United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Drinking
Water (WH-550)
Water
DECEMBER 1990
National Drinking Wat
(**ta * -
Advisory uouncfi
Meeting Mi nut
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting
December 6 and 7, 1990
300 Army Navy Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 6 and 7, 1990
A meeting of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) was held at the
Holiday Crown Plaza Hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on December 6 and 7, 1990. The following
members were present:
J. James Barr
Mary Jane Forster
John Gaston, Chairperson
Donald R. Hickman
Charles W. Kreitler
Frederick A. Marrocco
Joseph A. Millen
Richard L. Shank
John Squires
Thomas E. Stephens
Suzi Ruhl
Douglas P. Wendel
Chris J. Wiant
Douglas Yoder
The following member was absent:
James Collins (December 6 and 7)
J. James Barr (December 7)
Also present during all or part of the meeting were:
Jamie Bourne, Office of Drinking Water (ODW)
Jeanne Briskin, Director, National Pesticides Survey
Michael B. Cook, Director, ODW
Jane Ephrimedes, ODW
Marian Mlay, Director, Office of Ground-Water Protection
David Schnare, ODW
Peter Shanaghan, ODW
Charlene Shaw, Designated Federal Official (NDWAC)
Bob Wayland, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Registered at meeting:
See Attachment A
-------
December 6. 1990
L Opening Remarks and Welcome
Mr. John Gaston, Chairperson, opened the meeting by welcoming participants and
introducing Mr. Bob Wayland, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water. Mr. Wayland began the
meeting with remarks on the proposed reorganization of the Office of Water.
EL Proposed Reorganization of the Office of Water
Mr. Wayland reviewed the objectives of the reorganization:
To give greater emphasis to the importance of science in establishing the technical
basis for the work performed by the Office of Water.
To consolidate offices that have complementary objectives or tools for furthering
water quality or protecting drinking water supplies for a greater sense of integration
hi our programs.
The reorganization is supported by initiatives used in formulating the Agency's 1992 budget.
The four office structure consolidates our Wetlands Protection program, Marine and Estuaries
program, Nonpoint Source program, and our Monitoring program into a single office. An Office
of Science and Technical Support will be established; it will be developing the risk-based criteria
and risk assessment components of standards to be developed and implemented across our various
programs. The Ground Water Protection office (formerly a separate 30-person office) will be
merged with the Office of Drinking Water.
Mr. Wayland listed the new divisions and their directors, stating that the Administration is
anxious to get on with the reorganization, but realistically it may be late spring after important
personnel and organization questions are addressed at the branch level, the Agency completes its
review, and the union gives its approval.
Mr. Wayland then responded to questions from the Council. Discussion included how the
reorganization would be communicated by the Agency; the timing of the reorganization and its
effect on the drinking water program; programmatic consequences of such change at a critical point
in the drinking water program; the appropriateness of locating storage tanks and underground
storage tanks under the Office of Drinking Water and Ground Water; the intended emphasis on
enforcement; continued allocation of resources for the mobilization strategy; and the concern that
any changes in the variance program would be an administrative burden on state agencies.
Mr. Wayland concluded with several general remarks supporting the contributions of the
Advisory Council and their continued efforts. Mr. Wayland, assisted by Charlene Shaw then made
several presentations on behalf of the Agency to recognize the contributions of John Gaston,
Richard Shank, John Squires, Tom Stephens, and James Collins.
-------
IH Update from the Office of Drinking Water
Mr. Mike Cook, Director of the Office of Drinking Water (ODW), presented an update
on the activities of ODW:
Reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Activity on this will come in Mr.
Waxman's subcommittee in the spring, but will probably lag behind RCRA and the
Clean Water Act.
Risk-based Budgeting. Movement towards this would appear to be an advantage
to the drinking water program because of the risks posed in our calculations, but
the issue of where prevention and base programs fall out in the overall priorities
of the Agency has not been resolved. There is some tension between base programs
and the shift to risk-based priorities and we will have to wait and see how the
programs fare in the 1992 budget initiative.
Drinking Water Contaminants. The National Survey of Pesticides and Nitrates in
Well Water was recently completed. An unexpected benefit was data to determine
the percent and number of wells that exceed some national health-based limits and
the gathering of an enormous amount of data for each well on pesticide usage, farm
practices, location relative to crop land and septic tanks, and other information on
source of contaminants. The action plan for nitrates, which includes looking at
nitrates in both well water and surface water, is focusing on reducing nitrate levels
in ground and surface water and the possible risks associated with
methemoglobinemia, particularly for infants.
Water Quality Initiative. The Department of Agriculture is working on a water
quality initiative, and work with EPA has been reinforced by the recent Farm Bill.
EPA's relationship with the Department of Agriculture is better than it has been
at any time in the past.
Status of Regulations. A large number are due to be signed within the next few
weeks. There is an end of the month deadline for putting out Phase II regulations,
which will include 38 contaminants. For the Coliform Rule, the Agency expects to
have final rules for several different methods for utilities to especiate total coliform
for E-coli.
AWWA Lawsuit. EPA is in the process of working out an agreement to allow for
variances from the total coliform standard, under very narrowly specified conditions,
as a result of a biofilm or a benign biofilm problem in the distribution water mains.
Final Lead Rule. The Agency is working on the response to more than 3,000
comments that were received on the original proposed rule. The rule itself is pretty
well settled.
-------
Proposed Rule for Radionuclides. Comments are being taken on a number of
different levels for radium, uranium, and radon. When proposing these levels, EPA
will be looking at employing the concept of cost effectiveness. Other rules that
ODW is actively working on include: the Phase V rule with 24 contaminants;
arsenic; a rule on disinfection for well water; and a rule for disinfectants and
disinfection by-products focusing on surface water.
Underground Injection. ODW is working on a rule to modify and enhance the
regulatory structure for Class n wells and a rule that would allow for more specific
and extensive regulation of Class V wells. Petitions are also being processed from
those who have been injecting hazardous waste into deep, underground injection
wells and have approved a number of them. During this process EPA has been
strengthening the regulatory programs, and have been eliminating weaknesses in
some previously approved permits.
Public Perception of the Drinking Water Program. ODW, with the advice of the
Council, is educating the public on the point of use devices and bottled water and
the relative risks of these compared with public water supplies.
