United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Drinking
Water (WH-550)
Water
APRIL 1990
National Drinking
dvisory Council
V'inutes
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting
April 12 and 13, 1990
JFK Federal Building, Room 2003
Boston, MA 02203
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL
April 12 and 13,1990
A meeting of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) was held at the JFK
Federal Building in Boston, MA on April 12 and 13, 1990. The following members were present:
J. James Ban-
Mary Jane Forster
John Gaston, Chairperson
Donald R. Hickman
Charles W. Kreitler
Frederick A. Marrocco
Joseph A. Millen
Richard L. Shank (absent 4/13)
John Squires
Thomas E. Stephens
Suzi Ruhl
Douglas P. Wendel
Chris J. Wiant
Douglas Yoder
The following member was absent:
James Collins
Also present during all or part of the meeting were:
Julie Belaga, Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 1
Michael B. Cook, Director, Office of Drinking Water (ODW)
Sharad Deshponde, Market Development Manager, Culligan Corporation
Bob Dufresne, Dufresne and Henry Consulting Engineers
Marian Mlay, Director, Office of Ground-Water Protection
William O'Neil, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
David Langsfeld, CPC Engineering
Charles Larson, U.S. EPA Region 1, Ground-Water Management and Water Supply Board
Ray Raposa, New England Water Works Association
Philip Sagnelli, Culligan International
Dave Terry, Director, Massachusetts DEP, Division of Water Quality
Diane Van Di Hei, Association of Metro Water Agencies
Charlene Shaw, Designated Federal Official (NDWAC)
Registered at meeting:
See Attachment A
-------
April 12. 1990
I. Opening Remarks and Welcome
Mr. John Gaston, Chairperson, opened the meeting by welcoming participants and recognizing
new and re-appointed council members. He then introduced Julie Belaga, Administrator of EPA
Region One, and invited her to begin the meeting with some remarks to the Council.
n. Setting the Agenda for the Office of Water
Mr. Cook, Director of the Office of Drinking Water, presented the following major issues
facing ODW.
• Pending Programs and Legislation. ODW is monitoring the progress of a number of
bills and EPA programs as they approach initial approval or reauthorization. These
topics include the Safe Drinking Water Act, pollution prevention legislation, the
Clean Water Act, risk-based planning and budgeting initiatives, quality management
focus, and international drinking water issues. Research is underway to prepare a
statement of ODW positions and roles relating to these bills.
• Rule Development. ODW is in the process of developing and implementing rules
affecting microbiological contamination, lead, radionuclides, and disinfection by-
products. The main objectives are to simplify regulations, standardize monitoring
techniques, and make resources available for expanded state testing efforts.
• Enforcement Strategy. A recent Agency mandate has initiated a new ODW
enforcement strategy. Under the new strategy, the following policies have been
adopted: (1) long-standing violations are a lower priority than more recent violations,
and are termed exceptions; (2) the definition of significant non-compliance has been
revised for purposes of prioritization; and (3) a mobilization strategy stressing small
system support in the form of technical training and information dissemination.
• Underground Injection Program. Efforts are being made to process petitions from
hazardous waste injectors before the deadline. Class JJ regulations are being revised
to address a number of concerns. Also, emphasis is being given not only to the now
illegal Class IV wells, but also to expanding the program covering other shallow
injection wells. Grant programs for Class V are also being expanded.
• Ground- and Surface Water Protection. The objective in this area is to coordinate
and integrate ODW work related to the public water supply and underground
injection with ground-water, surface water, and water source protection policy
throughout the Agency. ODW is working closely with the Wellhead Protection
Program and the Surface Water Protection Program in support of state-level strategic
ground-water planning. There is particular interest in the pending Farm Bill as it
relates to ground- and surface water protection.
-------
HI. Agenda Subcommittee Report
Mr. John Squires then presented the Agenda Subcommittee's recommendations, as contained
in the draft proposal, for improving the Council's operating procedures. The following conclusions
and recommendations were made:
• The current structure, consisting of four subcommittees, is appropriate. No change
in Council structure was recommended.
• At its next meeting, each subcommittee should review its purpose and prepare a brief
written statement of purpose and approach.
• Subcommittees should select a Vice Chairperson to act in the absence of the
Chairperson.
• Conference calling should be used, if necessary, to facilitate the completion of
subcommittee work and to provide greater subcommittee continuity between Council
meetings.
• ODW should assign "division directors" to serve as permanent liaison between ODW
and each subcommittee. This person will be responsible for a range of support
activities, including assisting subcommittee chairs with agenda items, putting together
written and verbal background materials and briefings, and developing summary sheets
of key discussion issues.
• The Agency should limit the formal briefings to the first day of the subcommittee
meetings to .allow time on the second day for deliberation and discussion.
