United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/625/K-97/001a
May 1997
&EPA
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
tt«W.OII»ICr AYE., OH«K CO 80235
National Satellite
Videoconference on Source
Protection of Drinking Water
Supplies
Presentation Materials
May 14, 1997
-------
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strives to provide accurate, complete, and
useful information. Neither EPA nor any person contributing to the preparation of this
document, however, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the usefulness
or effectiveness of any information, method, or process disclosed in this material. Nor does
EPA assume any liability for the use of, or for damages arising from the use of, any information,
methods, or process disclosed in this document.
Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
National Satellite Videoconference on
Source Protection of Drinking Water
Supplies
Wednesday, May 14, 1997
1 :OOPM - 4:45PM Eastern Time
Agenda
1 :OOPM Welcome and Introduction to Session 1 Jan Connery
Vice President,
Eastern Research Group, Inc.,
Lexington, MA
SESSION 1: APPROACHES OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA),
THE STATES, AND NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS TO SOURCE WATER PROTECTION .
1:10PM History of EPA's Ground Water
Wellhead Protection Program Robert Barles
Chief, Prevention & Support Branch,
Implementation and Assistance Division,
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
EPA,
Washington, DC
1:20PM EPA's Research Program in Source Water Protection
of Drinking Water Supplies E. Timothy Oppelt
Director, National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL),
EPA,
Cincinnati, OH
1:30PM The American Water Works Association (AWWA)
Take on Source Water Preston Luitweiler
Chair, AWWA Source Protection Technical Advisory Workgroup,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Company,
Bryn Mawr, PA
1:40PM - National Rural Water Association (NRWA)/EPA
Wellhead Protection Program John Trax
Senior Environmental Engineer,
NRWA,
Washington, DC
-------
1:50PM State Drinking Water Presents Perspective
on Source Water Protection David Terry
Director, Drinking Water Program,
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
Boston, MA
2:OOPM Panel Discussion and Questions From the National Audience
2:20PM BREAK (A video entitled "Power to Protect" will be shown.)
SESSION 2: How Is SOURCE WATER PROTECTION ACCOMPLISHED AND WHAT ARE THE
CONSEQUENCES OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND NON-IMPLEMENTATION?
2:40PM Introduction to Session 2 , •
2:45PM Evaluating the Effects of Upstream Dischargers •
on Downstream Water Supplies: A Case Study
in Source Water Protection Robert Clark
Director, Water Supply and Water Resources Division,
NRMRL, EPA,
Cincinnati, OH
3:05PM Source Protection Reality From
a Small System Perspective Lynda Laine
Ground-Water Technician,
Northeast Rural Water Association,
Colchester, VT
3:25PM Source Water Protection Costs and Benefits Richard Cobb
Manager, Ground-Water Section,
Division of Public Water Supplies, Bureau of Water,
Illinois EPA,
Springfield, IL
3:45PM A Private Water Supplier's View Upstream Preston Luitweiler
4:05PM Panel Discussion and Questions From the National Audience
4:35PM Program Wrap-Up and Summary
4:45PM Program Concludes
-------
Session 1
Presentations
-------
-------
Robert W. Barles
Chief
Prevention & Support Branch, Implementation and Assistance Division
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260^7083
Robert W. Barles received his B.S. in biochemistry from the University of California at Riverside,
and his M.S. in environmental toxicology and pharmacology from the University of California at
Davis. Prior to working at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), he was employed at
the University of California at Davis.
!
Currently, Mr. Barles serves as the Chief of the Prevention and Support Branch within EPA's Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water. His responsibilities focus on staffing EPA's Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP) approach, assisting states and communities
in implementing Wellhead Protection programs, and leading efforts to establish national policies
for Source Water Protection.