IV. Report of the Health. Science, and Standards Subcommittee
(Attachment B)
Mr. Joseph Millen, Chairperson, outlined the Subcommittee's discussions of the past few
days: the status of the MCL review for fluoride, including a briefing by EPA; the integration of
monitoring requirements for Phase n and Phase V; the proposed standard for aluminum; request
for a briefing in April to prepare final input on Phase V; an in-depth look at the regulation of
disinfection by-products in the Disinfection Rule; a look at the preliminary MCLs proposed for
radionuclides in drinking water, including the draft radon pamphlet; possible future leaching of
contaminants that have been banned and the contaminant selection criteria; recommendation that
the Agency review and incorporate what now total over 3,500 public comments, even if this means
a deadline extension; state primacy issues for optimal corrosion control treatment; and dropping
the requirement for all systems serving more than 50,000 persons to install treatment. After
discussion and a brief caucus on changing the wording of the corrosion control recommendation,
the report with recommendations as originally written was unanimously accepted by the Council
on December 7, 1990.
V. Report of the Legislation/Public Outreach Subcommittee
(Attachment Q
Ms. Suzi Ruhl, Chairperson, reported that the Subcommittee's topics included: development
of a protocol to be followed in its next questionnaire; a summary of the SDWA implementation
meeting (held in September); an overview of the drinking water and groundwater bills; a summary
of budget history and allocation levels from the ODW; public outreach and examination of the
mobilization program; an overview of the outreach initiative; National Drinking Water Week; a
pilot project in Region 1; identification of some omissions on EPA's current mailing list; requested
-------
that EPA prepare a follow-up document to the initial letter; requested some more information
from the Office of General Counsel to examine the areas where Clean Water authorities may apply
to SDWA issues; public education as a priority of the mobilization program; training programs for
small system operators and others providing drinking water; topics to develop for other public
outreach documents; and possible sensitivity to overnotification for violations.
Ms. Ruhl then commented on involving outside parties in the comment process on the
reauthorization and concluded with a discussion about the Council's use of their involvement in
other organizations to help identify other interested parties to involve in the reauthorization
comment process.
VL Report of the State Program Subcommittee
(Attachment D)
Mr. Tom Stephens, Chairperson, briefly presented the Subcommittee discussion topics:
retaining the present variance system process; questioning the multiple letter approach; suggestions
for beginning new long-term projects; a working lunch with regional drinking water branch chiefs
to discuss their concerns about the overall effectiveness of the implementation of the SDWA; and
the idea of focus groups that would review and revise a comprehensive blueprint for national
implementation of the SDWA.
There followed a general discussion of issues involved in the credibility of the program and
its implementation, the allocation of resources, legislating timetables that are virtually impossible
to meet, and the availability of means to properly enforce current and proposed legislation. On
December 7, 1990, after the discussion of additional amendments, all recommendations of the
Subcommittee and one amendment were adopted by the full Council.
VIL Panel Discussion on Mobilization
Mr. Peter Shanaghan, Mobilization Manager for the Office of Drinking Water, introduced
the other members of the discussion panel and then began the discussion by presenting the context
of the mobilization effort He stressed its focus on coalition building and cited Fred Marrocco's
program in Pennsylvania as a leader in this area, as an example of how states can do much more
with their available resources.
He went over the three main objectives of the mobilization program and outlined the
program's structure, including its seven separate initiatives, each with its own initiative leader. A
large briefing document, detailing the work that is going on under each of these initiatives, will
be mailed to all members of the Advisory Council shortly.
Some major successes of the mobilization effort include developing the structure and
institution for mobilization within EPA; working with external groups to distribute and disseminate
information; a national training strategy, the National Training Coalition; growing interest from
large private sector organizations in becoming actively involved in mobilization efforts; and state-
level efforts towards building coalitions.
-------
He concluded by discussing the major remaining obstacles for mobilization: building state
support, improving information given to the states and associations so that they can use it to help
the smaller systems; and improving the information from states, so that we can serve as a
clearinghouse for successful state and local approaches.
Mr. Jamie Bourne, state capacity initiative leader, then talked about state capacity, where
the objective is to increase resources for all the state drinking water programs. One major problem
is the growing shortfall to meet SDWA requirements. This initiative is spreading the news about
successes and failures at the state level so that other states can learn from what has happened.
Legislative awareness is also critical. There was a discussion of the issues involved in primacy
withdrawal and whether EPA has the resources to commit to this option if necessary.
The state capacity initiative is actively pursuing involvement of third party organizations,
to get them to use their clout with legislatures. Some methods of accomplishing this include
formation of advisory councils and the development of interim study committees on the legislative
side to encourage further research in this area. Mr. Bourne stated that the momentum for the
state capacity initiative is building.
Ms. Jane Ephrimedes, the initiative leader for institutional support, discussed efforts to build
state programs and to assist small systems with their managerial problems. Current and proposed
activities of the work group include: a four state study of programs; a study on improving the
compliance among existing small systems; grants with the National Conference of State Legislatures
and the Council of State Governments; survey of state enforcement programs; a pilot
demonstration in Florida; and a cooperative project conducted by the AWWA in Pennsylvania.
Continuing activities also include following up the viability workshop with the eight remaining
states, working with states to adopt administrative penalty authority, analyzing operator certification
programs, recommending consistency among programs in implementation and approach, and
preparing a restructuring manual for state regulatory personnel.
Dr. David Schnare, who manages the appropriate technology initiative, handed out a brief
description of the history and background of the initiative, its focus, and where its efforts are going.
He then described efforts that were being undertaken at some small systems in California, including
marketing community water supplies, the development of technologies for small systems, and the
costs of water supply equipment sales. A series of subcommittees outside the Agency have been
developed and the Subcommittee also has looked at financing, including leasing obligations. Some
draft legislation has also been prepared allowing for a credit program that would allow for low-
cost loans to water companies.
There followed a general discussion about getting additional resources into the system;
informing legislators and their staff about the drinking water problems; the problems that could be
encountered when putting drinking water funds into the general revenue fund; rate increases to
eliminate the $200 million shortfall; the issues involved in educating the state legislators; state
versus national attention to funds for drinking water issues; some of the difficulties in sorting out
the sources of funding at the local level, where the proposed systems would actually be built; the
overall effectiveness of the mobilization effort; the lifecycle costs of technology as well as the
upfront capital end costs; the clearinghouse network; and the delivery of operator and maintenance
services.
-------
VIIL Report of the Agenda Subcommittee
Mr. John Squires, Chairperson, confirmed that the spring meeting of the Council will be
held April 8 through 12, 1991, in Miami, Florida. The Council will tour the world's largest air
stripping treatment facility and hear a panel discussion assembled by Dr. Yoder on integrating
ground-water protection, contamination, clean up, growth management, competing system demands,
and meeting urban water supply needs. Tentative dates for the fall 1991 meeting in Washington,
DC, will be December 9 through the 13.