The Agenda subcommittee also discussed the need to institute the following changes in the Council's
operating procedure: improving the content and the distribution of the Council agenda; balancing
the Council's discussion focus between current and emerging issues; standardizing the system of
subcommittees within subcommittees and ad hoc groups; instituting a regular review of the Council's
performance by the Agenda Subcommittee; clarifying the purpose of any panels that present to the
Council or subcommittees; and developing a policy of presenting Council recommendations to the
Deputy Administrator on a regular basis.
-------
IV. Report of the Health. Science, and Standards Subcommittee
(Attachment B)
Following a brief break, Mr. Joseph A. Millen, Chairperson, summarized the following Health,
Science, and Standards Subcommittee discussion and recommendation topics: the status of work by
the EPA Lead Rule Work Group, followed by four recommendations; resolutions for styrene and
nitrate MCL's under Phase II, it was recommended that the Agency continue to examine styrene and
nitrate policy options; Phase V status; review of the significant progress on Consolidated Monitoring,
five recommendations were made; a summary of radon and other radionuclides; revision of the
National Drinking Water Priority List; and guidance for determining Unreasonable Risks to Health
(URTH). After discussion and amendment (referring the recommendation regarding the revision of
the National Drinking Water Priority List to the Legislation and Public Outreach Subcommittee) the
report was^ passed with abstentions on April 13, 1990.
V. Report of the Legislation and Public Outreach Subcommittee
(Attachment C)
Ms. Suzi Ruhl, Chairperson, presented the following subcommittee meeting topics: the
purpose and function of the subcommittee; pending federal legislation affecting drinking water (e.g.,
the Farm Bill, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Conservation Enhancement and Improvement Act);
an overview of EPA's Mobilization Program, particularly how it relates to the Safe Drinking Water
Act and state drinking water programs; and the next meeting agenda. The report, and five
recommendations, were unanimously approved by the Council on April 13, 1990.
VI. Panel Discussion on Small Drinking Water Systems
Mr. Millen, acting as moderator, introduced the four panel members, Sharad Deshponde, Bob
Dufresne, Dave Langsfeld, and Dave Terry. Mike Cook opened the discussion by outlining the
technology-related goals and activities within the mobilization program. These items included
developing technology in an effort to demonstrate the effectiveness of small package type
technologies, gaining state approval for new package technologies, developing a major technology
information clearing house, financing new technologies, and establishing a task force to review in-
place technology.
Mr. Dufresne, of Dufresne and Henry Consulting Engineers, then presented and discussed
cost figures for the construction and operation of five small water treatment systems (0 to 1,000,000
gallons per day).
-------
Mr. Terry , Director, Division of Water Quality, Massachusetts DEP, discussed the status of
small drinking water systems in Massachusetts, focusing on present and future challenges. He
touched on a number of general trends and specific small system-related issues, including the need
for more funding; institutional problems at the local level, and the need for regionalization; providing
resources and guidance to small systems; dependence on ASMA's findings in terms of new
technologies; researching and evaluating existing legislation and programs in other states in an effort
to propose new legislation in Massachusetts.
Mr. Deshponde, Market Development Manager, Culligan Corporation, addressed common
problems plaguing small drinking water systems, and solutions to those problems, from the equipment
manufacturers point of view. These topics included financing the cost of small system compliance and
the possibility of developing a rate structure based on costs; the advantages of usage-based programs;
the importance of forecasting growth and planning for adequate equipment expansion and emergency
reserves; the merits of operator training programs; and the need for manufacturers to ensure
equipment performance through ongoing contracts and extended performance guarantees.
Mr. Langsfeld, CPC Engineering, elaborated on the importance of the operator in the success
of small systems. His discussion included the following subjects: the need for improved and
standardized levels of operator training and training programs; training programs involving interactive,
hands-on training, practical plant tests, and information presented in small, digestible parcels; the
importance of operator motivation, certification, and recertification; the active role operators must
take in the plant design process so that plant size and sophistication meet the needs of the
community and the operation staff.
Following a brief break, Mr. Millen moderated a question and answer session on small
drinking water systems.
VII. Report of the State Programs Subcommittee
Attachment D
Mr. Thomas Stephens, Chairperson, briefly presented the proceedings from the last meeting
of the State Programs Subcommittee, including the need for public comment on Unreasonable Risk
to Health (URTH); the subcommittee decision not to comment on affordability; variance and
exemptions; state capacity and the need to increase efficiency and reduce the number of systems
through regionalization and consolidation; and ODW training strategies. ODW strategic planning,
primacy implementation, PWS enforcement initiatives, reauthorization of SDWA, and a method for
recognizing successful systems were also mentioned. The subcommittee made five recommendations
and selected Fred Morracco as the Subcommittee Vice Chairperson. After discussion, the report was
approved with some opposition and abstentions on April 13, 1990.
