(V
COORDINATION OF EPA GROUND WATER ACTIVITIES:
A BACKGROUND REPORT
(V
Program Evaluation Division
Office of Management Systems
and Evaluation
Office of Policy and Resource
Management
Environmental Protection Agency
f
September 3, 1982
J>S» Environmental Protect 1 ->r lgs::cj
Library, Room 2404 PM-2II-A
401 M Sv.-PPpt- S.W.
-------
Coordination of Ground Water
Activities at EPA Headquarters
Executive Summary
ni
Within EPA Headquarters, four Assistant Administrators' offices
t j and several Program Offices (including those responsible for
. H the drinking water/underground injection control, solid waste/
hazardous waste, Superfund, pesticides, radiation, and construc-
tion grants programs) perform similar functions related to
. " ground water protection and have responsibilities that conflict
j and overlap to some extent. The various Program Offices operate
under different statutes that provide differing mandates for
; ground water protection. No single official below the Admini-
strator's level has the authority to coordinate these programs.
EPA's objective presumably is to make its ground water protection
^ activities cohesive, i.e., logically interrelated, consistent,
complementary. Toward that end, the Agency might wish to ensure,
for example, that its ground water monitoring activities are
non-duplicative and consistent with EPA (and State) priorities
for problem assessment and preventive action or that various
remedial actions affecting a single aquifer are based on common
- -_ assessments of the problem and common objectives for rectifying it
(to the extent permitted by law).
There are basically two ways to achieve the objective of ensuring
that Headquarters ground water protection activities are cohesive:
-
o Publish a policy laying out the general principles
; - ...- underlying the Agency's activities (e.g., States
have the primary role; level of protection should
4 ---"". De based on current and projected future uses) and
supplement it with guidance documents spelling out
how the Program Of fices will perform common
functions (e.g., reviewing variance applications
and State-delegation requests) or deal with
common issues (e.g., definition of ground water,
appropriate extent of clean-up).
o Publish a policy laying out general principles but
do not develop guidance documents. Program Offices
would develop proposals for dealing with programmatic
and regulatory issues on the basis of their own
' interpretations of the general principles and
applicable laws, but a coordinating official or group .
would have authority to review and/or reject the
Program Offices' proposals.
-------
At the conclusion of Phase 2, the Agency should have in place
both operating guidance enabling HQ Program Offices to take'
consistent and complementary approaches to activities bearing
on ground water protection and a coordinating mechanism for
monitoring adherence to the Agency's policy and resolving
issues arising within or outside the scope of the published,i: .
guidance documents. -. -. :."i. ?i--;
-------
-5-
o Inconsistent approaches to regulating similar
sources of ground water pollution under different. .
EPA regulations.
o Inconsistent responses to a single ground water con-:
tamination incident by different EPA program. off ices.
Possible Administrative^/Political Effects: : : ;;;_-.
o Confusing and conflicting guidance to State and
local governments trying to control pollution of
ground water, thus making implementation and
enforcement more difficult.
o Confusing and conflicting guidance to industries,
local governments, and individuals trying to comply
with regulations, thus making voluntary compliance
more difficult.
o Criticism of EPA by, and perhaps loss of credibility
with, States, regulated industries, environmental
groups, and the general public.
While these problems may be more potential than real
at this time, the likelihood of their becoming a reality
will increase in the future, as implementation progresses
in EPA programs. In addition, programs such as Pesticides
predict a significant increase in identified contamination
incidents in. the future, due to better monitoring of ground
water, and increased pressure for multiple uses of the limited
ground water resource.
C. What needs to be coord inated?
In our interviews of EPA managers and. staff, we found
no consensus on which specific activities related to ground
water need to be coordinated. This lack of consensus is due
in part to the following factors:
o The various Program Offices are not sufficiently
aware of each other1 s .activities to know whether
there are conflicts, inconsistencies, or duplication
. of effort. This isolation from the larger Agency
context is both a result of lack of -coordination and
information sharing, and a reflection of the lack of
strong incentives to coordinate.
-------
-7-
EPA PKteAM OFFICES; AUTHORITY AND ACTIVITY
RELATING TO GROUND WaiER
...
1_ !
1 EPA Piogidiu Offices
J 1. drinking Hater (ODH)
. /.'" - ~ ~
j_ . (sole source aquifers; UIC;
V drinking water standards)
.; V/
..:,.. .