DC Update from the Office of Ground-Water Protection (OGWP}
Ms. Marian Mlay, Director of the Office of Ground-Water Protection, discussed activities
in this office, particularly those related to the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Ground-Water Task Force. Formed in July a year ago, this task force produced a
draft report, which found that most states are moving in the right direction and that
any problems are a matter of resources or the fact that groundwater protection is
a relatively new issue. The report describes how EPA will work with the states and
with various programs within EPA to work together at the regional level. The report
also covers the use of quality standards in groundwater prevention remediation.
SDWA Reauthorization. OGWP considered both the wellhead and the sole source
aquifer (SSA) amendments to the SDWA. There is talk about establishing some
sort of minimum criteria and specific guidelines and how to accurately determine
them.
Comprehensive Groundwater Legislation. OGWP understands that the
Congressional committee members are interested in including ground water as an
issue in the reauthorization and that the Senate Agriculture committee is interested
in including ground water in the next round of the FIFRA statute, since they forgot
to include it the first time around. RCRA is being reauthorized and will include
ground water, and probably a fair amount of discussion in that area.
The Office is increasing its outreach efforts to focus on more organizations that have an
interest in ground water. We are also promoting more outreach to governor's offices, particularly
new governor's staff, providing education on groundwater issues and are beginning to get involved
in funding some local governments on demonstrating how they can be involved in wellhead
protection. Other priorities include major coordination within EPA with other federal agencies
and continuing to develop technical tools for local and state managers of groundwater protection
programs.
Questions following the update covered concerns about tieing the groundwater program into
too many other regulatory programs; approved state wellhead protection programs that have
actually started implementing; putting enough authority and flexibility into regulations such as
RCRA to help the states develop exclusionary types of criteria; and a combined manual that had
been put together with the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (ASDWA) showing the
-------
relationship between the wellhead protection program and the upcoming groundwater disinfection
regulations.
X. Report of the Ground Water / Underground Injection Control (UIQ Subcommittee
(Attachment E)
Dr. Douglas Yoder, Chairperson, began by stating the Subcommittee believes that the task
force report establishes a sound framework and process and it should be adopted. Subcommittee
discussion included an evaluation mechanism that should be established to ensure the process is
succeeding; the UIC program, number of approvals, withdrawals, and other resolutions; strong
enforcement actions against selected Class V violators to serve as a catalyst for larger scale
compliance with existing requirements; use of financial institutions and their associations as a
pathway to alerting potential Class V operators of Class V requirements; maximum use of existing
program structures during implementation of Class V programs; and a recommendation that the
subcommittee take on the name of the Resource Protection Subcommittee, with particular attention
given to the resource protection programs authorizing the SDWA In addition, the subcommittee
raised some questions about the reorganization and there was some general discussion of the
subcommittee's proposed new name and of opportunities to link the wellhead protection program
with the upcoming groundwater disinfection regulations.
XL Public Participation
Mr. Gaston introduced Frederick Elwell, President of the American Water Works
Association (AWWA). Mr. Elwell spoke about both legislative and regulatory issues that the
AWWA is currently involved in: a series of issues papers developed on subjects such as compliance
at the tap and surcharges on polluters to help fund the necessary changes to systems; encouraging
EPA to complete addressing comments on the Lead and Copper Rule; choices that will need to
be made because of increased competition for dollars; the overall direction of conservation issues
in Congress; funding a compliance person who will work for the AWWA beginning in March
within our small systems program; and plans for an overall policy statement about wetlands and
related issues. Discussion and questions for Mr. Elwell followed on proper dedication of funds;
the relationship of wetlands to utilities; operator training at treatment facilities; initiatives in state
programs towards some form of user fee funding; and the AWWA Research Foundation.
Mr. Gaston thanked Mr. Elwell for his contributions and introduced the next public
participation speaker-Eric Olsen of the National Wildlife Federation. He was not present at the
meeting so the first day's session was adjourned.
December 7. 1990
Mr. Gaston called to order the last day's meeting of the Council. He introduced Dr.
Douglas Yoder, who presented the report and recommendations of the Ground Water/UIC
Subcommittee, which were unanimously adopted.
8
-------
XIL Update on the National Pesticides Survey
Ms. Jeanne Briskin, Director of the National Pesticides Survey, presented a report on the
Pesticide program, focused on the Phase I results of the National Pesticide Survey. She also
discussed the additional analyses planned for Phase n and some of the long-term products that will
result from the survey.
The Phase I report tells about the national prevalence of the detection of 127 pesticides,
degradates, and nitrates in public and private drinking water wells in the United States. The Phase
n report, expected in late spring, will look at possible relationships between detections and factors
such as pesticide use, cropping, well construction, and the vulnerability of ground water to
contamination.
Ms. Briskin discussed the quality assurance that was conducted during the survey; including
audits in the field, proper procedures in the lab, and the quality of data handling once it was
reported from the labs to contractors. She also discussed some of the statistical aspects of the
survey, and listed results for both private wells and community wells. One surprise of the survey
was a higher estimate for detectable levels in public wells than in the private wells, which will be
looked at in the Phase n report Ms. Briskin then listed the different chemicals that were found;
discussed notification of well owners in the event of contamination; and noted potential seasonal
differences that were discovered during the resampling process.
In the Phase n report we will look at the possible influence of seasonal variability; well
construction and well depth; treatment considerations; identifying conditions where protections
might be needed; and conduct a further analysis of the surprisingly widespread levels of dacthal,
a fairly low volume chemical, that were found. Other by-products of the study include information
from the study that can be used to require additional monitoring studies by registrants;
identification of some early warning signals for possible pesticide contamination; and development
of a nitrogen action plan within the Agency.
There followed a brief question and answer discussion on other possible conduits for
contamination, such as abandoned drainage wells; a possible product stewardship program with
fertilizer manufacturers; alternatives to pesticides that survey participants may have discussed;
questions about any planned follow up to the survey; sharing survey data with other institutions
as a basis for further research; distribution of the report and availability of the database; and tie-
ins with work the FDA is doing on pesticide contamination in food.
ADJOURNMENT
The remaining subcommittees then presented their reports and the recommendations passed
with some opposition by a few members.
Having completed all business before the Council, Chairperson Mr. John Gaston adjourned
the meeting.
-------
I certify to the best of my knowledge
that the foregoing minutes are complete
and accurate.