-------
Report of the Ground-Water/UIC Subcommittee
Attachment E
Mr. Douglas Yoder, Chairperson, summarized the discussion and recommendations of the
recent subcommittee meeting. A progress report from the Wellhead Protection Program highlighted
that 30 states have submitted protection plans. Pending legislation, the Farm Bill is the most
significant piece of upcoming legislation. The work of the Ground- Water Task Force on state-federal
interaction and the EPA's Ground-Water Strategy was reviewed. Recommendations were made in
these areas: EPA's Statement of Ground-Water Principals; the use of MCLs in prevention and
cleanup programs; oversight of state protection programs; deferral of EPA programs to state UIC
designations; and the disbursement of federal funds. Underground Injection Control discussion topics
included Class I, n, and V wells and the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Program. After discussion and
amendment (wording change to the recommendation regarding EPA's Statement of Ground-Water
Principals), the report was passed with some opposition and abstentions on April 13, 1990.
DC Agenda Report
Mr. Squires expressed the Council's appreciation to all of the guest panel members. He
offered the recommendation that Council members be approved by EPA in a more timely manner.
He also announced the dates and locations for the next two Council meetings.
Winter Meeting: December 3-7, 1990
Washington, D.C.
Possible focus: Mobilization and Legislation
Spring Meeting: April 8-12, 1991
Miami, FL
-------
April 13. 1990
X. Report from the Office of Ground-Water Protection
Ms. Marian Mlay, Director of the Office of Ground-Water Protection, presented background
information about EPA's Ground-Water Task Force. The Task Force is in the process of developing
a number of papers concerning major ground-water issues, including future ground-water research
needs and establishing a ground-water data management network. Several of these papers are
currently in the public comment process. The two most significant issues before the Task Force are
the need to establish a clear and concise EPA Ground-Water policy statement and to review the
Agency relationship with state government. In general, the Task Force believes that EPA should not
deviate from the present approach, one that assesses ground-water protection in terms of its affect
on human health and on ecosystems. Under Task Force development is a paper covering a range
of state ground-water program issues. The report is intended to provide input to the development
of Agency ground-water policy and legislation guiding the interaction between federal and state
ground-water organizations. The Task Force is also working closely with a number of states to
develop comprehensive ground-water management strategies.
XL ADJOURNMENT
Council discussion continued on subcommittee reports and all reports were accepted, with
amendments to all but the Legislation and Public Outreach Subcommittee Report. Having completed
all business before the Council, Chairperson Mr. John Gaston adjourned the meeting.
8
-------
I certify to the best of my knowledge
that the foregoing minutes are
complete and accurate.
Gaston,
Chairperson
Charlene Shaw,
Executive Secretary
-------
ATTACHMENT A
REGISTERED AT THE MEETING
-------
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL
MEETING REGISTRATION
April 12 and 13, 1990
Boston, MA
Donna Cirola
Culligan International
One Culligan Parkway
Northbrook, IL 60062
David Langsfeld
312 Shavano
Crested Butte, CO 81224
Charles Larson
Ground-Water Management and Water Supply Board
2203 JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
William O'Neil
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
10 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142
Ray Raposa
New England Water Works Association
42-A Dilla Street
Milford, MA 01757
Phillip Sagnelli
Culligan International, Research Office
86 Nearwater Lane
Darien, CT 06820
Diane Van Di Hei
Association of Metro Water Agencies
1717 K Street NW, Suite 1006
Washington, D.C. 20036
-------
ATTACHMENT B
HEALTH, SCIENCE, AND STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
-------
w
*l PRO^°
Designated
Federal Official
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
< NDWAC m
7- 33
^ ^
Chairman
Advisor to The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Report of the
Health, Science & Standards Subcommittee
April 9 and 10, 1990
Members Attending:
Joseph Millen, Chairperson James Barr
Chris Wiant Richard Shank
Frederick Marrocco Charles Kreitler
The Subcommittee met on April 9 and 10, 1990. Updates were
obtained on issues as stated below.
Lead Rule
EPA presented the latest Work Group status regarding this highly
controversial and much spotlighted issue.
EPA's schedule is:
Work Group Closure - June 1990
Red Border Review - August 1990
OMB Review - October 1990
Promulgation - December 1990
EPA is favoring a treatment technique approach with a No Action
Level (NAD standard based on monitoring at the tap. Lead Service
Line Replacement (LSLR) would be part of the rule as would a
"demonstration" requirement should NAL's be exceeded after
application of treatment technique, optimization and Lead Service
Line Replacement (SLR), as required on the basis of
ownership/control .
