United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
4601
EPA 810-R-97-002
jst 1997
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER
ADVISORY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF APRIL 30 - MAY 2, 1997 MEETING
WASHINGTON, D.C.
EPA
810
R!
97
002
c.2
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Drinking Water Advisory Council
April 30 - May 2,1997
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sponsored a meeting of the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC) at the Washington Plaza Hotel, Franklin-Adams Room, 10 Thomas
Circle, N.W., Washington, D.C., from April 30 through May 2, 1997. The following members
were present: . " .
L.D. McMullen, Chairperson
Maurice Arels
Patrick Bahegas ' . .
Walter Bishop ' ,_ / '
James Cleland ' --'v/.'- -;.,(
Diane Kiesling , ' ' . -'".'-';...., ~,,^
Nina McClelland . ^'. '" '_
j * , ''
DianaNeidle, , ,<"" .>',' -
Susan Seacrest ! ": C--
John Scheltens
. James Tripp (present only on April 30) . ; 'vi/ .
William VanDeValk '..''.
Thomas Yohe , . ' .
Those absent were: PaulNannis . . ' "
Also present during all or part of the meeting were:
Charlene Shaw, Designated Federal Official
Cynthia Dougherty, Director, Office of .Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW)
Tudor Davis, Director, Office of Science and Technology
Mike Cook, Director^ Office of Wastewater Management ' ,
. Jeffrey Grubbs, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Bill Diamond, Director, Standards and Risk Management Divisiov;, OGWDW
Janette Hansen, OGWDW
Jeff Kempic, OGWDW , , . . . -
Ben Smith, OGWDW . -
John Bennett, OGWDW
Jamie Bourne, OGWDW ' <
Robert Barles, OGWDW . ' .
-------
Robert Blanco, Director, Implementation and Assistance Division, OGWDW
Francois Brasier, OGWDW
Peter Shanaghan, OGWDW ;
. Evelyn Washinton, OGWDW
Andrew Bartlett, EPA Region 4
Mark Smith, USDA
William Roy .Harrison,. US DOE . "
Mike Doherty, US,-Marine Corps
Sara Renner, US .Army
Christopher Wolf, US House Commerce Committee
Kevin Brown, Utah prinking Water Program Administrator .
Phil Strong, US Boray Inc.
Dan Schechter, American Water Works Service Company
Mark Scharfenaker, AWWA Waterweek
Tom Schaeffer, AMWA
John Sullivan, AWWA " '
Alan Roberson, AWWA
Michael Arceneaux, AWWA ,
Vanessa Leiby, ASDWA . ,
Bridget O'Grady, ASDWA
Bob Lewis, NAWC ' ^ . :
Lucie-Anne Radimsky, NAWC
Maede Bullock, CNO ' .
. Valerie Hill, Norfolk Naval Shipyard/CNO '
Steven Balla, George Washington University .
Jack Wright, George Washington University
Jennifer Smith, Metropolitan Water District of Southern Colorado
Ralph Sullivan, International Trade Forum
Pat Ware, BNA
R. p. Cunningham
Bill Rhoads, The Nature Conservancy
Bill Rusin, Labat Anderson, Inc/Safe Drinking Water Hotline
Glenn Goddard, AFMOA/SGOE
Tom VanArsdall, NCFC <
-------
Wednesday. April 30. 1997
.- ' '
I. Opening Remarks and Welcome >
Chairperson L.D. McMuIlen welcomed all present to the NDWAC meeting at 9:07 a.m.
After each member introduced him/herself to the group, Ms. Cynthia Dougherty reported on the
"'status of the Office of Ground Water^ and Drinking Water (OGWDW). ; '
II,
Status of Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Ms. Dougherty reported to the Council on the following topics:
/
With regard to implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act'(SDWA)
Amendments of 1996, the issues being focused on are: regulatory improvements;
. funding; prevention; and public involvement. Twelve areas of particular.focus
were identified and six working groups, five of which are active, with the sixth still
being worked out, were formed to address some of these issues.
There are 28 deadlines set forth by the Amendments to be met by November 1998,
including:- source water protection guidance; permanent monitoring relief guidance;
treatment technologies for the surface water treatment rule; groundwater grant
guidance; a new contaminant candidate list; and the consumer confidence report
regulations.
The allotment formula and guidance for the drinking water State Revolving Fund
(SRF) have been released. All Regions are currently working with States to make
, sure States have the legislative authority to go ahead with the SRF and help prepare
grant applications. States have until September 30, 1998, to get FY97 funds.
EPA is actively implementing new planning and budgeting strategies. A goal that
has been set for the drinking water program is to have 95 percent of the population
served by community water systems receive water that is always safe to drink by
2005.
OGWDW is working with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to determine if
there is a better way to measure water-borne disease outbreaks.
III. Source Water Protection. Safe Drinking Water Act
"*,,'. .