Mr. Barles has served EPA for 17 years with assignments in the Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation, the Office of Research and Development, and the Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
HISTORY OF EPA'S GROUND WATER
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
Amendments to Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986
A. Establishment of Wellhead Protection Program
B. Elements of Wellhead Protection Program
C. Focus on community water systems
D. Initial state submissions
E. Current status of approvals
F. Types of programs
1. Mandatory
2. Voluntary
Amendments to Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996
A. Focus on source water protection
B. Expansion of coverage to all public water systems
C. Provision for funds to carry but the program
D. Inventory and assessment requirement
-------
E. Guidance development
1. Source, water assessment
2. Petition
III. Partnerships in Implementation
A. Discussion guide
B. Stakeholders meetings
C. The partners
IV. Where To Go From Here?
-------
E. TIMOTHY OPPELT
Director, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7418
Fax: 513-569-7680
E. Timothy Oppelt received a B.S. in civil engineering and an M.S. in sanitary engineering from
Cornell University. He also earned an M.B.A. from Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio. Mr.
Oppelt has been the Director of the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Cincinnati, Ohio, since 1995.
As the Director, Mr. Oppelt is responsible for managing a national research program on
technologies and management practices to reduce health and environmental risk due to
environmental contaminants. NRMRL's program is concerned with using technology to ensure safe
drinking water in public water supply systems; management and control of urban non-point source
water pollution; remediation of soil and ground water at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites; indoor
air pollution; prevention and control of air, waste, and water discharges from industrial operations;
and mitigation of releases from oil and hazardous material spills. NRMRL employs 430 EPA staff
at research facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio; Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; Ada, Oklahoma;
Edison, New Jersey; Washington, DC; and Pine Bluff, Arkansas. NRMRL's fiscal year 1995 budget
was $115 million, which supported both in-house research and extramural research with
universities, consulting organizations, other Federal agencies, and private industry technology
developers. In addition to research, NRMRL is responsible for environmental technology
performance verification and international technology diffusion programs.
Prior to his current position, Mr. Oppelt directed the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory from
1988 until April 1995. Mr. Oppelt directed a national program researching technology for the
treatment of drinking water; the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes; the remediation of
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites; the treatment of municipal and industrial wastewater; asbestos
abatement; the management and disposal of refuse; and the mitigation of hazardous substance
releases from spills and underground storage facilities. He was responsible for the management
of 260 EPA employees and a budget of $64 million per year.
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
RESEARCH PROGRAM IN SOURCE WATER PROTECTION
OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
I. Increased Attention on Source Water Protection
A. Growing recognition that treatment may not solve all water quality problems
B. Growing awareness of problems in controlling difficult to treat pathogens
such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia
C. Suspicion that Milwaukee outbreak (400,000 cases of acute gastroenteritis)
was a function of a storm event and poor treatment
D. Application by New York City for a variance from filtration based on its
source water protection and control program (an option under SWTR)
E. 1996 SDWA Amendments requiring states to develop source water
protection programs
II. Information Necessary for Development
A. Traditional sanitary survey data
B. Contaminant transport modeling knowledge
C. Land use planning
D. Inventories of point and non-point source data
E. Knowledge of hydraulic and hydrogeologic characteristics of affected area
F. Location of water supply intakes
G. Chemistry of source water
111. Specific Activities
A. ORD's and NRMRL's ongoing source water protection research
B. Key accomplishments
