
spreading the effort among all 50 States immediately.
Issue #5 Regulating Existing and New Underground Injections
Section 1421(b)(l)(A) of the Act requires that State programs
shall prohibit any underground injection which is not authorized
by a State issued permit, except the States may authorize injection
by rule provided the rule does not allow underground drinking water
sources to be endangered. This provision applies to all existing
as well as new underground injections. The burden of permitting
new injections is relatively light with approximately 6,000 new
injections each year. There are, however, approximately
150,000 existing underground injections to be permitted.
The Act stipulates (Section 1421(b)(l)(A)) that the permitting
for existing injections must be completed by December 16, 1977.
Section 1421(c)(l) does, however, allow the issuance of temporary
permits through December 16, 1978 if a State cannot process all
the permit applications.
Because EPA was not able to promulgate these UIC regulations
as scheduled, it will be impossible for the States to comply with
the timetable developed by the Act. Therefore, the following
permitting schedule has been included in the proposed UIC
regulations now undergoing public review and coment.
-60-
-------
a) Waste disposal wells, engineering wells, and oil field
related injections - all new wells must be permitted immediately.
Existing wells can operate under rules of general applicability
for up to five years during which time permits will be written.
The State will determine its own method of handling the permitting
of existing injections t/hich may be by age, county, etc.
b) Drainage wells - The State is given the latitude to regulate
these wells by permit or rule. A timing procedure is not specified,
however, the requirement of non-endangerment still remains.
The procedure outlined above allows for the orderly permitting
of all underground injections with a minimum of difficulties and
delays.
Issue #6 Regulating Injections Related to Oil and Gas Production
The Act (Section 1421(b)(2)) specifies that State UIC programs
may not prescribe requirements which interfere with or impede
underground injection in connection with oil and natural gas
production or the secondary or tertiary recovery of oil or natural
gas unless such requirement is essential to assure that under-
ground sources of drinking water will not be endangered by such
injection. Recognizing the complexity, intensity, age and
experience in regulating injection operations as they relate to
oil and gas production and the fact that several alternative methods
have been demonstrated to be equally effective in protection of
underground sources of drinking water, the UIC proposed regulations
that a State may approve alternative methods of protection to meet
specific minimum requirements if the operator clearly demonstrates
that (i) the requirement would stop or substantially delay oil or
natural gas production at his site, and (ii) the requirement is not
necessary to assure the protection of an existing or potential
source of underground drinking water. This provision of
alternative methods applies only to the construction and operation
of the injection facility. Decisions about alternatives will be
made on a case-by-case basis and will not be State-wide
requirements. '
-61-
-------
-------
Issue #7 Implementation of Section 1424(e) of PL 93-523
Section 1424(e) states:
"If the Administrator determines, on his own initiative
or upon petition, that an area has an aquifer which is
the sole or principal drinking water source for the
area and which, if contaminated, would create a.
significant hazard to public health, he shrJ.1 publish
notice of that determination in the Federal Register.
After the publication of any such notice, no
commitment for Federal financial assistance (through
a grant, contract, loan guarantee, or otherwise may
be entered into for any project which the Administrator
determines may contaminate such aquifer through a
recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to
public-health, but a commitment for Federal assistance
may, if authorized under another provision of law, be
entered into to plan or design the project to assure that
it will not so contaminate the aquifer."
In summary, Section 1424(e) addressees two sets of actions:
(a) aquifer designations; and
(b) review of .Federal financially assisted projects in
designated areas.
An analysis of various alternatives concluded that the only
feasible way of reviewing Federal financially assisted projects
is to integrate the 1424(e) review process with the review of
Federal actions subject to the requirements of the National
Environment Policy Act (NEPA). Therefore, Section 1424(e)
review will ordinarily take place when draft and final Environmental
Impact Statements (EIS's) are submitted to EPA. Unlike NEPA,
1424(e) gives EPA the authority to halt project construction.
This fact alone will encourage Federal agencies to improve the
quality of their EIS's and adequately implement their own NEPA
guidelines. To insure that EPA and the public are informed, EPA
will request that a list of projects for which EIS's will be prepared
be periodically submitted to EPA and made available to the public
upon request.