John Gaston,
Chairperson
Charlene Shaw,
Designated Federal Official
10
-------
ATTACHMENT A
REGISTERED AT THE MEETING
11
-------
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL
MEETING REGISTRATION
December 6 and 7, 1990
Arlington, VA
T. David Chinn
John Zirschky
Ira M. Markwood
Jennifer Ruark
Paul Rawlins
Barbara T. Zakheim
Joseph T. Yost
David Martin
Tommy Holmes
Diane VanDeHei
John Davidson
James M. Conlon
Nancy Delason
Tyrone Wilson
Rey de Castro
Andrew Hanson
Sharon Gascon
Philip Squair
John Trax
James W. Berry
Albert E. Warburton
Wendy Oatis
Fred Elwell
John Sullivan
Lorraine Bender
Raissa Kirk
Ken Miller
Leslye Wakefield
Ralph Sullivan
Joanne Meegan
Bill Deal
C Richard Bozek
Jim Groff
American Water Works Association
Office of Senator James Jeffords
Alvord, Burdick, & Henson Engineers
Inside Washington Publishers, Inc.
Commander USA EHA
Keith R. Scott Associates
Edison Electric Institute
Plumbing Manufacturers Institute
American Water Works Association
AMWA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
American Paper Institute
IBWA
American Water Works Association
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NAWC
ARI
NRWA
Fairfax County Water Authority
American Water Works Association
Lathan & Watkins
American Water Works Association
American Water Works Association
Geotrans, Inc.
American Mining Congress
CH2M-HJ11
Versar Inc.
Consultant
Legal Assistant
International Bottled Water Association
Edison Electric Institute
NAWC
12
-------
ATTACHMENT B
HEALTH, SCIENCE, AND STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
-------
',
Washington, D.C. 20460
Designated
Federal Official Chairman
Advisor to The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Report of the Health
Science and Standards Subcommittee
December 4-5, 1990
Washington, D.C.
Members Attending:
Joseph Millen Chris Wiant
Charles Kreitler Fredrick Marrocco
Richard Shank James Barr
The Subcommittee met on 4 and 5 December 1990. Updates and
recommendations are stated below:
Update on the Drinking Water Regulation for Fluoride
EPA presented an update on the status of the MCLG and MCL review
for Fluoride. A detailed briefing on recent findings, current
Drinking Water Regulations and pending reports was conducted. The
Safe Drinking Water Act requires periodic reviews and EPA is in the
midst of Assessing the Benefits and Risks associated with the
current standards. Release of the Department of Health and Human
Services report coupled with continuing EPA work should result in
a decision to maintain current standards with issue revised
Standards by year and 1991.
No recommendations at this time.
Phase II
Phase II comment period closes 31 December 1990. Promulgation is
scheduled for January 1991. The current schedule is realistic.
Monitoring for Phase II will fall into sync with monitoring for
Phase V. Limited discussion ensued regarding Aluminum with a
current standard proposed of 50 to 200 mg/1 based on post-
precipitation affects - not Health Affects. EPA is considering an
MCL for Aluminum. The Nitrate MCL, addressed in both December 1989
and April 1990 subcommittee meetings has been set at 10 mgll
(No change).
-------
- 2 -
RECOMMENDATION
EPA should continue to keep in mind the integration of monitoring
requirements for Phase II and Phase V.
Advisory Council would like to hear a discussion on why the Agency
feels a 'possible1 secondary MCL may be set for aluminum. An MCL
on Aluminum as an operational control is precedent setting and
could have wide spread impact on owners and operators of Water
Treatment Systems.
PHASE V
A Phase V update was conducted. Currently EPA is analyzing public
comments. The promulgation schedule is for workgroup closure in
July 1991 and Red Border Review in September 1991.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Continue the effort to integrate Phase V monitoring with the Phase
II schedule. Advisory Council would like a briefing in April 1991
"on issues raised during the public comment period so that the
Advisory Council may provide final input to the Agency on these
issues.
URTH
A briefing package was issued on URTH. No Subcommittee Agenda time
was available to discuss this issue. However, concern was
expressed that a number of important implementation issues must be
addressed before the Guidance is finalized.
Regulation of Disinfection Bv-Products (DBP's) and Disinfectants
EPA presented a revised.perspective as to the relative health risk
of Disinfection By-Products (DBP) compared to providing
microbiologically safe water. The comparison of risk is difficult
because of the difference in the health risk (microbiologically
safe water representing a short-term (acute) issue whereas DBF's
are carcinogens and therefore represent a chronic long term health
hazard) . EPA is exploring various risk analysis approaches to find
common denominators for comparisons.
Methods of disinfection were discussed as to their effectiveness
in providing microbiologically free waters but with limited
development of DBP's.
Technical and legal policy issues as to the use of MCL, BAT and
quality of source water were discussed.
-------
- 3 -
Recommendations:
The subcommittee has no recommendations on DBF's. EPA needs to
make clarifications that different disinfection rules exist, that
is; ground water disinfection and disinfection-by-products are
separate rules, both of which must be considered in the context of
the Surface Water Treatment and Total Coliform Rules.
Lead/Copper NPDWR
The Advisory Council reviewed the status of final rule development.
Recommendations:
1. While the Council feels that the overriding issue is to get
the "Lead Rule Out"; it is strongly recommended that the
Agency pursue limited an extension of the deadline so that
review and incorporation of over 3500 public comments can be
brought into consideration. EPA must aggressively pursue
finalization of comment review.
2. States should not be required to provide "determinations" for
optimal Corrosion Control Treatment in Small Systems or any
sized system.- States should not be mandated to step out of
their role of permitting and compliance. It should remain the
responsibility of individual utilities to determine techniques
to solve "utility" problems resulting from Non-Compliance.
This is an issue of both state resources and a strong desire
or requirement of the States not to incr liabilities with such
a requirement.
3. EPA should not be authorized to rescind on a 'case-by-
case1 basis State decisions toward optimization of
corrosion control. Inability to make correct decisions
or administer regulations is an issue of Primacy and
should be dealt with in terms of deciding whether a State
does or does not qualify for Primacy.
4. The requirement that "all systems serving greater than
50,000 persons would have to install .... treatment ...
"should be dropped. Systems should all be dealt with in
the same manner. If the system determines through proper
monitoring that the no action level is not exceeded, they
should not be required to implement corrosion control
treatment.
-------
- 4 -
Radionuclides in Drinking Water
The Sub-committee received its first detailed brief on the progress
of Radionuclides. The Advanced Notice on Rule Making was first
issued in 1986. Current regulation development includes Radon,
Radium 226/228, Uranium and Gross Beta and Gross Alpha requirement.