Mr. Jeffrey Grubbs presented the following points to the Council:
-------
An important concept concerning watershed protection is total maximum daily load
(TMDL). A watershed is analyzed to determine what inputs factor into water
quality, and then standards are established to be met by each source of
contamination. Usually, the State determines the water quality standard to be met
for protecting the drinking water supply. .;
The TMDLs are not self-implementing for non-point sources, but serve as a starting
point on who needs to do what for localized watershed plans. However, the
program has been subject to increasing litigation. Much of this litigation is directed
to non-point source problems, and attempts to draw attention to the problem, and to -
get some accountability. TMDLs provide accountability of what the sources are,
what they contribute, and who needs to do what in order to achieve endpoints.
Implementing TMDLs is a significant effort for States who-have long lists of
impaired waters, and can take 10 to 12 years to complete.
There is a fairly ambitious project being launched to place on the Internet all
information that is publicly available about watersheds on a national scale. The
Index of Watershed Indicators is being created (formerly the National Watershed
Assessment Project), and will be made available through the Internet. The current
\ . home page is already running'4 million hits a month, and usage is expected to
increase to 50 million hits a month by the time the index is available.
IV. Clean Water Act . " . ,
, t . '
Mr. Tudor Davis, Director of the Office of Water's Office of Science and Technology
(OST), began his presentation with a brief description of work within his Office. OST interfaces
with the scientific community and focuses on the development of criteria for both drinking water,
in their various forms, and for surface water (aquatic life and human health).
\
Currently, OST reviews State water quality standards based on two components:
Designated uses for surface waters; and .
Criteria for particular chemicals to meet the designated uses.
A third component based on biological criteria is being encouraged. With the recent
attacks on the science behind the criteria, there is an effort to make revisions and incorporate
information from new developments with the science (such as with dissolved metals). . .
With regard to events in the Science Policy Council that concern implementation of
SDWA, Mr. Davis said: ' .
-------
OST has been working very hard on the risk characterization policy so that we have
continuity and clarity in terms of all of the documents that we prepare, particularly
the health risk documents.
' ' \
Cancer guidelines are moving forward very well. . .
Support is needed for the modernization of the IRIS (Integrated Risk Information
System). . " .
Work is being done with NIEHS on transgenic testing models. ' .
Improvements are being made on microbe risk assessment, including giardia, nolic
virus, cryptosporidium, and enterovirus. Methods on water-borne pathogens are
also being worked on, including entero cocci and E. coli.
A new initiative on beach protection will inform the public about the risks from
bathing, particularly in contaminated surface water, and after a storm event or sewer
overflow.
An interim health advisory for MTBE (a gas additive) is being developed.
The arsenic NRC review mandated by Congress has begun. There will be a
workshop in May on the mode of action of arsenic and dose response':
There is work being done on ammonia. The criteria have been re-evaluated, and
should be out for peer review in the next few weeks.
4
The National Academy of Science Panel on Radon will begin meeting in late
spring.
The Clean Water Act human health methodology is almost ready for proposal.
As instructed, we are looking at sensitive subpopulations, particularly at-risk
children, the elderly, and immunocompromised people.
There is a new charge in the SDWA 1996 Amendments to investigate endocrine
disrupters. . '
There was a brief discussion on microbial contaminants. -With the difficulty in accurately
measuring microbial levels, it is difficult to establish standards and treatments. Since it may take a
-------
long time to get a set of standards in place for the non-publicly owned tieatment works (POTW)
type of biological waste, an approach that restricts certain practices and protects important water
sources may be better. An example of this would be a ban on releasing manure into tributaries.
Mr. Davis reiterated the importance and the advantages of a watershed-type approach to
managing water resources. Contaminants like nitrates need to be looked at for better management,
and for the possibility of beneficial uses. , '
V. - State Revolving Fund and Other Related Issues with the Safe Drinking Water
. Act , '
Mr. Mike Cook, Director, Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) began with a
discussion of the SRFs by suggesting that States take advantage of the existing structure for the
clean water SRF when setting up a drinking water SRF. He also encouraged States to look .
carefully at their priorities, and if appropriate, take advantage of the flexibility allowed between the
two SRFs and move some of their capitalization money one way or the other (maximum of 30% of
the drinking water allocation).
The objective that we have had in mind for the clean water SRF is to capitalize it at a
sufficient level so that it can revolve at $2 billion a year of new loans in perpetuity (1996 dollars).
So by 2026, it will be about $4 or $5 billion. The objective for the drinking water SRF is to
capitalize it so that it can revolve at $500 million a year.