C. Tools/Products
IV. Watershed Management
A. Technology and strategy development for controlling chemical and microbial
contaminants from agricultural and storm runoff, combined sewer overflows,
and sanitary sewer overflows
1. Study and evaluation of technologies for drinking water treatments
2. Models available from EPA's Web site help in determining waste
load allocations on streams
a. EPA/600/3-87/007, The Enhanced Stream Water Quality
Models QUAL2E and QUAL2E-UNCAS: Documentation and
User Manual
b. EPA/600/3-85/040, Rates, Constants, and Kinetics
Formulations in Surface Water Quality Modeling (Second
Edition)
-------
B. Methodologies for assessing and controlling non-point source discharges
1. EPA/625/4-91/030, Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop
2. EPA/625/R-95/003, National Conference on Urban Runoff
Management
V. Ground-Water Protection
A. Characterization of the subsurface environment and determination of the
fate, transport, transformation rates, and associated mechanisms of
pollutants' movement
B. Key activities include ground water modeling, ground water fate and effect,
and wellhead protection research
1. Delineation of wellhead protection zones
a. Evaluation of capture zone models via field trials
b. Development of improved wellhead delineation models
i. Alternative model needed: fixed radius model too
simple; complex model too data intensive
ii. WAPA and Wellhead Analytic Element Model
(WhAEM) and WAPA Model^-widely used and
available through EPA-ORD homepage
(http://www.epa.gov/ord/)
iii. Support via Center for Subsurface Modeling Support
(CSoS)
c. Community assistance in implementing wellhead protection
programs: Ellis Country Kansas Wellhead Protection
Committee
i. Definition of wellhead capture zones
ii. Evaluation of wellhead delineation models
d. Wellhead protection program tools
i. EPA/625/R-93/002, Wellhead Protection: A Guide for
Small Communities
ii. EPA/625/R-94/001, Ground Water and Wellhead
Protection Handbook
iii. EPA/600/R-93/107, Case Studies in Wellhead
Protection Area Delineation and Monitoring
2. Subsurface virus transport
a. Development and evaluation of unsaturated zone models
b. Laboratory and field studies of virus transport
c. Determination of factors that determine virus survival in the
subsurface
3. Economic assessments
a. Survey of the most common contaminants responsible for
shutting down water supply wells
b. National Research Council Study - Valuing Ground Water:
Economic Concepts and Approaches (available Summer
1997)
4. Water treatment and supply
a. Study of technology for treating and delivering drinking water
b. Evaluation of technologies for treating and delivering drinking
water
-------
C. Key activities and related tools/products
1. Clark, R.M., et al. 1986 Toxic Screening Models for Water Supply,
ASCE-JWRPM. April.
2. Clark, R.M., et al. 1989 Identifying Vulnerable Surface Water
Utilities; JAWWA; February.
3. EPA/625/6-91/027. Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance
Using the Composite Correction Program Approach. EPA/625/R-
96/002. (Software associated with above.)
4. EPA/600/A-93/241. Waterborne Pathogen Invasions: A Case for
Water Quality Protection in Distribution Systems.
5. EPA/600/A-93/256. Engineering Aspects of Waterborne Disease
Outbreak Investigations. <
6. EPA/600/A-95/028. Cryptosporidium: The Milwaukee Experience
and Relevant Research.
7. EPA/600/A-94/237. EPANET - An Advanced Water Quality
Modeling package for Distribution Systems.
-------
Preston Luitweiler, P.E.
Chair, American Water Works Association Source Protection Technical Advisory Workgroup
Philadelphia Suburban Water Company
- 762 West Lancaster Avenue
. Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
610-645-1132
•'. ' r , Fax:610-645-1164
E-mail: pluit@philly.infi.net
Preston Luitweiler has a B.S. degree in civil engineering and an M.S. in environmental engineering,
both from Drexel University. He has worked at Philadelphia Suburban Water Company for 15
years as an engineer and researcher. As Manager of Research and Environmental Affairs, he is
presently responsible for a program that monitors parts of eight rural and developed watersheds
in the Delaware River basin. .'".']...
"Mr. Luitweiler is a member of the American Water Works Association and chairs that
organization's Technical Advisory Workgroup on Source Water Protection; he is also a member
of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Tau Beta Pi and Chi Epsilon honorary
engineering societies. Mr. Luitweiler has written and presented numerous articles and papers on
water treatment and source water protection.