Preliminary MCL's are being proposed. Current thinking is:
Radium 226/228 and Uranium 20/20/30 pCi/1
based on cost effectiveness, bounded by 10-4
risk.
Radon at 300 pCi/1 as most probable, based
on health risk from inhalation due to water
contribution.
Additionally a draft "Radon" pamphlet was presented.
Recommendations
1. Advisory Council endorses the Science Advisory Board
request that radon risk due to "showering" be further
investigated as it is felt that the impact of such use
may be underestimated.
2. It needs to be maintained perfectly clear in all
discussions and written literature that the affects of
Radon emanate both from "geologic formations transferred
to air" and from "geologic based radon in water
transferred to air" and that health affects from geologic
sources transferred directly to air, far exceed those
from water in most cases. While the Advisory Council
supports the current efforts of the agency both in
process and approach to standard setting the outcome of
MCL's coming from water will have broad reaching impact
on both regulated and nonregulated users of water. To
this end all water effort need to be closely coordinated
with other Radon issues throughout Federal Agencies.
Drinking Water Priority List
The current status of the 1991 Drinking Water Priority List was
reviewed. In the limited time available a quick overview was
obtained.
-------
- 5 -
Recommendations
The Advisory Council supports the criteria used for selection of
contaminants, however, the Council does not feel that "banning" a
certain potential contaminant from use necessarily eliminates its
occurrence in public Water systems. An example of this is 2,4,
5-T which was extensively used throughout the country and is still
readily detected in soil samples. This contaminant should be
reevaluated as to whether it should be dropped from the list due
to the possibility of its occurrence in ground water resulting from
"prolonged leaching" potential.
-------
1INUTES APPROVED:
Joseph Millen, Chair
Charles Kreitler
James Collins (Absent)
- fi
~nA
-------
ATTACHMENT C
LEGISLATIVE/PUBLIC OUTREACH SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
-------
Designated
Federal Official
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
< NDWAC S
Z 3j
Chairman
Advisor to The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Report of the
Legislative/Public Outreach Subcommittee
December 4 and 5, 1990
OTHERS ATTENDING
Charlene Shaw
David Schnare
Arnold Kuzmack
Peter Shanaghan
MEMBERS ATTENDING
Suzi Ruhl, Chair
Mary Jane Forster
Don Hickman
John Squires
Thomas Stephens
Douglas Wendel
Douglas Yoder
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION
During the first day of deliberations, the Legislative/Public
Outreach'Subcommittee addressed legislative issues. The following
topics were considered:
1. Safe Drinking Water Act Reauthorization
The Subcommittee's efforts focused on ensuring broad-based
involvement in reauthorization activities early in the legislative
process. In that context, the Subcommittee was apprised by Arnold
Kuzmack of the time frame for such reauthorization. Congress will
most likely consider the RCRA and CWA first; therefore,
Congressional deliberation of.the SDWA will not likely occur until
1992 and 1993. Consequently, the opportunity exists to exercise
a comprehensive approach to ensuring broad-based input into SDWA
Reauthorization.
The Subcommittee next discussed results of the survey
disseminated by the Council last summer. At total of 64 letters
were distributed to organizations interested in SDWA issues.
Fifteen responses were received. While this number was low, David
Schnare indicated that the responses received provided significant
substantive suggestions. The Subcommittee also discussed
organizations who did not receive the NDWAC letter, but should be
included in subsequent meetings.
-------
- 2 -
Following this numeric analysis of the survey, David Schnare
proceeded to summarize the substantive issues raised through this
process (See Attachment A for summary). He also summarized the
comments received during the SDWA Implementation and
Reauthorization meeting held on September 26 and 27, 1990 (See
Attachment 2 for Summary)
*.
The Subcommittee concluded deliberations on this issue by
defining its role in future efforts and identifying a strategy to
follow-up on the initial NDWAC letter.
2. Overview of Drinking Water/Ground Water Bills Introduced
to Congress
Roy Simon and David Schnare presented legislative information,
including written summaries of legislation passed and introduced
to Congress, regarding drinking water and ground water. The
Subcommittee discussed the nature of the SDWA Reauthorization
debate, including likely Congressman and Senators involved in the
debate, f ancillary activities of public, private, and state
organizations, and type of issues which are currently surfacing in
the debate.
3. Past, Present and Future Budget and Allocation Levels
Arnold Kuzmack provided a budget history for the Office of
Drinking Water for FY 1987-FY 1991. The Subcommittee then
discussed a number of issues, including the impact of office
reorganization on allocation levels, the continual need for
increases in state program funding, and other high priority needs
(e.g. enforcement and Class IV and V Wells).
During the second day of deliberations, the Subcommittee focused
on public outreach activities. The following topics were
addressed:
1 Mobilization Program
Peter Shanaghan provided a comprehensive overview of the
Mobilization Program, including a description of the mission,
initiatives, remaining challenges, and most importantly,
accomplishments. The Subcommittee discussed the importance of the
program and expressed gratification that the program has matured
to produce quantifiable results.
-------
- 3 -
2. Outreach
Charlene Shaw presented an overview of the vast number of
public education documents prepared by the program. The
Subcommittee discussed additional topics for brochures, and
expressed gratification for the quantity and quality of work
produced by the initiative.
3. National Drinking Water Week
Charlene Shaw advised the Subcommittee that NDWAC had been made
a formal member of the National Drinking Water Week Steering
Committee. The Subcommittee appointed Charlene Shaw as the liaison
to that Committee. The Subcommittee also discussed NDWAC's role
in National Drinking Water week 1991. After considering the
possibility of direct NDWAC involvement in Drinking Water Week, the
Subcommittee requested that Don Hickman investigate the production
of a short PSA video which would promote the need for citizen
support of drinking water protection measures.
4. Pilot Project in Region 1
Charlene Shaw described a Pilot Project in Region 1 to increase
involvement of all interested organization, governments and
citizens in drinking water protection. The Subcommittee recognized
the value of key regional EPA personnel in ensuring successful
mobilization efforts.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUESTS
LEGISLATION
In order to encourage clarification of issues and resolution of
divergent positions:
(1) the Subcommittee recommends that EPA develop and implement a
coordinated plan to secure broad-based, early involvement of
organizations regulated by, benefitting from or otherwise
interested in drinking water and ground water in SDWA
Reauthorization activities.
(2) the Subcommittee recommends that EPA analyze the list of
organizations currently participating in EPA's SDWA Reauthorization
activities, determine categories of organizations that should be
involved, but are not, and seek to involve these organizations.