Public education would begin upon exceeding established NAL's. If
after treatment, optimization, LSLR and "demonstration", NAL's are
still exceeded, an "in compliance" status would be allowed for the
system.
-------
Failure to take remediation steps in accordance with the rule would
result in non-compliance and Public Notification. Lead Service
Line Replacement would apply only if the utility had ownership of
the line; otherwise, the utility would be required to encourage
LSLR by the property owner at the property owner's expense.
Monitoring would be targeted. Non-residential monitoring would be
allowed as part of the program.
Use of ah NAL in lieu of an MCL is based on an inability to create
an MCL from the data presently available for corrosion optimization
and the corresponding lead-at-the-tap values.
The NAL standard is not yet established, but would not be greater
than a value of less than or equal to 20 ppb in 90% of the samples.
Recommendation;
With regard to this complex and evolving issue, the Subcommittee
recommends the following:
1. EPA must move on this rule and not exceed the time
limits stated above.
2. Allowing that insufficient data are present to create
an MCL, the Subcommittee supports a No Action Level and
treatment technique approach to compliance.
3. A Lead Service Line Replacement requirement should be
part of the proposed rule. Time phased implementation
of lead service line replacement is to be allowed.
4. EPA should aggressively continue rule development and
keep interested parties appraised of its progress.
Phase II
The comment period closed 8/22/89. ODW is responding to and
reviewing comments. No Agency resolution has been taken regarding
styrene. No resolution has been taken regarding the Nitrate MCLG,
although the Office of Drinking Water (ODW) favors 10 mg/1.
Recommendation:
1. Styrene and Nitrate should continue to be addressed with
regard to MCL's. Particular sensitivity should be directed
to the current Nitrate MCL and the suggestion of possible
reduction of that MCL to 1.0 mg/1.
The broader impacts of a potential reduction of the Nitrate
MCL to 1.0 mg/1 from 10.0 mg/1 should be taken into account
by the EPA in light of the ramifications such a change would
have.
-------
2. Stay on Work Group closure schedule of June 1990.
Phase V:
A status report was given on this proposal for 24 standards. The
proposal is at OMB for review with the proposal scheduled for June
1990. The financial impact of this rule is significantly affected
by the sulfate MCL. Beyond a status briefing, the Subcommittee
engaged in no further discussion.
Consolidated Monitoring
An extensive review of Consolidated Monitoring was conducted.- The
subcommittee was excited about the progress and likes the program
that is being prepared. The program should achieve its goals of
reducing complexity, providing flexibility, affecting cost
reductions and increasing compliance of source related
contaminants. The 3/6/9 phase in program is logical and while
extending time lines for monitoring, only does so by 3 to 6 months;
but, allows measurable improvements in smoothing out monitoring
requirements in return. State flexibility is retained through an
EPA umbrella which requires that all systems establish a monitoring
program, but allows States to issue waivers on the basis of non-
vulnerability for 3 year effective periods.
Recommendations:
1. EPA has as a result of this Work Group, identified
deviations in definitions (common language) from one
rule to another. EPA should make a concerted effort
to standardize definitions and language whenever possible.
2. The monitoring guideline or framework should address a
"what if" situation where awareness of a problem occurs
prior to the first monitoring cycle and that the State
is responsible for dealing with the "awareness" issue
and putting forward a monitoring requirement if needed.
3. EPA Phase V Final Rule should be placed on a schedule
for June 1991 promulgation. This will allow Phase II
and Phase V to be co-implemented for monitoring,
thereby further streamlining with potential cost
reduction.
4. The Subcommittee likes the source monitoring consolidation
approach so much that it feels an EPA Workgroup should be
set-up to develop a concept and draft approach for
distribution monitoring consolidation. Representative input
from State regulators and water utilities should be taken
as part of this effort. A total quality approach of
resource protection, source monitoring and distribution
monitoring with attendent and validated relaxation of
monitoring based on waiver requirements would encourage
source protection and improved operations.
-------
5. EPA should provide technical guidance and assistance to
States that would like to set-up or better organize their
electronic data storage so that the data about to be widely
collected can be integrated and evaluated on a National
basis.
Radionculides
A summary briefing was conducted. It was noted that the Radon MCL
possibly will be between 200-500 pCi/1 versus 200^2000 pCi/1. The
Subcommittee would like an in depth brief on this issue in December
1990.
Revision of the National Drinking Water Priority List
Phase VI's list is published. Phase VII's list is being developed.
Twenty-five new MCL's are to be promulgated every three years. A
review of Phase VI and VII is requested for December 1990.
Recommendation: (NOTE: On 4/13/90, this recommendation was
referred to the Legislative/Public Outreach Subcommittee for
further discussion.)
EPA should begin education to cause consideration that under
reauthorization, a National Occurrence Survey should be conducted
to establish the basis for additions to the priority list in lieu
of the "every three years new twenty-five approach."