-62-
-------
-------
»'i
This integrativc approach to environmental review makes it
possible to take advantage of Federal agency and the public's
familiarity with the NEPA process. For those projects
which are located in the recharge zones of designated areas but
which do not require the comprehensive evaluation of an EIS,
Federal agencies may limit their analysis of environmental impact
to the inclusion of a groundwater impact evaluation in the
environmental assessment. For those projects which EPA does
not review on its own initiative, a public petition option will be
provided.
EPA's strategy for the implementation of 1424(e) is outlined
as follows:
. Prepare national guidelines for the designation of areas
and the project review process containing two major
regional delegations:
- delegation of the project review process to the
Regional Administrator reserving the project
veto power for the Administrator.
- delegations of the authority to evaluate designation
petitions, prepare background documents and
submit a package to the Administrator along with
the regional recommendation on designation.
. Work with Federal agencies to amend their guidelines for
NEPA implementation in order to address review under
Section 1424(e) and strengthen the groundwater impact
evaluation of the EIS's. ,
. EPA, for the time being and until regional experience is
gained, will not take the initiative in designating sole
source aquifer areas, but respond to designation petitions.
. Although the project review process is an EPA responsibility
which may not be delegated, Regional Administrators may,
if they so desire, work out memoranda of understanding
with the States and regional Federal agencies to be kept
informed of projects in the area.
-63-
-------
-------
Although the national policy will emphasize review of
projects through the NEPA process Regional Administrators,
where they consider it appropriate, may ask to be informed of
and expand their review power to projects other than those subject
to NEPA requirements. Memoranda of understanding between
the Region and the local Federal agencies will be the appropriate
mechanisms to expand EPA review to projects not subject to
EIS's, if Regional Administrators consider it necessary. Such
agreements could, for example, periodically require lists of
projects for which negative declarations will be prepared, spot
check negative declarations, or obtain lists or applications for
financial assistance from A-95 Clearinghouses.
Issue #8 Relationship of the UIC Program and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (PL. 92-500)
EPA should strive to use existing Agency programs to assist
in the implementation of the UIC program.
Before the passage of the SDWA, the EPA was involved in
matters related to groundwater contamination mainly through
various provisions of PL. 92-500. Some of these provisions
(e. g. , research and reportmaking) are discussed earlier in the
strategy.
Under the authority of Section 402 of PL. 92-500, EPA and
the States have permitted a few hundred municipal and industrial
injection wells with which there was an associated surface water
discharge. However, PL. 92-500 permitting authority is
restricted from the control of brine re-injection and secondary
recovery wells, whereas the SDWA is not so limited. Ihe UIC
permitting program will be designed so as not to require more
than one permit either from the UIC or the NPDES permits
programs,
The SDWA has no planning provisions similar to those
contained in PL. 92-500 for the control of aquifer contamination.
EPA will, therefore, consider utilizing planning mechanisms
provided underJPL. 92-500 which are related to groundwater
protection. The major planning provisions of PL. 92-500 related
to the SDWA are:
-64-
-------
-------
Section 106(e). Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the
Administrator shall not make any grant under this
section of any State which has not provided or is
not carrying our as a part of its program --
"(1) the establishment and operation of appropriate
devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary
to monitor, and to compile and analyze data on
(including classification according to eutrophic condition),
the quality of navigable waters and to the extent
practicable, ground waters including biological
monitoring; and provision for annually updating such
data and including it in the report required under
SectidOOS of this Ac~
Another major planning processes of 92-500 is the Section 208
Areawide plan. The Section 208 plans are intended to be the focal
point for the control of point and non-point surface water pollution.
However, 208 plans are also intended to address groundwater
problems.
Section 208(b)(2). Any plan prepared under such
process shall include, but not be limited to--
"(K) a process to control the disposal of
pollutants on land or in subsurface excavations
within such area to protect ground and surface
water quality."
The 303(e) continuous planning process should also be applied
to the protection of ground water, in that the results of the 208
plans, especially the Statewide 208 plans, are to be incorporated
into the 303(e) plans.
This reference to the FWPCA planning mechanism with
provisions applicable to the SDWA is not meant to be exhaustive.
However, it does illustrate the existing resources the States and
EPA have in the water planning area that could be applied to this
new Act. EPA is especially interested in getting comments from
States and-'from the public on the desirability of applying these
planning mechanisms to the SDWA program.
-65-
-------
------- |