NATIONAL
P.L.
93-523
STATE
PROGRAMS
SAFE
DRINKING
WATER
SAFE
DRINKING
WA
STRATEGY
ONE STEP AT A TIME
May 1975
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
-------
Executive Summary
Slnlcnu'Ml ol I'u ri>(>Hc
The sub-title of this Htratcgy, One Step at a. Time, epitomizes
EPA's approach to implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
We begin by assuming that the State and local governments, and
the owners of public water supplies are actively ir to rested in assuring
1hat the citizens of this country have safe water to drink. We may differ
in specifics, but that basic assumption of common purpose will guide
all of PIP A'a actions in this program. We plan to approach the regulatory
i
procfiHH embodied In the SDWA on n Hlcp-by-Hlep basis, recognizing
that we cannot correct all problemm In M day--or oven In a decade In
some places. Our flexibility, however, should not be confused with lack
of purpose or conviction. We intend to uphold the law.
Principles of Implementation
This strategy proposes eleven basic principles that EPA will use
in implementing the SDWA. They include a commitment to give
highest priority to matters of public health; to involve the States,
local governments, and consumers in all aspects of the program;
to attack the worst problems first; to take costs into consideration in
all phases of the program; to build on existing state and local water
supply control programs; to decentralize decision-making to the EPA
regional offices; to consider the environmental side-effects of actions
taken under the SDWA; and to minimize "red-tape" in all actions.
Goals, Objectives, and Priorities
The goal of the Drinking Water program is "to ensure that all
citizens have safe water to drink. " The social and econom.c costs
-------
-2-
of reaching that goal will be considered in the progams developed to
meet it. A variety of sub-goals and objectives are proposed which
should facilitate the accomplishment of the overall goal in a step-
by-step manner.
Strategy Overview
The Safe Drinking Water Act was not planned to produce a bureau-
cratic program, and EPA intends to assure that it does not come out
that way. The Act is designed basically to be self-enforcing without
the need for a complicated program structure. It is clearly the respon-
sibility of the local utility to perform the required monitoring (§1415)
and give public notice when its drinking water is not up to standards
(§1414(c)). EPA believes that, in general, the most effective way
to achieve compliance with the National Primary Drinking Water Stand-
ards (both interim and revised) is by assuring that the consumers are
aware of deviations from maximum contaminant levels so that they
can ensure that corrective action is taken. Where necessary, of
course, a State should take action under its own regulations, or EPA
may bring an action under §1414. But realistically, with approximately
240, 000 public water suppliers nationally, the States and EPA must
rely on the pressures generated from public notification to produce
compliance for many public water systems.
This strategy proposes five options for different levels of Federal/
State partnership in the enforcement of the primary drinking water
regulations. The options range from complete certification of the State's
program with no extensive Federal involvement (other than the program
grant), to non-certification. EPA desires to certify all States for
-------
-3-
DRAFT
primary enforcement responsibility in accordance with the mandate of
Iho Art. The intent of this stratpgy is to cslnbJish tho groundrulos
for n true Fedcral/Slalo/local partnership, based on prut Lical and
pragmatic regulations and policies that will facilitate cooperation and
result in compliance with the requirements of the SDWA.
The SDWA clearly establishes that a State must adopt regulations
no less stringent than the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
bffore it can be certified for primary enforcement responsibility.
The Act includes a variety of other requirements for certification
which EPA believes can be accomplished on a step-by-step basis,
building on already existing State and local procedures and organizations.
EPA does not believe that all States should have identical programs
in order to be certified.
The strategy alec recognizes that the major impact of the SDWA
progam will be felt at the local level by the suppliers of water and the
consumers who must pay for it. Because the Congress was concerned
that the deadlines for compliance contained in the SDWA may create
undue financial burdens and hardship on some communities, the Act
provides for exemptions to be granted from the drinking water regu-
lations, provided that the public health is adequately protected.
However, exemptions cannot be permanent. The Act provides a maximum
of five years for compliance schedules (seven years if regional!zation
takes place) and requires that the schedules be presented at a public
hearing before adoption.
The strategy also recognizes that the monitoring rer -rements of the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations can pres -nt serious
-------
-4-
DRAFT
problems lo local communities if they cannot .iflord all of the proposed
monitoring, or if they cannot find a laboratory to conduct the analyses--
or both. EPA will respond to the public comments received on the
monitoring requirements contained in the proposed interim NPDWR,
and will modify them if it is demonstrated that a reduced requirement
will adequately protect the public health.