Guidance for Determining Unreasonable Risks to Health (URTH)
Extensive discussion occurred on this issue. URTH is intended to
be guidance for the States to use in issuance of variances and
exemptions. The Subcommittee supports the concept of URTH and its
intended use by the States. The potential confusion between URTH,
MCLG and MCL remains a major concern. URTH is currently in process
as a policy. The Subcommittee does not object to the policy
approach, but is concerned that a rushed program without
involvement in the discussions by the public, regulators, other
programs and interested parties will create problems in
implementation. (It is noted that as a result of discussions on
4/12/90, at the full Council meeting, EPA has always intended to
and will take public comment on the "URTH" policy.)
Recommendations:
1. The Subcommittee recommends that public input and discussion
be obtained with respect to URTH. It is the Subcommittee's
opinion that without dialogue, URTH concepts and URTH values
will be misread. Additionally, cross program dialogue
within the Agency is needed. While this may slow
progress, it is more likely to result in an understood and
accepted concept.
-------
2. Time dependency with regard to URTH is important. Variances
issued under No Unreasonable Risk to Health need to be time
limited on the basis of the contaminant involved.
3. EPA should be cautious with regard to use of URTH values and
ensure that URTH values not be permitted to be used as
precedence values for other programs such as CERCLA, RCRA
(i.e. more lenient risk values or clean up levels).
-------
MINUTES APPROVED:
Josepn-Jfillen, Chair
Charles Kreitler
J"
Frede"r i ck~Ma r r ode o
ChrisWianlf
James Collins (Absent)
-------
ATTACHMENT C
LEGISLATIVE/PUBLIC OUTREACH SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
-------
/ %
< NDWAC "
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL z. *
401 M Street, S.W. ^ ^
Washington, D.C. 20460 ^ORYCO^
Designated
Federal Official Chairman
Advisor to The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Report of the
Legislative/Public Outreach Subcommittee
April 9 and 10, 1990
Members Attending; Others Attending;
Suzi Ruhl, Chair Charlene Shaw
John Squires Carl Reeverts
Thomas Stephens Clive Davies
Douglas Wendel
Mary Jane Forster
Don Hickman
Doug Yoder
Topics Discussed;
1. Purpose and Function of the Subcommittee
In an effort to clarify the role of the Subcommittee, members
recommended the following purposes:
(1) Evaluate the Mobilization Program;
(2) Recommend legislative changes for drinking water issues;
(3) Review budget and allocation levels.
2. Pending Federal Legislation Affecting Groundwater
The Subcommittee received two written reports regarding
drinking water legislation. The first was a legislative summary
of bills currently pending in Congress. Regarding major
environmental initiatives, none of the RCRA bills contain
provisions relating to drinking water, and only one of the half
dozen bills related to the Farm Bill contains provisions directly
related to drinking water (the Conservation Enhancement and
Improvement Act provides for a voluntary well water testing
program). The second report addressed State legislative options
for compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and was prepared
by the National Conference of State Legislators.
The Subcommittee also expressed a strong interest in the Safe
Drinking Water Act reauthorization efforts. Specifically, the
Subcommittee would like to be fully apprised of EPA efforts, to
be involved in issue identification as early as possible in EPA's
deliberations, and to solicit suggestions from those regulated by
and benefitting from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
-------
3. Mobilization Program
Charlene Shaw and Carl Reeverts provided an overview of EPA's
Mobilization Program. It was emphasized that this program is one
of three major initiatives to implement the Safe Drinking Water
Act, and involves the formation of action-oriented partnerships
among EPA, State Drinking Water Programs, and organizations
representing constituencies affected by the 1986 Amendments.
Carl Ree'verts highlighted two (of the 6) program initiatives
which are of highest priority. The first is the State Capacity
Initiative, which focuses on State Executive and Legislative
decision makers to gain support for increased resources for State
drinking water programs. The second is the Institutional Support
Initiative, which focuses on systems serving less than 3,300
people and the State institutions which govern their operation.
EPA is expanding its network to include non-traditional drinking
water organizations, such as the construction industry, and
mobile home park operators.
Charlene Shaw discussed the Public Education Initiative, which
focuses on the general public and seeks to build an understanding
of safe drinking water as a valuable commodity. ODW has
undertaken a variety of activities pursuant to this Initiative.
These include a slide show, specific subject, general public
pamphlets, National Drinking Water Week, Earth Day activities, a
drinking water exhibit, the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, an
Office Bibliography of available information, and a focus group
to develop a public education strategy.
Recommendation;
1. Doug Wendel is designated as Vice-Chair of this
Subcommittee.
2. Arnold Kuzmack is recommended as Subcommittee liaison for
legislative issues, and Peter Shanaghan is recommended as
Subcommittee liaison for Mobilization issues.