* - - -.
2. ttoter Program Cperations (CWPO
(sludgo 6 wststio watsr usft &nd
: - - - - - - - disDOsal
jl - 3- -water enforcement (OWE)
(NPDES)
- { - - - -.,.. _, . . -. -
- ' 4; - Solid Haste (OSW)
. -_,.--., ^ - -... (land Disposal of solid and
* . '. . ...... hazardous wastes) ,
' ' ' - -.
= -..-:-,. -
- -5i anergency & Remedial
. _ . , ... . Response (OERR)
^ ' (leaky abandoned land
disposal sites)
'4
6. - 'pesticides Programs (QPP)
(pesticide use and disposal)
^ - s
-: t - '
s~ ' '
"7. Radiation Piuguus (ORP)
(radioactive materials use
and disposal)
8. Toxic Substances (COS)
(PCS use and disposal)
Brc
Use of dri
of ground
Preventive
Controls
"designation of
sole source
aquifers
* restriction on
use of federal
dollars for
construction
of facilities
en sole source
aquifer
, r
sad Areas of lee
inking
water
Clean-up
end of the
pipe
standards
for drinking
water
-
financial
assistance
- -
.
financial &
technical
assistance
* enforcement
direct
action to
remove/
rcniCQV
jislative Authority
Sources of Pol.
of ground wat
Preventive
Controls
facility operating
permits _ .
enf oroenent
standards
- -
" financial assistance
standards
enforcement
facility operating .
permits
° facility, operating "
permits " .._..._.
' enforcement-- -
standards- . , _ .
- - * -
r r ". - " " - - -
0 registration of _
products and
producers" ~
enforcement
technical and - ' '
financial
assistance
standards f«ar - -" ' '
disposal . - -
techncial assistance
standards
standards
° enforcement
product labeling
and exemptions
LUC ion
:er : . " . - -
Clean-up
_ , . -
-_;: r - - - _ - '
:-.'.- : : -'-.' :
- - - -
- - ~ - -
....
enf orcenent ~ ^
~ _ . .. - - - .
_ - _
1 financial & "
technical
assistance- -
* enforcement
direct action
to. remove/
action
.
0 technical
assistance
standards -
technical
assistance
- - r
- . - .
. . . .
- - ...
- - :
~ -~ -
r T : .
.-
-,.r~
f -. .
_
"" *
.' -.-
~ ^
- --
-------
-9-
1
Another kind of program overlap occurs when the activities
or requirements of two different programs affect the same
aquifer. For example, there is the potential for a situation
where the Agency decides not to clean up a leaking landfill
site, while drinking water wells on the same aquifer are
being closed because the water no longer meets the standards
of the Office of Drinking Water (ODW). It is possible that
spending money to clean up .the leaking landfill in one part
of the aquifer would reduce resources needed in another part
of the aquifer to either treat the drinking water or find an
alternate source of drinking water. EPA might in this case
apply different standards or approaches to the same aquifer.
As this hypothetical case shows, the activities of one program
could affect another program's activities or effectiveness
in dealing with the same aquifer.
A third area of program overlap occurs when two EPA
programs have standards or activities that address the same
pollutant. There is a constant tension in this area between
media-specific or source-specific programs that cover a wide
range of pollutants (e.g., Office of Drinking Water and
Office of Solid Waste), and pollutant-specific programs that
focus on a single pollutant or single type of pollutant
(e.g., Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Radiation
Programs, and Office of Toxic Substances). An .example is
the recent aldicarb contamination of an underground drinking
water source on Long Island. The Office of Pesticide Programs
and the Office of Drinking Water responded to that contamination
incident by issuing different estimates of the safety limit
for aldicarb in ground water; the result was conflicting
advice to the State authorities responsible for taking action.
This is a clear case of two Program Offices applying different
standards to the same pollutant.
3. Duplication of effort
In the aldicarb case, OPP and ODW conducted separate
assessments of the relative risk of that pesticide in ground
water, and subsequently established different safety limits.
Such action not only resulted in conflicting recommendations,
but also involved an unnecessary duplication of effort.
