(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 ------- |