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) Take on Source Water
(morning session)
I. AWWA Background
II. Historical Role of Source Water Protection in Public Water Supply
A. Utilization of the best available source
B. SWP as method of providing safe drinking water
C. Major urban parks—historical link to water supply protection
III. The Source Water Spectrum
A. Ground water supplies
1. Groundwater
a. Connate
b. Percolating
2. Surface water influenced
B. Surface water supplies
1. Unfiltered
2. Reservoirs and lakes
3. Run-of-river
-------
IV. AWWATAW
A. Diverse membership
B. White paper position on SWP
, 1. Voluntary, incentive-based programs
2. Credible threat of regulation
3. Elevation of SWP in existing water resource protection programs
4. Partnerships and communication
C. Survey of state program administrators and water suppliers
D. Background for implementation of SDWA SWP provisions
V. Other Resources
A. AWWA
1. Conferences
2. Publications
3. CD-ROM "Electronic Watershed Management Reference Manual"
B. AWWARF—Research projects
1. "Watershed Sources of Natural Organic Matter and Pathogens"
2. "Use of Constructed Wetlands for Protection of Water Quality..."
VI. Disconnects To Be Bridged
A. Water suppliers and environmentalists
B. SDWA and CWA program administrators (state and federal)
VII.
Conclusion
-------
John R. Trax
Senior Environmental Engineer
National Rural Water Association
1200 New Hampshire Avenue - Suite 430
Washington, DC 20036
202-955-3153
Fax:202-955-1147
E-mail: seatrax@aol.com
John Trax has a B.S. in civil engineering and an M.S. in environmental engineering from the
University of Maryland. He is a professional engineer and is a diplomate in the American Academy
of Environmental Engineers. Mr. Trax has 32 years of experience in the drinking water field.
Mr. Trax is currently employed by the National Rural Water Association (NRWA). He is working
on implementation of the Safe Prinking Water Act for small water systems. He conducts numerdus
training classes for NRWA and its state affiliates and writes a monthly regulatory advisory for
member water systems.
NRWA/EPA Wellhead Protection Program
HI.
Introduction
A. NRWA's mission
B. NRWA programs
NRWA/EPA Wellhead Protection Program
A. Purpose/Objective
B. History
C. Description of programs - five step process
D. Program accomplishments
The Future
A. More state resources for SWP
B. More surface water SWP programs
C. Contact your NRWA state affiliates for help
-------
-------
David Y. Terry
Director, Drinking Water Program
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
1 Winter Street - 9th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617-292-5529
Fax:617-292-5696
E-mail: dterry@state.ma.us
David Terry received his B.A. in geography from Middlebury College and his M.C.P. in community
planning and area development from the University of Rhode Island. Mr. Terry is currently the
Director of the Drinking Water Program at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), responsible for the oversight of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act in the State
of Massachusetts. He was responsible for the development of the state's Wellhead Protection
Program as well as its Comprehensive Source Water Protection Program.
Mr. Terry represents Massachusetts on the Association of State Drinking Water Administration
(ASDWA). He currently chairs the ASDWA's Source Water Protection Committee and is also on
the Executive Committee of the Ground Water Protection Council.
State Drinking Water Presents Perspective
on Source Water Protection
Introduction
A.. ASDWA support for source water protection
B. State's historical rule in protection
C. State's role under new source water
State Support for Source Water Protection Program
A. Multiple barrier
B. Cost benefit implications
1. Avoidance of treatment
2. Monitoring relief
C. Early regulatory role
D. Wellhead protection program - Technical GIS assistance
States' Expanded Role Under Reauthorization - SWAP
A. Delineation
B. Vulnerability assessment/Susceptibility analysis
C. Public outreach
D. Assistance with local implementation
-------
IV. Next Steps
A. Developing a comprehensive strategy
B. Accessing FY97 funding for delineation
V. Conclusion ,, . .
A. SWAP priority for drinking water programs
B. Strong support needed at the local level if implementation is to occur
-------
Session 2
Presentations
-------
-------
Robert M.Clark, Ph.D.