One way to reduce the economic impact of the SDWA regulations
at the local level is to take advantage of the economies of scale inherent
in regional water supply systems and management. Regionalization,
moreover, is not limited to structural, physical integration of impound-
ment, treatment and distribution systems. It can mean shared
laboratory services, training programs, billing systems and a variety
of other management services that can perhaps be provided more efficiently
to a group of water supplies. EPA recognizes that there are a variety
of factors which may affect the viability of regionalization and does
not intend to force local communities to regionalize their systems
or management; that is a local decision best handled at the local level.
Finally, the strategy overview section analyzes some of the inter-
relationships of the SDWA and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
EPA plans to manage the two programs concurrently, giving each the
priority attention it deserves. EPA will develop an overall water
program strategy in the future to cover in greater depth the many
interface areas which have been identified.
Underground Injection Control Program
EPA plans to implement the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program prescribed by the SDWA with the same step-by-step approach
-------
-5-
DRAFT
adopted For the water supply management program. The strategy
reviews options for three major issues in the UIC program:
What is a "well"?
a [Tow will EPA approach the problem of designating States which
should undertake UIC programs in response to the SDWA?
How will EPA implement the (§}424(e) of the SDWA
which pertains to sole source aquifers.
Options are presented which would define a "well" very narrowly
(to include only "classical" disposal wells), or very broadly (to include
i
industrial and municipal waste disposal pits, lagoons, etc.), or some-
where in between. The definitional problem is very serious because
the EPA regulations could potentially require formal permits for
hundreds of thousands of "wells" or for only a few. A balance must
be struck, and public health considerations, as well as administrative
workability and cost, will be the determining factors.
The SDWA clearly gives EPA administrative discretion in deter-
mining which States should be designated as requiring UIC programs
under the SDWA. If a State, after being designated, does not elect
to be certified by EPA to manage a U.IC program, EPA is required
by the SDWA to "prescribe" a program and implement it in that State.
EPA desires that all designated States elect to manage their own
programs. We believe that underground injection should be controlled
under the SDWA in all States. The strategy, however, reviews the
pros and cons of designating all States at once or on a staggered basis,
perhaps ten per year for five years.
§1424(e) of the SDWA is intended to contribute to controlli1
potential contamination of sole (or principal) source aquifers ay
-------
-6-
DRAFT
by regulating Federal agency construction, grant, and loan guarantee
programs in areas where1 contamination of tin; nquilor rouJd
cMidangor the public hoalth. The slrnlrgy reviews the potentially
enormous administrative workload associated with §1424(e) and proposes
optional methods for implementing it. The strategy recommends that
EPA conduct a national survey to identify which aquifers might be
determined as "sole source" under the Act. It is also recommended
that EPA build on existing Federal agency Environmental Impact State-
ment procedures as the basis for any reviews it might conduct of
proposed Federal projects on aquifers determined under the Act as
"sole source. "
Finally and most importantly, EPA recognizes that all of the answers
to questions on providing safe drinking water and on protecting sources
of drinking water have not been found. A wide variety of "unknowns"
continue to exist which will "require considerable study and evaluations,
both by EPA and by other levels of government, the water supply
industry and the scientific and academic communities. EPA will give
serious consideration to a wide variety of issues about which knowledge
is limited, especially during the early stages of the program. We intend,
in particular, to stress the need for developing improvements in water
technology, health research and related matters and for assessing the
various problems, (such as limited sources of trained manpower) which
potentially might hinder the successful implementation of the program.
Public comments on this draft strategy are expected and
encouraged.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1.
CHAPTER 2.
CHAPTER 3.
CHAPTER 4.
CHAPTER 5.
INTRODUCTION
-Purpose of the Strategy
-Implementation Principles
-Outline of the remainder of
the paper
PROBLEM STATEMENT
-Nature of the Drinking Water
Problem-
-Unknowns
-Legislative Guidance
-Brief Summary of the Legislation
- Federal, Regional, State, Local,
and Consumer Relationships
GOALS,OBJECTIVES, AND PRIORITIES
-Goals
-Objectives
-Priorities
STRATEGY OVERVIEW
-Introduction
-Incentives for Encouraging State
Involvement
-Flexible Implementation
-Regulations and puidelines
-Sequencing
-State Program Grants
-Variances and Exemption's
-Local Utility Impact -
-Regionalization '
-Monitoring and Laboritory
Facilities
-Training and Energy Requirements
-Relationships between SDWA § FWPCA
PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND SOURCES
OF DRINKING WATER
-Underground Injection Control
Program
o Policy Issues
#1 What is Well Injection?