Two important set asides in the new drinking water legislation are source water protection,
and training and technical assistance. With regard to the provision in the SDWA Amendments on
water conservation plans, the Office of Wastewater Management is in the process of putting out.
guidelines by next June, and there are talks of forming a work group of the local government
advisory committee for assistance with this. Other efforts include:
\ - ' '
Grants made to the American Water Works Association (AWWA) for on-line
information;
/ ! '
A program focusing on assisting hotels and motels in conserving water and energy
(efforts are also being made to modify it for other institutional settings);
; Grant programs for Indian tribes and Alaskan Native villages; and
The difficult and important endeavor of assisting small communities along the
, border with Mexico that have little or no water or wastewater infrastructure.
-------
VI. Report on Microbial Disinfectant Byproduct FACA
Mr. Bill Diamond began the afternoon session with, an update regarding the Microbial
Disinfectant Byproduct (M/DBP) FACA. The evolution of the M/DBP cluster of rules began with-
the regulatory negotiation heldJn 1992 and 1993. Out of this negotiation came the following
recommended activities: ' ' .
Collect data from the large utilities to obtain information cooccurrence of .
disinfectant byproducts and their treatment effectiveness;
* Collect data from research conducted by EPA and utilities on the health effects-and
treatment technologies for M/DBP;
Conduct a two-phased rulemaking in which the first stage is to establish
incremental control on M/DBPs through small steps, and the second stage is to have
another regulatory negotiation.
stage:
Mr. Diamond continued by elaborating upon suggested core rules or elements of the first
Coverage for all surface water systems;
Delayed compliance for the smaller systems until they ha\ u the enhanced surface
s water treatment rule in effect; . '.
Use of suggested "80/60/10 rule" (a limit of 80 microgramVliter for
trihalomethanes, 60 micrograms/liter for halo acetic acids, 10 micrograms/liter for
bromate); and «
\ ' i
Enhanced coagulation and removal of the predisinfection c redit to achieve required
CT limitations to try and push the disinfection back further in the process to keep'
byproducts from forming. ' '
VII. Report on the Consumer Awareness Campaign
Ms. Janette Hansen briefed the Council on the Consumer Awareness Campaign, in
particular, the "Water on Tap" booklet. Feedback on the booklet was obtained from posted
questions on an Internet site. A top concern from the public was that the booklet needed to be easy
to understand. Other public comments have been incorporated into the booklet.
-------
The Consumer Information Center will be handling the distribution of the booklet, which
will be advertised in about 7,000 supermarkets across the country. The booklet will also be
available via the Internet. The target date for a revised booklet is May 1997. t
VIII. Report on Treatment Technologies
. ,-. ' ' . ,
Mr. Jeff Kempic addressed the Council regarding the Treatment Technology team's short-
term goals. Presently, the focus is on the small systems compliance list, but .work is being done on
best available technology determinations. In the future,, the team hopes to be .able to expand the
definition of what is a technology. This way resources can be shifted towards water quality and
source water protection can be viewed as a mechanism.
Mr. Kempic then gave some background regarding small systems compliance under the
1996 SDWA Amendments. The Amendments identify that point of use and point of entry devices
need to be considered as "compliance options" for drinking water standards. Point of use devices,
are not approved for microbial contaminants and it is unlikely that they will be approved for
nitrates. This will have to be changed. A variance technology list might need to be published in
conjunction with the small system variance rule. The team will also look at potential options for
technology affordability, and is doing an affordability analysis based on system size. This study
will be different from the study on affordability criteria due in 18 months. Mr.' Kempic expressed
hope that the EPA/NSF verification process can be utilized. This process is a mechanism being
developed under the environmental technology initiative to verify manufacturers' products against
standard protocols for contaminant removal or inactivatipn. He also expressed a desire to:
Expand upon the surface water treatment rule compliance list, due in 1997, and the
list of the next set of drinking water standards; and
Identify some technologies that have been found effective since the rule
promulgation, and waive the pilot testing requirement for the technologies on the
. ; list. - ,
/ *
Also being worked on is a list of affordable technologies for compliance. If these cannot
be identified, then a list of variance technologies will be created. Affordability will be evaluated
against both national standards and the economic level of the local community. . '. ,.
IX. Report on Regulatory, the Cost Benefit Analytic Blueprint etc.
Mr. Ben Smith reported to the Council on cost analysis and how the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness-Act introduces a number of additional'special requirements such
as close consultations with small businesses and impact analysis on rulemakings. The goal of
-------
developing an analysis process is that it is "a consensus-based process," t ?. a uniform method by
which to analyze costs. There is an attempt to "define what even needs to be done" and to create a
regulatory analysis guidance notebook that would be available to the general public. Creating
representative models for varying types of water systems would be more efficient than evaluating
every system. The Cost and.Benefits team is looking at.the following factors for creating
representative models:
System financial profiles to analyze the existing burden;
State, local, and Tribal government costs of implementing rules; and
s
Definitions of the consultative process under SDWA, SBREFA, and under
unfunded mandates. : '
\ i i
Mn John Bennett continued by briefing the Council on creating a new framework for
benefits analysis with the goal of improving human health. "Benefits" include: . .