There may also be duplication of specialized expertise
across programs. If an adequate approach to ground water
protection requires staff with training and experience in
hydrogeology, soils, etc., it may be inefficient for such
specialized staff resources to be located in more than one
or two program offices.
-------
-11-
has recently been a similar attempt by technical staff to
coordinate ground water activities and exchange information.
The staff set up an inter-program committee, with formal
agendas and minutes, but the effort stopped after six months
because it had no authority or support from program managers.
In general the Agency's coordination efforts have suffered
from: (1) inadequate information about pending activities
of other offices or of workgroups of interest, in time to
contribute substantively and make changes; (2) little motiva-
tion for any office to provide support to another office's
program; and (3) no effective means to resolve differences^;
Coordination is a very difficult process to implement effee- ~
tively, and is viewed by Program offices an offering.few ;
rewards for the time and resources invested. 7" -.
II. CONCLUSIONS ------ :r
A. Approaches to Coordination
. .. It is important to remember that the purpose of" estab-
lishing a mechanism to coordinate Agency ground water activities.
is to develop a cohesive and consistent approach.to ground water"
protection throughout the Agency. Coordination is npt an end : ;
in itself, but simply a means to an end. Equally important,;;
coordination takes time«and 'resources and, unless carefully ~ "
designed, and controlled, the process can become burdensome,
causing delay in meeting other important Agency objectives. ~
. Accordingly, there are two general approaches the Agency
can_take to help ensure that the actions of the individual"
offrciets with ground water responsibilities are consistentand
reflect a cohesive policy:
1. Develop clear and specific guidelines concerning the major
issues that affect the decisions and actions of various
-offices, combined-with a process to ensure that these
guidelines are followed. .!..'!"
12. Institute a strong coordinating mechanism to monitor all
Agency actions related to groundwater and identify and
resolve differences and inconsistencies as they occur.
The former approach requires more effort initially; in -order
bo anticipate and resolve issues before they generate' contradictory
'>r. duplicative actions and requirements, but minimizes; the '-; . ~~
jeed for coordination later on. The latter approach relies
on a more elaborate process to achieve the same end, utilizing
more resources for on-going coordination.
-------
-13-
Criteria for Effective Coordination :
Based on our interviews, we have identified.a number-
of criteria that are important for effective C9ordination.
These apply both in Phase 2 and in the coordination of
onr-going groundwater activities, and are relevant regardless
of the specific mechanism selected. Unless these elements.--..
are1 incorporated into a coordination scheme, the:results ---
will be less than successful. - - - - ^ - -.-.....
The Administrator's continuing and visible interest-andr;
support - Without evidence that coordination.is of;vital
interest to the Administrator, Program Off ices. are. _-.'
unlikely to take the effort seriously and-to^invest: the
resources required to coordinate their actions*£This - -..
interest is expressed in various ways - the selection
of a mechanism, the amount of resources allocated; to..;
coordination, the questioning of actions that Ha^ve not
received the "stamp of approval" from the coordinating
body or are not in accord with established. ppjLicy;er4 - --
guidelines. Directives from the Administrator and
periodic reports can reinforce the incentives to keep-:-
coordination a high priority. __;-.--. -- - --. : ~ .-
o - -i Accountability - The person in charge of ensuring thatr:--
- T- coordination takes place, or assigned to participate- - ?:_-
in coordination activities, must be held accountable- -,^-~:
.. for the quality of'his performance. Coordinating must;---:
constitute a legitimate part of his job; too^ofteB^ 3 - -
- coordination or workgroup participation has been per-
ceived as extra, and unwelcome, duty. Several.people
.: recommended that coordination be includedcin performance . ,
standards, both for the AA(s) in charge and-staff.assigned-
- > - to coordination efforts, with measures forejudging -_--._ -
success clearly defined. " " .
Q- :Resources Commensurate With Responsibility - Coordination;:
takes time and resources, and this must be recognized
in budget allocations and in freeing staff time _to.:-^ r " 3 .-.
participate.
o - Conflict Resolution - The mechanism must include a means
to resolve most conflicts and disagreements, and not ::;:. -.
continually rely on a higher level for decisions.
o ':-:Process Should Not Become a Bottleneck - The = --_.:: -.-^ : -:
---:-;coordination -process could create significant delays, _ -,--
for the programs if it is too cumbersome or^is:npt ;kept r -. -
-- to a reasonable schedule. However, coordination does,; -t-
take time,.and this should be reflected in-setting . .
schedules for program outputs. . '
-------
-15-
5. Provide central point of contact for external" "groups,~
including other Federal agencies, States and local
agencies, industry, and public interest groups.