3. The Subcommittee expressed concern that staffing and
budget
levels for the mobilization program appear inconsistent
with
goals of the program. Members therefore request
additional information, as described below, so that
detailed comments can be provided at the next meeting.
4. Regarding production of literature on drinking water, the
Subcommittee suggested the following:
(a) to increase vestedness of the target groups of the
Mobilization Program, request these groups to review
drafts of documents.
-------
(b) EPA should on occasion provide camera-ready documents
to organizations for their production and distribution to
increase utilization of their documents. These final
draft documents should allow the individual groups to
insert their logo, to establish vestedness, while
continuing to give EPA credit for the brochure.
(c) A suggested theme for another brochure is to provide
why water will cost more (e.g. increase in contamination).
5. The Subcommittee discussed the need for measures to
prevent the proliferation of small water systems, and to
encourage consolidation, regionalization or bulk purchase
where appropriate. The Subcommittee recommends ODW
systematically identify other federal programs and state
programs which encourage such proliferation and determine
measures to mitigate their effects.
Next Meeting Agenda
To accomplish its purposes, the Subcommittee recommends the
following:
1. For the Mobilization Program, the Subcommittee requests a
briefing on the program mission, budget, objectives,
expected outcomes, and internal evaluation of strengths
and weaknesses. This briefing should be in writing, and
received by members before August 1, 1990. In addition, a
conference call will be conducted on September 5 (6 or 7
as alternative dates), for members to identify key
strengths and weaknesses of the program, to recommend
particular activities, and to identify issues for further
deliberation at the next NDWAC meeting.
2. For Legislative efforts, the Subcommittee will solicit
ideas and concerns regarding drinking water legislative
issues from EPA and Mobilization target groups through a
letter from the Subcommittee.
3. Regarding budget information, the Subcommittee requests a
briefing on past, present and future budget and allocation
levels.
4. The Subcommittee requests briefings on home water
treatment devices and private water wells, for future
action.
5. The Subcommittee requests a briefing on Small System
Proliferation.
-------
Minutes Approved;
•U. Jj/,^1.
Suzi Ruhl/ Chairperson
Thomas Stephens
l^ohh quires
Donald Hickman
Jaiife ^brster
Doug Wenc
-------
ATTACHMENT D
STATE PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
-------
Designated
Federal Official
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
NDWAC
Chairman
Advisor to The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Report of the
State Programs Subcommittee
April 9 and 10, 1990
EPA STAFF
ATTENDING
Carl Reeverts, SPD, ODW
Clive Davies, SPD, ODW
I. ATTENDANCE
SUBCOMMITTEE
MEMBERS ATTENDING
Thomas Stephens, Chair
James Barr
Joseph Millen
Fred Marrocco
Richard Shank
John Squires
Douglas Wendel
II. SUBCOMMITTEE REFERENCES;
A. The State Programs Division provided a package in advance of
the meeting covering such topics as building state program
administration capacity, the ODW Training Strategy, the ODW
Strategic Plan 1992-1995, State Primacy issues, the PWS enforcement
initiatives, and the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
B. Council members received a copy of an editorial in the January-
February 1990 issue of Ground Water entitled "Toxicological Risk
Assessment Distortions: Part I" and a copy of the EPA paper
entitled "Estimates of the Total Benefits and Total Costs
Associated with the Implementation of the 1986 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act."
C. Previous Subcommittee Recommendations:
1. Review by Subcommittee of State Primacy Rule (April 89)
2. Financing for the administration of state programs
(April 89)
3. Affordability of BAT (April 89)
4. Definition of Unreasonable Risk to Health (April 89)
5. Meetings with Administrator of EPA (April 89)
6. Consider requiring rate increase to build capital
reserve as a condition of granting a variance or
exemption (December 89)
7. State Capacity Initiative to help States develop
additional funding for program administration.
-------
III. REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS TO COMMITTEE
A. Current Status of Affordability and Unreasonable Risk to
Health (URTH) Issues (R3 & R4):
1) An excellent written explanation of URTH was provided.
2) ODW has made a tentative decision on affordability:
- An annual increase of $200 is generally considered affordable.
- Increases between $200-$400 maybe affordable.
- Water bills exceeding 2% of median household income (e.g.
$625) would be considered unaffordable. States may use
local income levels.
B. State Programs Division activity in building state program
administration capacity (R2 & R7).
Building state capacity is #1 priority for the State Programs
Division.
The State Capacity Initiative is aimed at providing funds for State
administration of regulations - not for funding system
improvements.
C. Report on ODW Training Strategy (follow-up).
The essence of the strategy is that the State primacy agency will
take charge.