#2 Step-by-Step Program
Implementation
#3 Relationship between UIC
Program and P.L.92-500
-Sole Source (Section 1424)
o Current Status
o Sole Source Determination
o Project Review
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
1
1
2
5
6
7
7
8
p.10
p.10
p.12
p.14
p.18
p.18
21
22
22
23
25
26
30
34
p. 36
p.38
p.39
p.4]
41
44
44
p.49
54
57
59
60
62
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRO DICTION
Purpose of the Safe Drinking Water Strategy
The safe drinking water strategy presented in this paper has been
developed to clarify EPA policy with respect to implementing the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
This strategy document is not law and does not have the status of
a regulation or official rule making: it is an operational plan, arid it
describes what EPA plans to do in light of its legislatve mandate and
the realities of existing Federal, State, and local capabilities and re-
sources. Comments on this draft strategy are welcome from all
interested parties and should be addressed to:
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Supply
U.S. E. P. A.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Derived from this strategy is the annual regional guidance to the
Regional Administrators for their use in establishing regional
priorities and objectives for the upcoming fiscal year. The Regional
Administrators, in turn, must propose to the Administrator a region-
specific strategy for implementing the Act. The regional strategies
will be developed from the national strategy in consultation the State
and local governments and with the public. Regional strategies are
due to the Administrator August 1, 1975.
The following specific principles of implementation are intended
to guide EPA's decisions in carrying out the mandate of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. These principles are not easily applied,
-------
-2-
DRAFT
and one may conflict at times with another. In those cases where
conflicts arise, such as, fpr example, in deciding between rea-
sonable cost and the protection of the public health, the advice of
key policy officials should be sought by EPA staff. In some
areas, guidance from the President and Congress may be needed.
The implementation principles are:
Public health considerations deserve highest priority.
-- Questions of aesthetics, taste, and odor will be
considered, but the focus of the Agency's efforts
will be on health matters.
--In designing its research, monitoring and enforce-
ment programs, EPA will generally focus its con-
sideration on health matters, on the size of the
population at risk, and on the degree of risk
involved.
Encourage State and Local participation in decision-making
-- EPA views the task of ensuring the maximum level of
State/local involvement in the Safe Drinking Water Program
as its most pressing obligation.
--In addition to encouraging State and local participation in
issuing regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
EPA will expect the States to play a major role in advising
the Administrator on other determinations made under the
Act, such as the requirements placed on Federal facilities
to meet standards, the relative priority of communities
within the State which request emergency allocation of treat-
ment supplies, the areas which should be designated as
sole-source aquifers endangered by Federally-assisted
projects, and the adequacy of EPA's response to any petitions
it might receive under the provisions of the Act.
Reduce d for massive changes in current State operations.
-- EPA does not intend to dictate that all States adopt the same
laws, organizations, or standard operating procedures in
order to be certified for primary enforcement responsibility
under the Act.
-------
-3-
-- Reporting requirements placed on the Slates vill be mimmr/.cd
and analyzed according to the cost oi the reporting, and the
amount of disruption which might be caused by the reporting.
Where possible, format will be'along the lines of that utilized
in the Interstate Carrier Program.
Encourage consumer participation in deliberations and decisions.
--EPA intends to implement the program in the most open manner
possible, assuring easy access by the public to information
concerning the program.
The Worst Problems will be given first attention
--The "worst" problems will be defined in terms of the degree of
health risk involved, the population affected and the ability to
impact an undesirable situation.
Take cost into consideration in all decisions made in the Safe
Drinking Water Program
-- The Act requires that EPA (take costs into consideration
in.defining the interim and revised drinking water regulations,
in granting variances and exemptions in States where EPA
has primary enforcement responsibility, and in deciding
whether to allow States to issue temporary permits for existing
underground injection wells (Sec. 1412(2)). In reviewing the
availability of technology to meet the requirements of regula-
tions, EPA will fully utilize its authority to review the cost
of implementation.
-- EPA also intends to apply the concept of cost effectiveness
to determinations made under the other provisions of the
Act, particularly in defining regulations to give States primary
enforcement responsibility, the cost requirements for public
notification, the degree of reporting and record-keeping
required, and the allocation of scarce chemicals and treatment
supplies.