*/ '
Lowering the consumer costs; . -
Averting consumer "defensive" actions (purchasing filters and bottled water);
Providing more information to the .public; and
Improving aesthetic qualities of water.
Mr. Bennett explained that the Benefits team will perform "revealed preference studies";
i.e., studies that infer peoples' values from their market behavior (e.g., why do people buy bottled
water?). Preference studies, in which people are asked hypothetical questions regarding water, are
being considered. The major outcome of these proposals will be the cost benefit framework Mr.
Smith elaborated upon. Such a framework will be used as guidance for Regulatory Impact
Analyses. .
X.
Status of Setting UP Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund Work Group
Mr. Jamie Bourne updated the Council on the establishment of the Drinking Water State
Revolving Loan Fund Work Group. The work group is hoping to have an initial meeting in early
to mid-July. Approximately 21 individuals have been selected for the working group. The work
group will be pulling together the pertinent questions and answers from the Clean Water SRF
program as they apply to the Drinking Water program. Another issue the work group will initially
concentrate on is eligibility of private systems under the revolving fund. Finally, the work group
will be developing regulations to get the SRF program up and1 running. -
- 9
-------
XI. Public Participation ,
Mr. Jack Sullivan concluded the first day session with a presentation on public participation
(or "stakeholder involvement"). The SDWA was intended to be implemented by States or local
jurisdictions and use public participation whenever possible. This should be a top priority. Mr.
Sullivan concluded with a discussion on how the different working group activities are addressing
issues of concern to public participation. ', '
The first day session was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Thursday. TVtav 1.1997 .
The second day of the meeting was called to order at 8:32 a.m. After brief opening
remarks by Chairman McMullen, the meeting agenda was passed to Ms. Dougherty.
XII. Welcome and Discussion .
' t
Ms. Dougherty opened by stating that there are two critical challenges of the SDWA
Amendments of 1996. First, no piece of the statute can stand by itself, and implementation of such
requires looking at how the pieces fit together and impact each other. Second, Congress required
new information in source water assessment without specifying what to do with the information.
This allows States and communities to make different choices on use of the information. Success
of the water program will be measured by figuring out how this information will be distributed to .
the public" . . .
Ms. Dougherty continued by listing several types of information that willjbe critical in
creating public accountability: ' ' -
r
Occurrence data; . .
State use plans;
State development strategy;
Program management cost-benefit analysis; and
Consumer confidence reports.
Ms. Dougherty stated that currently some information is distributed via the Drinking Water
Index (DWI) on the Internet, which provides information to the public on source water
vulnerability. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture ,
(USDA) serve as sources of information for the DWI database. , .
10
-------
Ms. Dougherty concluded her remarks by stating that trying to weave together the different
public communication requirements is going to be EPA's test. In addition, President Clinton's
Kalamazoo statement on ensuring environmental, information is made available to the public will
drive change in public actions. Thus, EPA is looking to obtain suggestions based on real-life
experience on ways to link the SDWA requirements.
. "> .
. Chairman McMuIlen concluded the discussion with a suggestion that Mr. Bishop
develop a draft recommendation for review and consideration by the Council concerning the
, integration of water quality issues between the clean water side and the drinking water side.
XIII. Council Discussion on Implementation Issues
Mr. Bob Blanco led a discussion with the Council on implementation issues, particularly
institutional capacity and prevention. .
i
There are 12 priority areas that EPA Headquarters has been focusing on, six of which enjoy
working group status. The areas of greatest interest over the next four years include the following:
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund; . " - '
Source water protection; , ,
Small systems; . . .
Consumer confidence reports; and
Operator certification responsibilities.
The key concern in each of these priority areas is how does the Council ensure that the products
they produce get effectively delivered to Regions, States, local gbvernmei.ts, and public water
supplies?
Mr. Blanco expressed interest in gaining an understanding of activities EPA Headquarters,
Regions, and States could rally around. Specific suggestions included Regional visits as an idea to
"reconnect the importance of some of the work we are doing." Mr. Blanco also recommended
"peer reviews" where "Regional offices can look at [other] Regional offices." In addition, EPA .
could.pull together an internal EPA steering committee that will make sure linking and ,
coordination is taking place among EPA's offices. -
Mr. .Blanco concluded that presentation by discussing prevention issues. The Council
working group areas of source water protection, small systems capacity building, and operator
certification each have a "prevention flavor." The question of how to develop policies and
guidance that work together efficiently was opened to the Council for discussion.
11
-------
XIV. Report on Consumer Confidence Reporting Working Group
Mr. Maurice Arel reported that the consumer confidence work group had been making
progress writing the regulations. A draft of the regulations had been developed by EPA for
discussion and the work group has been going forward with refining the content language and
concepts. For example, the work group has reached an agreement on key definitions specified in
the statute and the importance of expanding consumer confidence report distribution beyond a
utility's consumer base. However, several questions remain on other central issues,,such as:
The amount and precision of information to ,be included in the reports;
The type arid presentation,of information on future decisions by utilities;
The role State and Federal agencies should play in assuring compliance with the
CCRs; ' ' .