D. Report on ODW Strategic Plan 1992-1995 (follow-up).
E. Report on reception received from States of final Primacy Rule
(Rl) and other primacy issues.
Only 37 States have adopted the VOC rule which should have been
adopted by January 1989 and only 36 States have adopted the Public
Notice rule which should have been adopted by April 1989.
F. Report on PWS Enforcement Initiatives
G. Thoughts on Reauthorization of the SDWA
-------
IV. DISCUSSION
A. URTH The need for public comment on URTH was discussed.
Concern was expressed. It was decided to support the Health,
Science & Standards Subcommittee recommendations on URTH.
B. Affordability The subcommittee chose not to comment on the
EPA's tentative decision.
C. Variances/Exemptions The variance and exemption process is
not widely utilized since most States find the enforcement process
easier to use. Taking enforcement action brings attention to the
issue. Granting variances will hide the problem and the process
of granting the variance (or exemption) is viewed as being time
consuming and resource intensive. The committee prefers the status
quo with regard to variances. It was noted that States have
flexibility as part of their enforcement process. The enforcement
process drives systems into compliance and will foster the
development of new technology, especially for small systems.
D. State Capacity Increasing efficiency and reducing the number
of systems through regionalization and consolidation were
discussed. The ASDWA peer review program was noted as a way EPA
is working to improve efficiency. The EPA's contractor support to
States seeking alternative funding mechanisms was discussed. High
turnover of State level drinking water personnel is especially
caused by low compensation.
E. ODW Training Strategy States will need a designated trainer
in each State if the program is to be effective. An alternative
might be a regional training program. The core materials provided
by EPA will be helpful, but they must be tailored. No one appears
to be held accountable for the success of the national training
program.
F. ODW Strategic Plan Doug Wendel, Fred Marrocco, and John
Squires were appointed to review the Strategic Plan and report back
to the subcommittee.
G. Primacy Implementation This issue is closely tied to State
capacity. The subcommittee would like an update in December on
action EPA plans to take against States that are not implementing
the SDWA as required.
H. PWS Enforcement Initiatives The proposed action appear to be
appropriate.
I. Reathorization of the SDWA This issue should be referred to
the Legislative and Public Outreach Subcommittee.
J. Recognition of Good Systems Some method should be devised to
identify and recognize good systems. A point system might be used
to evaluate good performance.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
A. The Council should adopt the Health, Science and Standards
Subcommittee recommendation on URTH.
B. EPA should not change the present variance process.
C. EPA should increase support of the ASDWA Peer Review program
and expand contractor support of State efforts to develop
alternative funding mechanisms for State level regulation.
Additionally, EPA should study the high turnover rate of State
drinking water personnel which is retarding efforts to implement
SDWA requirements.
D. EPA should devote more resources to the training initiative.
For example, training position should be funded at State level or
regional training programs should be established. A full time
national training coordinator should be appointed with appropriate
authority and responsibility to insure the program has a chance to
succeed.
E. EPA should develop a program to recognize good performance by
a water system.
VI. SELECTION OF VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR THE STATE PROGRAMS
SUBCOMMITTEE
Fred Marrocco was selected as vice chair of the subcommittee.
-------
Minutes Approved;
Thomas E. Stephens, Chair
,tl'tip;
1J\ JLf SA\ . r
Joseph A. Millen
-------
ATTACHMENT E
GROUND-WATER/UIC SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
-------
< NDWAC
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL z.
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Designated
Federal Official Chairman
Advisor to The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Report of the
Ground Water/UIC Subcommittee
April 9 and 10, 1990
Members Attending Staff
Douglas Yoder, Chairperson Jim Kutzman
Charles Kreitler Bob Mendosa
Mary Jane Forster Bruce Kobelski
Chris Wiant
Donald Hickman
Suzi Ruhl
Groundwater Topic Discussed
1. Wellhead Update
2. Pending Legislation
3. Ground Water Task Force Reports
1. Jim Kutzman reported that 30 States have submitted
wellhead protection plans. To date, four State plans
have been approved: Connecticut, Rhode Island, Texas,
and Louisiana. No plans have been disapproved. Several
plans outlined how the States were going to prepare a
plan, and it is expected that approvable plans will
eventually result.
Request
The Subcommittee requested that a copy of an approved wellhead
program be provided to Subcommittee members as an information
document.
2. Legislation
Summaries of several bills pending in Congress were
provided to the Subcommittee. Staff opinion was that the
probability of Congressional action on ground water
legislation is small this year, with the possible
exception of some ground water elements of a farm bill.