Place maximum financial burden for implementation of regulations
on the ultimate users of drinking water except as provided by State law.
-- EPA recognizes that in many sections of the country, drinking
water is either underpriced or inappropriately priced. Safe
drinking water, however, has a real price, and EPA will
generally encourage water suppliers to price drinking water
so that users pay the costs and to develop rate schedule s
accordingly.
-------
-4-
Require adequate attention to the environmental impact of decisions
made under the Act.
Decentralize dec is ion-making and operational responsibility for the
Act to the EPA Regional Offices and to the State and Local Governments
OJP(
icT
to the extent practicable.
-- To the maximum extent feasible the Administrator intends to
delegate to regional offices, decision-making authority on
all elements of the program involving enforcement, monitoring
and surveillance, technical assistance program grants and
so forth. Regional offices will in particular be responsible
for involving State governments in all aspects of program
implementation and for certifying State programs.
Keep paper work and red-tape to the absolute minimum
-- EPA will ensure that, in the development of all regulations
and programs, paperwork requirements do not become a
significant burden either for this Agency or for States
responsible for implementing the Act or for utilities
responsible for complying with regulations.
Utilize existing Federal and State resources
-- EPA and State governments will attempt to utilize existing
Federal-State programs for providing safe drinking water.
In particular, EPA and States should draw on current
research efforts, existing data sources, ongoing programs
for monitoring and enforcement and existing training and
technical assistance activities.
Outline of the remainder of the strategy
i
Chapter 2, PROBLEM STATEMENT briefly describes the need
i
for action and the expected areas of difficulty in implementation.
Chapter 3, proposes the GOALS, OBJECTIVES, and PRIORITIES of
the program. Chapter 4, STRATEGY OVERVIEW details policy
decisions that directly affect the way the new law is implemented and
the steps that EPA plans to take over the next years in managing
the Safe Drinking Water program. Chapter 5, PROTECTION OF
UNDERGROUND SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER proposes a strategy
for implementing Part C of the Act.
-------
CHAPTER 2
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Nature of the Drinking Water Problem
Currently operating H'ederal programs for dealing with drinking water
programs are clearly inadequate to assure the publi.. has safe drinking
water. $361 of thr Public Health Service Act has been the major tool
available prior to the passage of SDWA for ensuring the safety of drinking
water. This act applied, however, only to drinking water involved in
interstate commerce and, moreover only to contaminants which might
cause communicable diseases. The Act did not cover the vast majority
of drinking water systems and did not protect the public from a variety
of potentially dangerous contaminants. The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act has some limited effect in protecting underground drinking
water supplies and is gradually improving surface water used as drinking
water supplies; however, it is not broad enough in its coverage to en-
sure the safety of all sources of drinking water.
The drinking water served to Americans varies in quality. Luring
the period 1961-1970 there were 130 outbreaks of disease or poisoning
attributed to drinking water, and these outbreaks resulted in 46,374
illnesses and 20 deaths. This represents only those cases that were
reported, and for which the waterborne route was established as the
cause. More important, these represent only the acute affects, and not
the chronic effects that may take many years to aggregate their impact.
Studies have also shown that (1) more than half of the facilities
providing drinking water have serious deficiencies, (2) more than
three quarters of the operators were inadequately trained, ) the vast
majority of systems were unprotected from cross-connect jn with
-------
-6-
contaminated water, and (4) more than three-quarters of the systems
were not subjected to adequate surveillance or monitorings.
Unknowns
Thr basic- unknown in the safe drinking water program renters around
the need to better define the problem. While the general goal of assuring
that the public has safe drinking water, remains clear the means to
reach that end are not clear. The uncertainties revolve around:
1. What levels of the various organic, inorganic, and micro-
biological contaminants are safe."
2. How much water is currently being provided in less than
a "safe" condition.
3. What effort (economic or otherwise) will be necessary to go
from current levels to the currently unknown "safe" levels.
EPA's research program is generally directed at resolving these
three unknowns. The major emphasis of the research program will be
on determining the extent of contamination of water supplies by viruses
and organic and inorganic chemicals, especially those that are suspected
of being carcinogenic. Additional emphasis will be placed on determining
the long rather than short-term health effects of these organic and
inorganic contaminants, individually and in combination. Better
methods will be developed for the removal of these substances to the
levels required by the drinking water standards or to a "feasible" level
if the contaminant cannot be accurately enough measured in drinking
water.
Water treatment technology will be developed for small water supply
systems since it is these systems (serving less than 5000 people) that
experience more difficulty in meeting the drinking water standards.