Whether EPA should develop and mandate a standard format and electronic
template for the reports;
What the uses of the CCR data should be in connection with the statutory .
requirement that EPA should develop a national occurrence'database; and
How utilities can most effectively convey the1 CCR information to non-English
speaking populations.
XV. Report on Small Systems Working Group "
Mr. William VanDeValk began the presentation by providing the mission statement of the
Small Systems Working Group, which is to make recommendations to the Council on the -
coordinated implementation of small systems-related provisions of the 1996 SDWA Amendments.
The work group wants to serve as a forum for stakeholders and EPA, and to provide guidance to
implement capacity development and State affordability. ,
Ms. Diane Kiesling then began a discussion about guidance for States ensuring that all new
community water systems and new non-transient, non-community water systems demonstrate
technical; managerial, and financial capacity. The work groups also came up with "various.
mechanisms" to ensure capacity and recommended periodic review of the effectiveness of the
p'rogram. They made decisions regarding how a State needs to report its progress in maintaining
capacity to EPA. , - . ,
12
-------
Ms. Kiesling concluded with a discussion of a matrix the working group put together
concerning the development of a strategy that will assist public water systems in acquiring and
maintaining capacity. The guidance is approximately four pages long^ The information document
that goes with it is approximately 75 pages long and serves as a toolbox oi" strategies for
prioritizing systems. >
XVI. Report on Occurrence and Contaminant Selection Working Group
Dr. Thomas Yohe opened his presentation by informing the Council of the working group's.
meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to develop recommendations and advice for the Council
in developing drinking water contaminant identification methods and the first drinking water
contaminant candidate list. This method will be a risk-based approach to identify chemical and
microbial contaminants. Dr. Yohe then reviewed and answered questions regarding what the .work
group covered during the meeting:
Candidates for the contaminant list should not currently be regulated;
' -' An expert work group will be convened to determine the prioritization of the ,
emerging pathogens; and .
'" .'"-
Thirty to fifty contaminants seems appropriate during the 5-year cycle between
lists.
A discussion, prompted by a question from John Scheltens on the first selection criteria
(population of 100,000 or more; 2 or more states; or 10 or more small public water systems) for a
contaminant to;make the list, cautioned the EPA that it would not eliminate many substances
from making the list. Dr. Yohe reiterated that this was a work in progress and the list was just a
first cut. EPA stated that if the list.generates too many hits using the criteria described, the data
quality objectives will be reassessed. ' . ~
A comment was made by Dr. McClelland asking EPA to consider science and tKe database
in selecting the number of candidates to place on the list and riot just the resouces necessary for
assessment. '
XVII. Report on Operator Certification Working Group
Mr. John Scheltens reported on the initial meeting of the Operator Certification Working
Group, The group discussed the following: ' .
.-''. i ' '
The development of information on recommended operator certification'
requirements with the States; -
13
-------
Development of guidelines specifying minimum standards- for certification and
recertification of operators;
Addressing the 20 percent withholding of the State SRF funds; and
Expense reimbursement of training for systems under 3,300.
Regarding operator certification, the group has decided that two pieces of information will
be sent to the States: an initial information document (the 18-month criteria); and then the actual
operator certification guidelines (the 30-month criteria).
V
The discussion then turned to the following question: Should the information document for
the States contain the following (parts B, C, and D are final): .
A. A clearly stated cover letter detailing who the document is for and its purpose;
B. , Chapter 6 of the National Academy of Sciences report;
C. A list of all State operator certification officers and State drinking water program
/ managers; - .
' ' i
D. Association of Boards of Certification document, "Operat:>r Certification Program
Standards";
i
E. Preliminary summary of State operator certification progra.ns with modifications
requested by the working group;
F. The working group's recommended principal elements foi a State certification
program.
There was agreement on "A," stressing the need to make clear thu it is information and not
guidelines. . < ,
The principal elements of "F" were identified as:.
i ,
Authorization;
Classification of systems, facilities, and operators; .
Enforcement; > ' . ,
Resources needed to implement a program; ' . .
Operator qualifications; , ,
14
-------
Certification.renewal; ,
Recertification; and , ^
Public involvement/stakeholder Board of Certification.
Beyond these, there were four categories that lacked 'consensus on whether they were
worthy of being deemed requirements: ' '
Program evaluation; .
Training;
Reciprocity between States; and
Who needs to be certified.
' '>'.-.
The group agreed that these are still just points for discussion, and brought up a number of
issues concerning the ideas outlined above (such as certification; eligibility; public involvement;
training; at what level to set the standards; and how much flexibility to allow the States).