-------
Ground Water Task Force
Jim Kutzman described the historical roots of the EPA
ground water strategy, dating back to the early 1980's
and including Agency adoption of the Ground Water
Strategy, creation of the Office of Ground Water
Protection, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
creating the wellhead protection program, the Deputy
Regional Administrators' recommendation, concerning
shifting emphasis from remediation to protection by
shifting resources within the Agency, and the Urban
Institute report and conference on State ground water
strategies. A discussion ensued of the draft EPA
statement of Ground Water Principles and the options
paper on State/Federal relationships.
The proposed principles emphasize the importance of the
State role and the need for additional attention to
prevention, and the basic goals of protecting human
health and the environment. The State-Federal options
paper highlights four specific areas in which the Agency
is seeking advice: (1) the use of MCL's in contamination
prevention and remediation programs; (2) degree of
Federal requirement for comprehensive state ground water
programs; (3) the degree of Federal deference to States'
classification on ground water in making clean-up
decisions; and (4) tying disbursement of Federal funds
to State ground water program.
Recommendations:
1. State of Ground Water Principles
The Subcommittee endorses the EPA Statment of Ground
Water Principles and its emphasis on the importance of
state and local responsibilities for protection of ground
water resources. The Subcommittee recommends that
specific language in the statement be modified to include
reference to "existing and potential sources" of drinking
water rather than "existing and reasonably expected
sources of drinking water."
2. Ground Water Task Force Options
A. Use of MCLs
i. Prevention
The Subcommittee endorses the use of MCLs as reference
points for prevention of ground water contamination. As
detectible changes in ground water quality occur,
appropriate actions should be taken, ranging from
continued monitoring to source regulation, to preserve
ground water quality for both public health and
-------
environmental purposes. MCLs should not be considered
a floor to be reached before action is taken.
ii. Cleanups
The Council endorses the use of MCLs as reference points
for remediation requirements, allowing for cleanup to
more or less stringent levels where cost and practicality
make said levels feasible.
B. Oversight of State Protection Programs
The Subcommittee recommends that EPA develop flexible
program appoval criteria modeled after the wellhead
protection and underground tank programs. This approach
should emphasize through incentives the importance of
state action. If states undertake virtually no level of
action by some time certain, the EPA program should
provide for disincentives or penalties.
C. Deferral of EPA Programs to State UIC Designations
The Subcommittee recommends that EPA defer Agency program
activity levels to those states having groundwater use
designations established through a legal process which
included public hearings. Such deferrals could be a
significant incentive for states to develop a
comprehensive ground water program and to foster greater
state participation in the other EPA programs.
D. Disbursement of Federal Funds
The Subcommittee recommends that EPA create a single
ground water grant program to the states, financing the
grants with a percentage of funds from other EPA programs
impacting ground water.
Underground Injection Control Issues
1. Class I Wells
2. Toxic Characteristic Leaching Program
3. Class II Wells
4. Class V Wells
5. Data Management
1. Class I Wells
Bruce Kobelski discussed the status of petition for no-
migration applications and the final regulation governing
the "third thirds" wastes which will be published on May
8, 1990. Sixty of 85 Class I facilities have applied for
no-migration approvals. Two have been approved, 15
-------
tentative approvals have been issued. The "third thirds"
regulation will actually govern about 7 billion of the
11 billion gallons per year in the Class I universe. It
is likely that 90% of the volume will continue to be
disposed in wells as a result of petitions or capacity
variances. Discussion focused on the adequacy of
modelling assumptions and the uncertainties associated
with abandoned wells which may be in the area of review.
It was noted that a lawsuit is pending on the petition
process and that the Agency has on-going studies of
modeling assumptions and abandoned wells.
•
2. Toxic Characteristics Leaching Procedures
Guidance on the TCLP is now being drafted. The
Subcommittee requests that copies be provided when
available.
3. Class II Wells
Guidance on mechanical intensity testing and control of
commercial brine disposal wells is being formulated. The
Subcommittee requests copies.
4. Class V Wells
Preparation of regulations for Class V wells has begun
and is scheduled for completion in 1992. Discussion
centered on the need for action as soon as possible,
particularly to complete the inventory.
Recommendations;
1. If the on-going Agency study of modeling assumptions
for analysis of no-migration petitions determines that
assumptions are insufficiently conservative, the Agency
should re-evaluate all appropriate petition approvals.
2. The Agency should continue to study the problem of
abandoned wells, particularly as a tool for defining
areas in which abandoned wells are most likely to
endanger underground sources of drinking water. The
focus of these studies should be the location of
abondoned wells and the sufficiency of plugging.
3. The Agency should take appropriate enforcement action
against Class V well operators who have not complied with
inventory requirements, thereby enhancing voluntary
compliance. An accurate inventory is essential to
management of these wells.
-------
Minutes Approved By:
u
"as Yofier, ""Chairman Date Chris Wi^ht
Date
Charles Kreitler, Vice Chair
SuziRuhl
Date
Donald Hickman
Date
------- |