With the discovery of the formation of halogenated organics through
-------
-7-
chlorination ot water supplies., techniques will be developed lor iheir
control il deemed necessary based on health effects data.
EPA 's research program lor the SDWA has not yd fully developed.
Public comment is requested so that we may determine the relative
priority of various research efforts which could be undertaken.
Legislative Guidance
"While the Committee [on Interstate and Foreign Commerce]
views the problem of unsafe drinking water as a matter which is
and should be primarily the concern o! State and local governments,
the Committee has determined that the Federal government also has
a responsibility to ensure the safety of the water its citizens drink. "
Brief Summary of the Legislation
In summary, the SDWA:
Requires the Administrator of the Environmental
Protectior Agency to prescribe national drinking
water regulations for contaminants which may
adversely affect the public health;
e Requires Public Water Systems to deliver water, to
monitor and test, and to operate and maintain their
systems in compliance with the drinking water
regulations.
Requires drinking water systems to notify their
customers of failure to comply with the drinking
water regulations.
Requires the Administrator to encourage maximum
levels of State involvement in the promulgation,
implementation, and enforcement of regulations
and programs developed under the Act.
Authorizes States which adopt and implement adequate
standards and enforcement measures to grant c ,rtain
variances from the national regulations and to ,rant
exemptions to extend the time for compliance .y any
public water system; and to establish compli; uce
schedules including interim control measure', and
increments of progress;
-------
-8
Authorizes the Administrator to enforce national
primary drinking water regulations and to grant
exemptions and variances in States which do not
hove primary enforcement responsibility.
Establishes Federal/State programs to protect underground
sources of drinking water;
Authorizes the Administrator on a temporary basis
to certify the need for chlorine (or other water treatment
substances) to be allocated to public water systems and
require the President (or his delegate) to issue necessary
allocation orders;
Provides for Federal grants to assist State water supply
management programs under the Act; and
Provides for certain additional grants, loan guarantees,
research and demonstrations to assist States in carrying
out the above purposes.
Federal, Regional, State, Local and Consumer Relationships
Public Law 93-523 (the Safe Drinking Water Act) will have
a profound effect on all the levels of responsibility for the pro-
vision of safe drinking water. Briefly these new roles include,
but are not limited to the following:
Federal Government
-- EPA is to provide national policy guidance and
regulations, offer technical and financial
assistance to the States, conduct research,
assure that adequate technology is available
for meeting its regulatory requirements,
allocate scarce treatment chemicals in
emergency situations, and carry out the
compliance programs for enforcement of the
National Primary Drinking Water Regula-
tions and underground injection regulations
in those areas where the States have not been certi-
fied for primary enforcement responsibility.
Other Federal agencies are to advise the
Administrator in his rule-making under the
Act, and to ensure that Federal facilities
which manage public water supplies meet
the requirements of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations, and the
Underground Injection Control Program.
-------
-9-
State Governments
-- The State governments, to the maximum extent
feasible, are responsible for enforcing the
provisions of the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations and the underground
injection regulations within their Scales, and
providing technical assistance to public water
suppliers to enable them to meet the require-
ments of the applicable regulations.
Local Governments and Utilities
-- Local utilities are responsible for providing
drinking water which complies with the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
including assuring that the water they treat
meets contaminant levels or that necessary
treatment techniques are utilized, and
monitoring supplies. To the extent that
local utilities are owned and operated by
local governments, action to ensure compli-
ance rests directly with the local govern-
ment. In the case of investor-owned utilities,
actions to ensure compliance should be subject
to routine surveillance by the appropriate
agency of the State government.
* Consumers
-- Individual consumers and groups representing
them are responsible for participating in the
development of regulations under the Act;
petitioning for attending public hearings con-
ducted by regulation; ensuring that local utilities
are adequately financed; petitioning the Administrator
and State authorities to carry out the emergency
provisions of the Act; and finally, bringing civil suits
against the Administrator and State authorities if
it is believed that they have failed to properly imple-
ment the Act.
-- Utilize the public notification procedures of the
Act (when a utility is out uf compliance) as a
guideline to indicate when consumer action is
warranted.
-- Consumers can expect to pay higher pric* j for their
drinking water, reflecting any increaser1 costs of
treatment, and for the necessary monit ring to
assure that the water meets the requir ments of
National Primary Drinking Water Reg" lations.