XVIII. Report on Source Water Protection Working Group .
Chairman McMullen began by noting that this working group is £-large one, with 43
members, and that they had a session on March 13th and 14th. At the time, a draft guidance for
State source water assessment and protection programs was being written and was close to being
-. - \
finished. It has since been put out, and the group plans to meet June 2nd and 3rd to review the
input that EPA gathered from Regional meetings. The guidance document has to be final on ,
August 6th. -
Chairman McMullen recommended that all Council members look over the guidance
document, and forward specific comments to him or to Charlene Shaw so that the full working
group can get any comments that the Council might have on an individual basis.
Mr. Cleland concluded the presentation with a discussion of some of the issues before the
working group and their responses to six questions on which EPA requested input:
What is an adequate contaminant source inventory in the delineated surface water
protection area?. The group felt that ah adequate contaminant source inventory for
ground water that is close to being resolved could be modeled for surface waters, as
this would be effective and would not require reinvention of the wheel. The
majority of the working group agreed that surface water protection should look at
significant potential sources, father than just known sources.
15
-------
What level of detail should the inventories contain when reported to the public?
The group was undecided about whether to include both potential and known
'sources, or whether to include names and addresses of sources for full disclosure.
1 ' i *
What is an adequate susceptibility analysis in the delineated source water
protection area? The group reached consensus that susceptibility analysis should
utilize a method of ranking that prioritizes contaminants (i.e., a high, medium, or
low based on professional judgement practices). Best professional judgement was
defined as analyzing existing data, water quality modeling techniques, and .
hydrplogic or hydrogeolpgic knowledge. It was also decided that the susceptibility
analysis needs to be kept simple.
What type of delineation, contamination, source inventory, and susceptibility
analysis are required for boundary rivers, other multi-stale rivers, and
international rivers and great lakes? The group felt that existing systems (like
ORSANCO on the Ohio River) should be used rather than creating a new
infrastructure. This would encourage standardization of G1S data so that it is
interchangeable in data layers (using USGS for guidance),-and give a cautionary
warning so that EPA will not require new interstate agreements.
Given the statutory language on public participation, what specific activities must
States do when developing their. State submittal? The response to this was to be
cautious in not being overly prescriptive. Requirements can be expanded by &
recommendation that should not be broadened to include a large list of groups that
must be included. Guidance should require that States provide the opportunity to
participate.
1 i ' '
Given the guidance, should the Council encourage the dsvelopment'ofone type of
source water protection program over another, such as th petition program, as
opposed to other types of source water protection programs that are both
preventive and remedial? The group thought they could: add into the guidance
document a description of various tools available through the wellhead protection
program watershed approach that States can use to accomplish source water
protection; describe the petition program and agree that the petition program should
be at least equal to the other programs as far as the amount of material contained in
it; and recommend that the petition program be clearly explained in the draft .
. guidance. .
The second day session was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
16
-------
Friday. Mav 2. 1997 ' .
XIX. Opening Remarks and Welcome
i
.Chairman McMullen welcomed everyone to the final day of the meeting at 9:08 a.m.
After a brief discussion about attendance at the October conference, the Council determined
that the meeting would not be rescheduled. The group then began discussing the recommendations
it would present to the Administration. ,
XX. Working Group Recommendations Regarding Candidates
Mr. Thomas Yohe stated that it had been previously moved that the final wording of the
recommendation to.the working group would be: "Summary Results: The candidate list cannot be
extensive, must be manageable size. Technical expertise and preliminary assessment of available
data indicate that approximately 30 to 50 contaminants can be addressed during the five-year cycle
between lists." " ' .
Ms. Charlene Shaw indicated that, in order to clarify that this is a recommendation to the .
working group and not to EPA, she will write up the recommendations from the meeting and send
them directly to the Agency and indicate that the.final recommendation is for the working group.
Chairman McMullen opened a discussion on retrieving unregulated contaminant
monitoring data that the Council feels should be considered in the rulemaking process. The
Council feels that they should encourage EPA to identify the resources necessary to retrieve and
make.accessible data from 1986 onward.
The Council then discussed the merits of retrieving the data from the States for the
contaminant listing process and to populate the occurrence database. Thi;> woufd be easier because
some States; such as California, have already compiled the data. The Council further discussed the
following quality control issues that could occur with compiling the data:
The extent to which each State has compiled the data is unknown;
The data that is compiled may be incomplete; and
. , The data that was actually submitted is in different forms because there was no
specified standard for the information.
17
-------
Mr. James Cleland pointed put that the way the recommendation is worded, there is no
direct reference to a database. The most the Council,would be able to do" is retrieve the data in
some format and then make it available to the contaminant listing people. The motion was passed
with that quaSifier.
The final recommendation stated that "EPA should identify the resources necessary, and
where practicable, to retrieve and make accessible the data from the unregulated contaminants
monitoring to assist with the contaminant list."