Director, Water Supply and Water Resource Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7201
Fax:513-569-7653
E-mail: clark.roberthn@epamail.epa.gov
Dr. Robert M. Clark received a B.S. degree in civil engineering from Oregon State University, a
B.S. degree in mathematics from Portland State University, an M.S. in mathematics from Xavier
University, an M.S. in civil engineering from Cornell University, and a Ph.D. in environmental
engineering from the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Clark has worked as an environmental engineer
in the U.S. Public Health Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 1961.
Dr. Clark is currently Director of the Water Supply and Water Resources Division (WSWRD) for the
National Risk Management Research Laboratory. WSWRD researches drinking water treatment
and delivery and wastewater, combined sewer overflows, and water resources.
Dr. Clark has served on many advisory committees and held office at the national level in a variety
of professional organizations. He is recognized as an international expert in the field of
environmental engineering and has received numerous awards from EPA, the U.S. Public Health
Service, and from professional associations. Some of Dr. Clark's recent awards include:
• The A.P. Black Award from the American Water Works Association in 1993 for outstanding
achievement in water supply research.
• A Gold Medal from EPA in 1994 for assisting the city of Milwaukee during its 1993
cryptosporidiasis outbreak.
• The Science Achievement Award in Water Quality in 1995 from EPA for research
characterizing the factors that influence distribution system water quality.
• The Rudolph Herring Medal from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 1996.
Dr. Clark has authored or coauthored 300 papers and publications and is the author of four books.
-------
Evaluating the Effects of Upstream Dischargers on Downstream
Water Supplies: A Case Study in Source Water Protection
By: Robert M. Clark, James A. Goodrich, Benjamin W. Lykins, and Jill R. Neal
I. Introduction
A. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996
1. Focused national attention on source water protection
2. Heightened awareness that conventional water treatment may not always
be adequate for providing safe drinking water
B. Some waterborne disease outbreaks may be attributed to contaminated source
waters and wet weather flow events
C. Milwaukee example
1. Utility met all Surface Water Treatment Rule requirements
2. Spring rains and frozen ground contributed to a wet weather flow event
and rapid runoffs
3. Wet weather flow event in combination with poor treatment operation
resulted in more then 400,000 illnesses and a possible 100 deaths
D. Ground water and the need for source water protection
1. Wellhead protection and setback programs
2. Sources of contamination
a. Landfills
b. Superfund sites
c. Underground storage tanks
3. Important interactions between ground water and surface water
II. All Utilities in the U.S. Vulnerable to Sudden Changes in Water Quality
A. Ground or surface water
B. Milwaukee example
C. Difficulties of optimizing treatment
D. Vulnerability of utilities in the Ohio River basin
1. Barge spills
2. Municipal and industrial discharges
3. Combined sewer overflows
4. Major carbon tetrachloride spill in 1978
5. Largest inland oil spill in 1989
6. Vulnerability of Cincinnati
E. Engineering design characteristics addressing vulnerability problems
1. Multiple barriers
2. Design capacity
3. Operational considerations
F. Little systematic research available to provide guidance
G. Research initiated on contaminant propagation modeling using Ohio River as an
example
H. Providing input to treatment students
I. Evolving program
-------
III. Contaminant Propagation Modeling Research Program
A. Heavily dependent on spatial data
B. Interactive contaminate transport model
C. GIS embedding to organize spatial data
D. Applications to Ohio River basin
E. Previous research
1. Ohio River studies in 1980
2. Mississippi River studies in 1985
F. Development of model based technology incorporating a GIS based contaminant
model and database management system
IV. Ohio River Basin
A. Begins at confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers just below
Pittsburgh, PA
B. One thousand miles long and flows through or borders six states
C. Carries the waters of a myriad of tributary streams that stretch into thirteen states