-------
- 4 -
(3) As a continuation of the Subcommittee's efforts to facilitate
the exchange of ideas among diverse organizations on SDWA
reauthorization, the Subcommittee requests ODW to prepare a follow-
up document which reorganizes by statutory section the comments
received pursuant to the NDWAC's letter of July 10, 1990 and the
SDWA Reauthorization meeting held on September 26 and 27, 1990,
identifies issues per section and; provides an analysis of these
issues. Subsequently, the Subcommittee requests ODW to distribute
this analysis after review by the Subcommittee to the expanded list
of organizations involved in SDWA Reauthorization, along with a
request that the organizations clarify their position, identify new
issues and rank their top 5 or 10 concerns. At the Spring NDWAC
meeting the Subcommittee will then respond to the major issues.
(4) the Subcommittee requests the OGC to examine areas where CWA
authority, including compliance authority, may apply to the SDWA
issues for consideration during SDWA reauthorization, and provide
this analysis to the Subcommittee at the Spring NDWAC meeting.
(5) The Subcommittee requests that EPA provide the Subcommittee
with an outline and schedule of Agency activities regarding the
SDWA Reauthorization, so that the Subcommittee can participate
effectively.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
(1) The Subcommittee states that a priority of the Mobilization
Program should be to educate the public on the value of drinking
water and that funds are needed to improve and/or protect drinking
water resources. As part of this effort, the program should
increase utilization of utility directors and state legislators to
develop broad-based support for drinking water programs and
providers. In particular, the Subcommittee recommends that the
Mobilization Program focus on utility owners/operators to increase
their support of this issue.
(2) The Subcommittee recommends that public communication skills
be included in training programs for small system operators and
others providing drinking water.
(3) The Subcommittee recommends that ODW develop additional public
documents, including: (1) a simple, user friendly document which
explains the purpose and utility of the SDWA programs for small
system operators and others regulated by the SDWA; and (2) a
document which explains how citizens can determine the compliance
status of their public water system and what to do about non-
compliance.
-------
- 5 -
(4) The Subcommittee recommends that EPA be sensitive to the
public notification language in rules in order to avoid over use
or unnecessary use of public health notices which would undermine
their effectiveness when there is a real need due to a public
health threat. Public notification in cases where you have no real
risk to public health may be counterproductive. It's effectiveness
needs to be preserved for public health threats and to preserve the
credibility of the drinking water utilities that are in compliance
with Federal and state drinking water regulations.
(5) The Subcommittee highly commends Charlene Shaw for her
exemplary efforts in Outreach activities, including the production
of numerous documents designed to educate the public on SDWA
concerns.
(6) The Subcommittee commends the Agency for adopting its
recommendation #4(b) of April 9, 1990, that the Agency provide
camera-ready documents to organizations for their own production
and distribution. This is a very cost effective method to increase
utilization of these documents. Caution was expressed that
audiences exist which are financially unable to reproduce documents
and therefore EPA must still strive to educate these audiences.
(7) The Subcommittee expressed praise and support of the
Mobilization Program and recommends that the Agency increase
resources for this program.
Next Meeting Agenda;
The Subcommittee recommends the following items be deliberated
at the Spring NDWAC meeting:
(1) Briefing on R&D resources dedication to ecological vs public
health issues.
(2) Briefing on the effect reorganization of the Office of Water
will have on allocation of resources.
(3) Briefing on the analysis of issues and audiences targeted by
the Mobilization Program.
(4) Briefing by a public communications expert on effective public
education skills and tools.
-------
Minutes approved:
Suzi Runl, Chair
Thomas Stephen
( John Squires
Douglas Wendel
Marv /san& Forster
Donald Hickman
-------
ATTACHMENT D
STATE PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
-------
Designated
Federal Official
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
< NDWAC
Z
*
>,
Chairman
Advisor to The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Report of the
State Programs Subcommittee
Washington, D.C.
December 4 and 5, 1990
I. ATTENDANCE
SUBCOMMITTEE
MEMBERS ATTENDING
Thomas Stephens, Chair
James Barr
Joseph Millen (12/5)
Frederick Marrocco
Richard Shank
John Squires
Douglas Wendel
II. SUBCOMMITTEE REFERENCES;
EPA STAFF
ATTENDING
Carl Reeverts
Clive Davies (12/5)
A.W. Marks (12/4)
Ray Enyeart (12/4)
Judy Lebowich (12/4)
Betsy Devlin (12/5)
A. The State Programs Division provided a package in advance of
the meeting covering SWTR/TCR implementation, Implementation
strategy for Lead/Phase II, Implementation of Lead Ban/LCCA,
Affordability issues in new rules, and current Enforcement
Initiatives.
B. Previous Subcommittee Recommendations:
1. Financing for the administration of state programs
(April 89)
2. State Capacity Initiative to help States develop
additional funding for program administration.
(December 89)
No change in present variance process. (April 90)
-------
- 2 -
4. Increased support of ASDWA "Peer Review Program"
and study of turnover in state drinking water
personnel. (April 90)
5. More resources for training initiative and appointment
of a full time national training coordinator. (April 90)
6. Develop a program to recognize good performance by
a water system. (April 90)
III. REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS TO COMMITTEE
A. "Affordability Issues in New Rules" was briefed by A.W. Marks
with emphasis on a new policy on variances for systems with service
populations between 1,500 and 3,300 people. It was noted that
systems with populations of less than 1500 people (i.e. 500
connections) are eligible under the SDWA for extendable exemptions.
Systems with more than 500 connections may only receive one
exemption not to exceed 3 years. The new variance policy would
allow state administrators to declare there is no BAT and thus
grant a variance to the larger small systems (i.e. 1500-3,300
people) if no BAT is affordable and there is no unreasonable risk
to health.
B. "Implementation Strategy for Lead/Phase II" was briefed by Ray
Enyeart. The committee members received a detailed listed of
actions, deadlines and resources required for implementation of
Phase II, Lead, SWTR, and Total Coliform. It was noted that this
analysis is very preliminary and that resources are not yet in
place.
C. "Implementation of Lead Ban/LCCA" was briefed by Judy Lebowich.
Although only two states (i.e. PA and NY) have been penalized for
not implementing the lead ban, there are some questions about the
effectiveness of the ban in other states. The response of schools
to testing fountains and plumbing under the LCCA is disappointing.
D. "Implementation of SWTR/TCR" was briefed by Clive Davies.
E. "Current Enforcement Initiatives" was briefed by Betsy Devlin
The number of SNCs has increased due to a change in definition of
SNC. Ms. Devlin will send copies of the 1989 Compliance Report to
Subcommittee members.