1
XXI. Working Group Recommendations Regarding the Affordability Issue
Mr. John Scheltens began by providing background to the affordability issue. Section 1412
of the SDWA requires EPA to list affordable technologies for small systems. The law stipulates
that "the Administrator shall include in the list any technology, treatment technique and other
means that is affordable, as determined by the Administrator, in communication with the State for
small public systems." In addition, the Administrator shall list any technology, treatment
technique, or other means for three different categories of population: .from 25 to 500, 500 to 3300,
and 3300 to 10,000. SDWA also requires EPA to list the technologies that achieve compliance for
those same three types of systems.
Mr. Scheltens read the Council recommendation as it currently stands: "The NDWAC
recommends that EPA meet the definition of affordability under SDWA for small system
technology assessment by means of a two-step process:
1. Development of general cost information for various technologies and various .
system sizes as a yardstick which allows comparison and benchmarking of each
technology against the other without prematurely eliminatLig technologies; and
I I
2. Development of income-based affordability criteria, i.e., percent of median ,
household income that can be applied to individual systems in various size
categories. , .
1 This information can be used by systems and States in selecting appropriate technology for -
consideration." The recommendation was opened for discussion.
Ms. Dougherty explained the concept of variance technologies. If cost or technical
limitation precludes a technology from being listed in the first section, then the Council is required
to list variance technologies that can achieve levels as close to compliance as possible for these
different size categories. If a technology is listed under the first section for a system size, then that
community cannot get a variance unless, because of limitations presented by the source water,
18
-------
there is another technology listed under the variance technologies. If they can't afford the system
that the Council says is affordable for their size, then they have to get an exemption. A technology
that isn't affordable could become so if the State revolving fund is used, particularly if the State
utilizes the disadvantaged community provision;
* " s
Ms. Dougherty stated that, in addition to setting the maximum contaminant level (MCL)
and the treatment technique, the EPA is required to identify for the other categories of systems
which technologies would be affordable for each size. She further explained that the group should
list the technologies for each category just.as they had in the past for large systems.
A system at the State level can request a-variance if the Council set up some variance
technologies and if the State determines that they cannot afford to comply with the affordability.
criteria. The States will use that affordability criteria to decide on a system-by-system basis
whether a system would get a variance. ', . .
Some members worried that the Gouncilwas acting prematurely a.id being too prescriptive
in its recommendation to EPA. They stated that this might not be a working group issue. Instead,
it was decided that the Council would temper the recommendation rather than defeat it because it -
was EPA who requested that the Council examine this issue in the first place.
The motion that amended the recommendation to read "the NDWAC recommends that
EPA evaluate alternative definitions of affordability under the law for small system technology
assessment, including the following two-step process..." was passed by the Council.
- XXII.' Working Group Recommendations Regarding Ambient \Vater Quality
. , ^ ;
Chairman McMullen reported on the final recommendation which deals with water quality
planning and the standard setting process for "ambient" water quality rather than "drinking" water
quality. A motion to change that word was seconded. The motion on the floor was as was printed
with two changes. One change was adding the word "ambient" before "water quality planning"
and the second was changing the word "options" back. The motion, was passed.
The final recommendation thus stated that "EPA in its ambient wafer quality planning and
standard setting process place protection of drinking water sources on a par with pollution
reduction and ecosystem restoration. The integration of pollution reduction and watershed
planning under the Clean Water Act with the source water assessment and protection integral to
safe drinking water is a priority for successful implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act."
19
-------
XXIII. Drafting of Proposed Thanks to the EPA ,
Ms. Susan Seacrest read the following proposed statement to EPA. "The Council strongly
commends the EPA for initiating our corporate working groups and providing the leadership, time,
and resources in order to make the working group process operate smooth :y and effectively; and in
doing so, increasing the focus and impact of the council deliberations and recommendations." This
motion was passed.
XXIV. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings ' .
Two conference calls are scheduled for Monday, June 16, from 5 to 7 p.m. in Atlanta,
Georgia, and Friday, August 22, from 2 to 5 p.m. In addition, two meetings are scheduled for
October 15 to 17, 1997, in Washington, DC, and April 26 to May 1, 1998, in Atlanta, Georgia.
With no further business, the third day session was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
NOTE: THE FULL SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS FORWARDED TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF EPA IS ATTACHED TO THESE MINUTES.
20
-------
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the foregoing minutes are complete and
accurate..
L.D. McMullen, Chair, National Drinking
Water Advisory Council
Date: AUG' I 4 1997
Charlene E. Shaw, Designated Federal Officer,
National Drinking Water Advisory. Council
Date:
AUG 18 1997-
21
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
May2l, r997 . . . - . '
OFFICE OF
' t WATER
Honorable Carol M. Browner
Administrator .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .
401 M Street SW . . -
. Washington, D.C. 20460 ' -
Dear Ms. Browner: " ' -- - N
On behalf of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council. I am forwarding to you the
recommendations and commendation resulting from a meeting held April 30 through May 2, '
1997, in Washington, D.C. This is the first meeting the Council has held since the five working
groups were formed to help EPA with implementation issues. The Consumer Confidence. Small
Systems, Occurrence and Contaminant Identification, Operator Certification and Source Water
Protection Working Groups all presented progress reports and sought the Council's agreement on
the approach each group is taking to complete their mission.
^ -
Each of. the Council members have been active participates in the working group process
and should be commended for taking on this formidable task. These groups have been extremely
active, increasing their workloads, but they have taken on this added responsibility with vigor
and determination to help the Agency through these short-term statutory deadlines. Several.
, conference call meetings will be held over the next few months to keep the Council abreast of the
working group activities, allow additional discussion and recommendations to be formulated.
The Council would like to invite you to participate in a discussion of this process and the results
of the working groups' efforts at its Fall meeting scheduled for October 15, 16, and 17, 1997. in
.Washington, D.C. . . ' . . . '
Sincerely,
Charlene E. Shaw
.Designated Federal Officer
National Drinking Water .
Advisory Council
Enclosure
. Printed wilh Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Reacted Pape^ (40% Postconsun>er)
-------
RESULTS OF A MEETING HELD BY THE
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL
ON APRIL 30 - MAY 2,1997
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Background
The Council provides practical and independent advice to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on matters and policies related to drinking water quality and hygiene,
and maintains an awareness of developing issues and problems in the drinking water area and
advises the Agency on emerging issues. It reviews and advises the Administrator on regulations
and guidance that are required by the Safe Drinking Water Act; makes recommendations
concerning necessary special studies and research; recommends policies with respect to the -
promulgation of drinking water standards; assists in identifying emerging environmental or health
problems related to potentially hazardous constituents in drinking water; and proposes actions to
encourage cooperation and communication between the Agency and other governmental agencies
interested groups, the general public, and technical associations and organizations on drinking .
water quality.
A meeting was held at the Washington Plaza Hotel on April 30 through May 2, 1997, to
provide advice to EPA and to receive briefings from EPA on emerging issues. The following
recommendations and one commendation are a result of this meeting:. - -
Recommendation 1
\ . .
EPA should identify the resources necessary, and where practicable, to retrieve and make
accessible the data from the unregulated contaminants monitoring to assist with the contaminant
list. '
Recommendation 2 ,
/
The Council recommends that EPA evaluate alternative definitions of affordability under the law
for small system technology including the following two-step process:
1. Development of general cost information for various technologies (and various
system sizes) as a "yardstick" which allows comparison and bench marking of
each technology against the other, without prematurely eliminating technologies;
and . '-'.
2. Development of income-based affordabilitv criteria (i.e. % of median household
income) that can be applied to individual systems in various size categories.
This information can be used by systems and states in selecting appropriate technology for
consideration.
-------
Recommendation 3 ' . '
The Council recommends that: ,
" ' * ' ' "s
EPA in its ambient water quality planning and standard setting process place protection of
drinking water sources on a par with pollution reduction and ecosystem restoration. The
integration of pollution "reduction and-watershed planning under the Clean Water Act with the
source water assessment and protection integral to safe drinking water is a priority for successful
implementation of the'Safe Drinking Water Act.
Examples of actions which can implement this recommendation are:
.1. Ensure that when salinity standards are set for drinking water estuaries, that,
discharge of salinity constituents from NPDES permit holders becomes a regulated
. pollutant. .
2. When ecosystem restoration in watershed planning proceeds, drinking water
source protection is not degraded but balanced with the needs of the environment.
3. As EPA reviews and approves state prepared basin plans, the standards set for
ambient water quality reflect the problems and vulnerabilities identified by drinking water
uses in source water assessments and sanitary surveys.
4. EPA assess its reliance on drinking water treatment as an alternative to establishing
ambient water quality standards for protection of source water. ...
5. Integrate to the extent allowable under the SDWA, source water protection
activities for both public and private water supplies. . .
Commendation .
The Council strongly commends EPA for initiating appropriate working groups and
providing the leadership, time and resources in order to make the( working, group process operate
smoothly and effectively and in doing so, increasing the focus and impact of Council deliberations
and recommendations.
Working Group Recommendation , .
. As" a result of deliberations on the issues brought before the Council at this meeting, the
Council requested the following recommendation be forwarded to the Occurrence and Contaminant
Selection Working Group: .
The Summary of Results statement should be modified to read:
The Candidate List can not be extensive and must be of manageable size. A preliminary
assessment of technical expertise and available data indicates that 30-50 contaminants can be
addressed during the five-year cycle between lists. '
-------
-------
-------
,
------- |