D. Discharge area covers more than 200,000 square miles
E. Approximately 10 percent of the U.S. population lives in the Ohio River Valley
F. Approximately 3.5 million people depend on the Ohio River as source of raw
water supply
G. Historically the Ohio River has experienced some of the world's largest spills
H. Spill events upstream of Cincinnati
V. Cooperative Agreement Between the Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission
(ORSANCO) and EPA to Study Spill Research
A. ORSANCO resulted from a river basin compact
B. Collection of data to monitor long term water.quality
C. Organics Detection System established in 1980s
D. Worked to improve water quality in Ohio River basin
E. Need to manage spatially organized data
VI. Management of Spatial Data
A. ARC/INFO (GIS standard for EPA) selected for use
B. Primary organizing concept—REACH file for relating data
C. Databases included in the study
1. Political boundaries
2. Discharge intake and facility location
3. Land use coverage
4. Toxic loadings to air, water, land
D. Other sources of information utilized
1. Industrial Facility Discharge File
2. Permit Compliance System
3. Toxic Releases Inventory
4. Data referenced to NPDEDS permit system
5. Four versions of REACH file (RF1 A; RF1, 70,000 elements; RF2; and RF3
3,500,000 elements)
-------
VII. Contaminant Propagation Modeling Options
A. Two options
1. Wide scale simplified model
2. Detailed model of Ohio River mainstream
B. Simple travel time relationships in wide scale model—pollutants routed through
the RF1 REACH file representation
C. Actual dynamic flow patterns in EPA's detailed WASP4 water quality model
1. Ohio River represented by a series of segments ranging from two to ten
miles in length
2. Assumed an event takes place at upstream end of a reach
D. Corps of Engineers (FLOWSED) hydraulic model
1. Predicts daily flow quantities and water .levels
2. Applied daily by Ohio River division of the Corps of Engineers
3. Forecasting for data stage and flow
E. Study results
1. Counterintuitive
2. Volume-velocity tradeoffs
3. Velocity (time) governs downstream concentrations for volatile chemicals
at high flows
4. Volume governs downstream concentrations for conservative
contaminants
VIII. Cincinnati Source Water Protection Program
A. Surface water source
1. Cincinnati utilizes ORSANCO's early warning and model predictions for
spill response
2. Full scale (200 mgd) Granular Activated Carbon facility
3. Powdered activated carbon added during spills
4. Five 4-day passages through treatment plant
5. Thirty days of storage capacity
6. Combined sewer overflow study
B. Ground water source (50 mgd)
1. Consortium developed to manage source water protection program
a. Database and GIS
b. Monitoring site selection
c. Monitoring plan development
2. Identified parties
a. Municipal and private water users
b. Industries
c. Water quality databases
3. Institutional procedures developed to deal with spills
IX. Extremes in Source Water Protection
A. Sisterville (system of 1,800 along the Ohio River) shut down intake during oil spill
B. New York City maintains elaborate SWP program to eliminate treatment
-------
X. Costs for Source Water Protection
A. GAG plant in Cincinnati
1. $50 million to construct
2. $2.7 million per year to operate
B. PAC cost for Cincinnati approximately $100,000 per year
C. Organic detection program on Ohio River
D. New York plans to invest 1,5 billion in SWP program, estimates cost of treatment
at $6-8 billion
XI. Summary and Conclusions
A. Most utilities in U.S. (both ground and surface water) vulnerable to sudden
changes in raw water contaminate concentrations
Little research conducted to characterize or understand the nature of spill or
sudden discharge events on downstream water quality
Study designed to understand effect that upstream discharges can have on
downstream water intakes
Focus on role of modeling and information management
Combination of GIS and modeling tools proven effective in water quality
management
Useful tools for assisting Ohio River basin cities in assessing the effect of spills
and discharges
Variety of source water protection needs
Small systems in spatially compact watersheds
1. Can't afford treatment
2. Lack political clout
New York City
Ohio River basin
Need to develop fundamental understanding of source water protection needs in
the U.S.
Need to encourage forums such as this one
B.
C.