F. Withholding state grant funds from states for not providing
enough resources during extension periods was discussed. Concern
was expressed that the resources are simply not available to
implement the SWTR/TCR in all States. The alternative of EPA
taking primacy was discussed as an viable alternative to simply
reducing the states primacy grants.
-------
- 3 -
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Variances for large small systems (i.e. 1500 to 3,300 people):
The effect of allowing variances based on no affordable BAT
would be to extend to an additional 8% of the CWS an option similar
to the extendable exemptions allowed for the 80% of the systems
that have less than 500 connections (i.e. under 1500 people). The
whole idea of allowing any type of exemption or variance to any
system is disturbing to most of the Subcommittee members. These
members, thus, oppose increasing the number of systems which can
apply for any exemption or variance. They prefer the use of
enforceable compliance schedules.
B. The Subcommittee is concerned that a timely response was not
received on all of the recommendations from the last meeting.
Perhaps the multiple letter approach which attempted to target
recommendations to the most appropriate level within EPA should be
reconsidered. It might be advisable to return to sending all
recommendations to the Administrator.
C. The Subcommittee discussed pursuing several long range
projects:
(1) Consolidation Reaionalization. and Bulk Purchase;
Consolidation of non-viable, non-complying systems into adjacent
larger systems, regionalizing small systems into a larger system,
or requirement for bulk purchase of wholesale water from a nearby
system should be considered BAT for small systems.
(2) State Program Financing - Review and recommendations on
funding of state programs. Concentrate on evaluation of other
studies.
(3) Assessing the viability of the SDWA implementation and
enforcement policy.
D. The Subcommittee had a working lunch with EPA's Regional
Drinking Water Branch Chiefs. The informal contacts and
perspectives gained were very insightful. A wide range of issues
were discussed, including assignment of the RCRA underground
storage tank (UST) program to ODW and alternatives to address the
building SDWA implementation crises.
E. Concern was expressed that resources are simply not available
to implement the SWTR/TCR by all states. The alternative of EPA
taking primacy from some states was discussed, but considered
unlikely due to lack of resources within EPA ODW.
-------
- 4 -
F. It is the consensus of this subcommittee that on the current
course full implementation of the SDWA is highly questionable and
that EPA will shortly be faced with key decisions which quite
possibly could place the entire program in chaos and crisis at the
state level.
G. The need for a focus group to review, evaluate and revise a
comprehensive blueprint for implementation of the safe drinking
water program for the Nation was discussed. The blueprint should
result in a realistic program based on existing resources and
revised time frames unless additional resources are provided.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. It is the consensus of the State Programs Subcommittee that
implementation of the 1986 Amendments to the SDWA is in serious
danger of collapse from a critical shortage of federal, state and
local resources and/or the inability to meet statutory deadlines.
The magnitude of the problem is reflected in the much larger than
expected number of states which are requesting extensions for the
SWTR and the TCR which are the most fundamental of the rules. The
impact of these extensions is likely to snowball into an avalanche
as the lead rule, Phase II rule and other rules follow quickly
behind. The unrealistic deadlines and inadequate resource
allocations make inevitable a national crisis that could threaten
public health.
This pending crisis in the safe drinking water program must
be elevated to the highest level of national debate before
Congress, state legislatures, governors and the public, and should
be the focus ' of this Council's future agenda until the pending
crisis is resolved. It is further recommended that the NDWAC write
an open letter to Congress further detailing and emphasizing the
nature of the problem.
B. The Subcommittee strongly cautions the EPA from relaxing
the variance criteria and procedures for small jurisdictions for
several reasons:
1. It would send or be interpreted as a signal that if a small
jurisdiction waits long enough, screams loud enough and/or its
remedial solution costs are high enough, a variance could be
forthcoming.
2. The burden placed on state regulators of reviewing and
processing small jurisdictional requests for a variance and
resulting appeals when turned down would be onerous and force a
redirection of very limited state resources from more productive
and necessary activities of a higher priority.
-------
- 5 -
3. The resultant political backlash and legislative pressure
associated with rejection or refusal of the variance will further
undermine state regulatory agencies' image and ability to secure
legislative support for increased funding and program
implementation authority.
4. Delaying tactics likely entered into with any small
communities as a result of relaxation, would most certainly be
detrimental to the interest of public health.
-------
Minutes Approved:
^Thomas E. Stephens, Chairman ;
'COidncf concur* in t*en«>to
an
_ _
Frederick^."1J^!arrocc6Vsvice Chair
Richard L.
John Souires
Joseph A. Millen
X
"3 ^C^j£U (J. U/S^
f>. Wendel
-------
ATTACHMENT E
GROUND-WATER/UIC SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
-------
z 5 \
S < NDWAC m
r NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL 2. *
401 M Street, S.W. ^ ^
Washington, D.C. 20460 ^cavco0
Designated
Federal Official Chairman
Advisor to The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Report of the
Ground Water/UIC Subcommittee
December 5 and 6, 1990
Members Attending Staff
Douglas Yoder, Chairperson Marian Mlay
Mary Jane Forster Roy Simon
Donald Hickman Ron Hoffer
Charles Kreitler Bob Barles
Suzi Ruhl George Hoessel
Chris Wiant Bruce Kobelski
Don Olson
Ground Water Topics Discussed
I. EPA Ground-Water Task Force Report
2. Wellhead Protection Program Update
3. Ground Water FY 1991 Budget
4. Consistency in the Application of Ground-Water Standards
5. Ground Water Legislative Report .
6. Safe Drinking Water Act Reauthorization Issues
1. EPA Ground-Water Task Force Report
Marian Mlay, Director of the Office of Ground-Water
Protection, reported that the Task Force Report was at OMB
and other Federal agencies for review and that any further
comments from the NDWAC would be appreciated and still on
time. Marian also described the major aspects of the Draft
Report and answered several questions from Subcommittee
members.
-------
Recommendation:
1. EPA Ground-Water Task Force Report
The Subcommittee finds that EPA's Ground-Water Task Force
Report establishes a sound framework and process for
protecting the nation's ground water and should be adopted.
The success of the effort will relate directly to the
Administrator's continuing support of the process. An
evaluation mechanism should be established to ensure that
the process is succeeding. The Subcommittee also recommends
that the process encompass budgetary and legislative issues
as well as regulatory issues.
2. Wellhead Protection Program Update
Marian Mlay described the current status noting that 13
States have approved programs, 34 States are working with
EPA on developing programs and 10 have so far decided not to
submit a program. Marian also described OGWP's continuing
efforts to assist States through technical assistance.