6. Negotiate among programs and with Regions to try to
:. . arrive at consensus on how to resolve substantive
issues. ? --.. - ':-'- .
7. Resolve conflicts among programs.
-How to Coordinate T~^:----
. The activities in Phase 2 involve both management o|;,
=?-the work process and resolution of substantive issues*' The.
: .coordination and management mechanisms should include .fehe 1.
:. -. .following elements: -'-. ' -.' ~ A - -
\.-
1. Lead Office
-: To make sure that the tasks get completed, there should
be one office assigned the responsibility for coordinating.
-Phase 2, with the AA ultimately accountable for its success..
Two optional locations for this responsibility, and their
relative advantages, are as follows: -:_--=.-
o Office of Water
- Has historically been involved in the development-
of ground water policy in the Agency. .......
- Has experience with, and knowledge of ground water
issues. . = - _ :
- Provides continuity with Phase 1. :.:_;- ;..-.
o Office of Policy and Resource Management -_. = -.-__.
- Is consistent with OPRM's role of policy review-for,
the Agency. , \ -
- Can provide an overall Agency perspective that is
outside of a specific program focus. ~. ~~T7~
-------
1
-17-
4. Forum for Cross-Cutting Issues
Phase 2 must provide a forum for explicit consideration
of how decisions in one program affect other programs. The
Office Directors Group can provide such a forum. It will
the responsibility of each Office Director to raise such
cross-cutting issues for discussion, and to suggest solutions,
It will be the responsibility of the Chairperson to make
sure that all appropriate issues are discussed and re solved '.
if possible, and that other groups have access to this
forumespecially for input from Regions and States.__ "_!"_"_'_"..
5. Resources : - i -.: :
Phase 2 will require a commitment of resources commen-=-
surate with the tasks and responsibilities discussed-:above..---
Resources will be needed in the following three areas:
(a) Coordination task
"--- We anticipate that the coordination task of- the lead:- =
office will not require a constant level of effort, but will -
involve a heavy workload at the beginning and end, ;and at. .;
certain times during the year, such as during public meetings
and efforts at conflict resolution on specific issues. We
therefore recommend the following resource commitments::::;?^
o Personnel levels' '--==.
- one senior manager (who should not have any competing
management responsibilities) - ---.; ^
- two analysts . .-.-.;
- secretarial support
o Other resources
- office space, for central point of contact
- travel funds, for conducting public meetings, -.- :-
or meetings with Regions or States. --=-.-:
(b) Analytical tasks - ?. - --
Analytical tasks to be identified will require various
levels of effort by the participating Program Offices.
IV. Options for on-going coordination
' *
As discussed earlier, it is premature to establish a
specific mechanism to meet on-going coordination needs before
the Phase 2 effort has defined these needs. The Phase 2
tasks should include design of an on-going means to coordinate
groundwater activities when the major elements of the approach
to groundwater protection are in place.
-------
-19-
i;
Reorganize - Programs having the greatest role in ground-
water protection could be combined under one AA. Consis-
tency would then be within the control of that AA.
Designate a "lead AA" This office would be responsible
for ensuring that all actions are consistent with Agency
policy and are coordinated? the offices would retain . . .
their current responsibilities. This role :could be
assigned to a program office, or to OPRM. This would..
place responsibility for coordination under one AA, but.
the level of authority (e.g. decision-making, vs-.-monitoring
authority) could vary.
Establish a standing committee - There are mariy~optlohs
for structuring a committee with coordinating responai- _ _
bilities. The mandate of this committee could .range
-from simple review of actions and information- exchange,,. :
to authority to force resolution of issues, vetoing
actions if inconsistencies are not resolved. Other : r _.__- _.
choices include the level of participants (AAs? staff?*);"
chairmanship (OW? OPRM? rotating chairmanship among-- -- = -.-
offices?). - - -- f
'>' H* i'nviro; *-- ^« . r,^. ,
library, Ro- -.. - ,TTon
^401 M Street, B.wl -M~^~'A
Washington, DC 2Q480
------- |