D,
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
-------
-------
Lynda Laine
Ground-Water Technician
Northeast Rural Water Association
P.O. Box 622
Colchester, VT 05446
802-660-4988
Fax: 802-660-4990
Lynda Laine has a B.S. from the University of Massachusetts and is completing graduate studies
in the environmental field at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. She has worked in water resources
for ten years and water research for four years.
Lynda Laine is currently employed as a ground-water technician for the Northeast Rural Water
Association. Her work area covers New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Vermont where she
provides technical assistance for small water systems required to formulate a Wellhead Protection
Plan according to state regulations. She has been involved in workshops and training sessions to
promote source protection.
Source Protection Reality From a Small System Perspective
I. Introduction of Mobil Home Park
A. Description of area
B. Population served
II. Wells and System Description
A. Site review: location in the town of West Swanzey, NH
B. Surface geologic maps reviewed
C. Hydrogeologic setting
III. Wellhead Delineation Area
A. Potential inventory of threats
B. Contamination: Leaking underground storage tanks
IV. Description of Contamination Tanks
A. Eight tanks with total capacity of 36,000 gallons
B. Types of product
1. Gasoline
2. Diesel fuels
3. Kerosene
C. Historic and future uses of site
V. Project Costs: Site Owner and Oil Company
VI. Mobil Home Park Owner Costs
-------
VII. Source Protection Implementation by Park Owner
A. Septic system maintenance
1. Regular pumping
2. Leach field replacement
B. Prohibited
1. Auto repair
2. Maintenance activities
C. Road maintenance by owner
D. Well area security measures
E. Well testing
F. Educational outreach
-------
Richard P. Cobb
Manager, Ground-Water Section
Division of Public Water Supplies, Bureau of Water
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 9276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
217-785^4787
Fax: 217-782-0075
E-mail: epa3188@epa.state.il.us
Rick Cobb has a B.S. in geology and post-graduate training in hydrogeology and engineering
geology from Illinois State University. He has worked as a consulting well site geologist in
petroleum exploration and development. He has 12 years of experience in ground-water and
environmental protection with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA).
Rick Cobb is currently employed by the IEPA as Manager of the Ground-Water Section in the
Bureau of Water. He is currently working on the continued development and implementation of
Illinois' Source Water Protection Program. He serves as a liaison to the governor-appointed Illinois'
Ground-Water Advisory Council, is a member of Illinois' Interagency Coordinating Committee on
Ground-Water, chairs Illinois' Certified Crop Advisor Board-Ethics Subcommittee, is a member of
the Ground Water Protection Council's ad-hoc committee on Source Water Protection, and serves
on the American Water Works Association Water Resource Committee. Mr. Cobb is also part of
EPA's National Water Quality Inventory Consistency Work Group, which develops ground-water
guidelines. Mr. Cobb has authored or co-authored 30 papers and/or regulations on ground- and
source water protection.