There was discussion among the Subcommittee members
concerning: 1) the amount of wellhead funding for each
State under Section 106 of CWA; 2) EPA's efforts to move
States at a faster pace; 3) the relationship between
wellhead protection and siting new wells; and 4) the
demonstrations of wellhead data management as well as the FY
1991 demonstration efforts.
Recommendations:
1. The Subcommittee recommends that due emphasis be given
to the implementation of approved programs. Incentives
for implementing approved programs should be provided.
This aspect of the program will become more significant
as additional States complete protection plans.
2. The Subcommittee commends the Agency for providing the
support to localities in the wellhead protection
demonstration program and for maximizing the
flexibility of that program. Continuation of the
program is recommended.
3. Ground-Water FY 1991 Budget
Bob Barles of OGWP described the FY 1991 budget for OGWP
grants to States and demonstration funding.
- 2 -
-------
4. Consistency in the Application of Ground-Water Standards
Charles Kreitler raised this issue and their was discussion
of the problem focusing on use of ground-water standards by
other EPA programs and Federal agencies and on the policy on
use of quality standards in the EPA Ground-Water Task Force
Report.
5. Ground-Water Legislative Report
Roy Simon of OGWP described the ground-water legislation
introduced and debated in the 101st Congress as well as the
ground-water related provisions of the 1990 Farm Bill, which
was enacted. There was also a discussion of the potential
legislative action on ground water in the 102nd Congress.
6. Safe Drinking Water Act Reauthorization Issues
Marian Mlay and Roy Simon described the Wellhead Protection
Program issues raised and the summary of discussions at
EPA's SDWA Implementation meeting of September 26/27, 1990.
UIC ISSUES DISCUSSED
1. Class I Wells
Of 65 no-migration petitions, 35 have been approved, 8 have
been withdrawn, 5 have met standards for treatment, 2 have
been determined to be non-hazardous, 11 have later land ban
dates, 1 is being handled on a case by case review, and 3
were for unpermitted, unconstructed facilities. A question
was raised as to whether wells that are non-injection, non-
hazardous materials may ultimately cause problems from
dispersal of already injection hazardous materials. A
study has been undertaken to determine how the program to
date has actually changed the volumes of materials being
injected and what has happened to wastes from facilities
no longer injecting. With respect to legal challenges on
the non-migration process, the court has upheld the Agency
process. A report assessing the adequacy of assumptions
used in the no-migration modelling has been prepared and
peer reviewed. A copy will be provided to the Subcommittee,
No migration petitions approvals are indefinite, but are
reviewed as part of permit renewals and can be reviewed
at any time if questions are raised concerning the validity
of the approval.
- 3 -
-------
On Class II wells, a ground truthing exercise has been
completed for the abandoned well identification program
based upon field work in Oklahoma. Oklahoma's records
are particularly complete so that the case may not be
typical.
TCLP
The Toxicity Characteristics Rule was published last
March, with guidance for large quantity generators
effective in September. For small quantity generators
the rule is effective in March of 1991.
Class V Wells
The mostcommon receptacle for Class V wells is a septic
tank, which creates a potential problem with respect to
"clean closure" under RCRA. This may be handled by
generic close out plans by administrative order.
On a case by case basis, enforcement action may be
taken where ground water or water supply contamination
is verified. A contamination case compendium has been
developed to characterize these types of cases to
date. The Class V strategy will strongly emphasize
state and local programs and will utilize an approach
similar to the mobilization. Major oil companies have
been approached to have them correct non-complying
operations. There may be an avenue by which local
agencies responsible for underground tank programs may
be another pathway to compliance. Another pathway may
be through lenders and mortgage holders who are
increasingly concerned about liability for contamination.
There is a lack of information about Class V discharges.
The SARA Title III Toxic release inventory is one
possibility, but is not very likely to include Class V
wells.
The Class V regulation will seek to limit injectate at
point of discharge to MCLs and HAs, with exceptions for
domestic septic tanks and storm water disposal with
best management practices. Two reg workgroup meetings
have been held. National forums on a strawman proposal
are planned for Spring of 1991, with promulgation
expected in Fall of 1992.
- 4 -
-------
4. CLASS II Wells
Mid-Course correction guidance are in final review status.
These cover mechanical integrity testing, commercial brine
disposal operations, temporarily abandoned wells, and cementing
records. A regulatory negotiation is scheduled for new
nationally consistent construction standards for Class II wells.
In particular, the proposed guidance recommends a number of
security, injectate testing, and manifesting activities which,
when applied, will reduce the possibility of inappropriate
materials being disposed in commercial brine disposal wells.
UIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUESTS
1. The Subcommittee recommends that the Agency review and report
on Class I wells which have ceased injection of hazardous
materials, but continue the injection of non-hazardous materials
and whether no-migration analyses should be required in these
instances.
2. The Subcommittee recommends that the Agency take strong
enforcement action against a few selected Class V violators to
"serve as a catalyst for larger scale compliance with existing
requirements.
3. The Subcommittee recommends that the Agency utilize financial
institutions and their association as a pathway too alerting
potential Class V operators of Class V requirements. The lenders
may be potential responsible parties if Class V operations result
in ground water contamination.
4. In. implementing the Class. V program maximum use should be
made of existing program structures such as underground storage
tank programs, state and local on-site sewage disposal systems
regulatory programs, and a mobilization type of approach to
public education.
RECOMMENDATION ON SUBCOMMITTEE NAME AND MISSION
The Subcommittee recommends that the Subcommittee name be changed
to "Resource Protection Subcommittee" to better reflect its
mission in the water supply enterprise. The following mission
statement is recommended:
To review, evaluate, and formulate recommendations regarding
programs to protect the quality and integrity of present and
future sources of water supply. Of special concern will be those
resource protection programs authorized under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, but other programs and resource protection needs will
be considered as appropriate.
- 5 -
-------
QUESTIONS ON REORGANIZATION OF OFFICE OF WATER
1. Will splitting the UIC function impair the UIC Program?
2. Will combining the ground water and drinking water programs
affect the effectiveness of both? Will the reduction in status
of OGWP/ODW to divisions reduce the probability of successful
implementation of their respective programs?
3. Will the reorganization alter the amount of resources going
to the various programs? If so, how?
4. How will the reorganization impact regional organizations?
- 6 -
-------
Minutes Approved:
la^i
Dotiglas/Yoder'/ Cha1
Charles Kreitler, Co-Chair
Chris Wiant
Mary Ja
Don Hickman
James Collins (Absent)
------- |