Source Water Protection Costs and Benefits
I. Introduction
II. Community Water Supply (CWS) Statistics in Illinois
III. Source Water Contamination Case Studies
A. City of Rockford - $7.5M to drill new water supply wells
B. City of Freeport - $570K for an air stripping tower to remove volatile organic
chemicals from ground water
C Village of Chandlerville - $260K to locate and find a new water supply well
D. City of Springfield - $190K/year to remove pesticides with activated carbon from
Lake Springfield
IV. State Wide Surface Water CWS Use Impairment
V. State Wide Ground-Water Contamination Impacts on CWS Wells
-------
VI. Economic Hardships Incurred by Local Businesses and Communities Due
to Ground-Water Contamination
A. Devalued real estate
B. Diminished home sales and commercial real estate sales
C. Loss to the tax base
D. Consulting and legal fees
E. Increased operation and maintenance costs
F. Increased water rates for alternative water supplies as well as the cost of new
equipment and treatment
G. Remediation costs including site characterization, feasibility studies, and long-
term treatment and disposal costs
VII. Pollution Prevention Programs
A. Reduce operating costs
B. Reduce risk of criminal and civil liability
C. Improve employee morale and participation
D. Enhance company's image in the community
E. Protect public health and the environment
VIII. SDWA Waiver Program Wellhead Protection Incentive
A. Phase II & V Monitoring Waiver Program based on the wellhead protection
program developed in Illinois
B. Lab fee cost incentive waiver benefits to small systems
1. Up to $15 million reduction in analytical costs over the next three years
2. $586 to $4,595 reduction in annual fees for CWSTF participants
3. $700,000 reduction per year or $2.1 million cost savings over the next
three years to the CWSTF
C. Wellhead protection benefits to small systems under the waiver program
1. 435 CWS (using confined aquifers) have developed full wellhead
protection programs
2. 53 CWS (using confined aquifers) are working on fixing sanitary survey
issues under conditionally approved waivers
a. Small systems implementing
b. Recharge area protection
IX. AWWA Small Systems Compliance Assistance Grant
A. Village of Marengo small system wellhead protection case study
1. Map of Marengo WHPA
2. Marengo recharge area protection program
a Overlay zoning ordinance under development
b. Pollution prevention workshop and technical assistance to existing
businesses
c. Road signs
d. Maximum setbacks adopted
-------
3. Marengo wellhead protection management team
a. Environmental
b. Illinois EPA
c. IRWA
d. Village alderman
e. Fire chief
f. City planning and zoning
g. School teacher
h. Pollution prevention intern
i. Business
B. Pollution Prevention
1. Reduces or eliminates pollutant discharges to air, water, land
2. Includes the development of more environmentally acceptable products
3. Changes in processes and practices, source reduction, beneficial use
4. Environmentally sound recycling
5. Nissan-Barretts pollution prevention project in Marengo Recharge Area
6. Nissan-Barretts pollution prevention project
X. City of Pekin's Wellhead Protection Program
A. Demographics
1. 13,514 services
2. 4,420,000 gallons per day
3. Map of Pekin WHPAs
B. Pekin's recharge area protection program
1. Overlay protection ordinance adopted
2. Maximum setback zones
3. Recharge area road signs
4. Pollution prevention workshops
5. Contingency plan
C. Pekin's wellhead protection program costs vs. the cost of contaminated ground-
water
1. 5-7 million gallons of lost production supply if one "of the recharge areas
was contaminated
2. $4M for treating ground water
3. $15M to build a new surface water treatment plant
XI. Lake Springfield
A. Demographics
1. 143,000 person service area
2. 17 billion gallon facility
3. 266 square mile watershed
4. $190,000 per year in granular carbon treatment costs
5. Map of the Lake Springfield watershed
B. City of Springfield
1. Lake Springfield watershed protection program
2. Watershed management committee
XII. Conclusion—Economic Benefits of Source Water Protection
-------
-------
Preston Luitweiler, P.E.
IV.
A Private Water Supplier's View Upstream
(afternoon session)
PSWC Background
A. Location, service territory
B. 900,000 people served
Ci Produce about 10d IWGD from 90 wells, 7 surface plants
D. 8 Ideal streams and rivers - about 1,000 sq. mi. watershed area
Issues and Case Studies
A. 1992HWMF
B. Urea fertilizer used as de-icer
C. Herbicides in spring run-off
D. Microbial contaminants
1. Giardia & Cryptosporidium
2. Indicator organisms
a. Trending
b. Source tracking using genotyping techniques
E. Sedimentation
1. Causes:
a. Farming
b. Development
c. Highway projects
2. Effects:
a. Algal blooms
b. Eutrophication
c. Taste and odor
Tools and Resources for Protection and Remediation
A. Existing regulations and programs
B. Geographical Information Systems mapping
C. Partnerships, communication, and information ...
D. Improved maintenance and advanced treatment of wastewater
E. Improved E & S controls and storm water management
F. Agricultural BMPs
1. CRP
2. EQIP
G. Stream bank restoration
Conclusion
-------
------- |