-------
Chapter 3 - Goals, Objectives, and Priorities
The first step in developing a program to accomplish the
mandate of the Safe Drinking Water Act is to identify a set of
goals and objectives to provide a systematic national structure
to achieve safe drinking water. The goals of the program must
be linked in an explicit and measurable manner to day-to-day
activities. Only a systematic approach will make the program
manageable.
The overall goal of the program can be stated as:
.To assure that the public has
safe drinking water
Congress has made it clear in the Safe Drinking Water Act
that the programs which EPA develops to achieve this goal are,
in all cases, to take cost into consideration, and the strategy
recognizes this. Secondly, it is clear that reasonable balances
will have to be made among all environmental programs and
that where goals among the programs conflict or are incompa-
tible, tradeoffs may be required.
Finally, EPA recognizes that a rigorous definition of the
term "safe" is not being provided and that problems may arise
in developing an acceptable definition. The primary emphasis
throughout the strategy, nevertheless, is on protecting the public
health.
Progress towards accomplishing this overall goal is generally
measurable, but not easily, and this goal certainly does not lend
-------
-11-
itself to day-to-day metering to determine progress towards it.
In order to accomplish this over;.IS goal, we must conduct
three inter-related programs which have the following purposes:
A. To ensure that all underground and suri'ace sources of
water which are (or potentially may be) used as drinking
water supplies are protected to the extent feasible so
that public water systems using those waters are not
prevented from attaining the standards established in
the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
B. To ensure that all public water systems meet the require-
ments of the National, Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
C. To ensure that the drinking water provided to the public
meets the standards established in the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations.
Viewed graphically, these three program goals would appear
as a total system for the provision of drinking water; from the
source of that water to consumer's tap.
Surface Source
Testing, Treatment,
and Contamination
Prevention
Underground Source
Delivery
System of
Jinal
product
Consumer
-------
-12-
Progress in achieving these purposes is generally measureable,
and it is assumed that accomplishing them will, in most cases,
lead directly to the attainment of the overall goal, the protection
of public health.
In order to be successful in implementing the three programs
(sub-goals) described above, EPA and the States will have to
establish a basic set of program objectives.
Program Objectives*--
(Including examples of measureable sub-objectives)
To ensure an effective Federal-State partnership in the
implementation of the Act.
- certify States as having primary enforcement responsibility;
- certify States as having responsibilies for underground injection/
programs.
To publish and revise standards, regulations, and guidelines
required by the Safe Drinking Water Act in a timely manner.
To complete research, development, and demonstration
projects which will provide scientific and technical informa-
tion needed to accomplish the purposes of the Safe Drinking
Water program.
- determine health effects of contaminants in drinking water;
- determine the effect of contaminants on underground drinking
water supplies;
- conduct a rural drinking water survey;
**Not necessarily in order of priority.
-------
-13-
- determine the nature and extent of chemicals thought to
be carcinogens;
- conduct demonstration projects.
e To piovide technical assistance on a continuing bc._us 1o Stale
agencies, local utilities, and Federal facilities wnich serve
as public water supplies.
To assure Jna>. the States develop and conduct a progam which
which will rosult in the granting of permits or rule making
for underground injections.
To provide for a method fcr granting variances and exemptions
from the regulations consistent with the overall goals of the
program.
To assist States in conducting surveillance activities
aimed at determining the extent 'of the drinking water problem
and the level of compliance with regulations. '
- determine the number of water systems with
contaminant levels considered to be dangerous
to the public health;
- determine the number of water supply systems in compliance
with primary drinking water regulations.
To carry out the enforcement provisions of the Act in order to
assure compliance with regulations and exemptions or variances
granted from the regulations.
To conduct a national program of public information activities
so that the consumer will understand the nature of the problems
encountered in supplying safe drinking water and to encourage
consumer participation in implemenlation of the Act both on a
national level and in all States.
- ensure public participation in development and implemen-
tation of regulations;
- ensure public access to information;
- ensure public awareness of problem.; in drinking water
systems.
-------
-14-
Compared to the overall goal and the purposes, the program
objectives included here are readily quantifiable and progress
is fairly easily measured. Some of these objectives are almost
exclusively Federal activities (Conduct Research), but most are
joint responsibilities of the Federal Government and the States.
In order to accomplish the above program objectives, EPA
and the States must undertake a wide variety of program activi-
ties. There are potentially hundreds of program activities and
all of them will not be delineated here. All program activities
are easily quantified and measured. They generally fit the
category of measurable objectives used by EPA's "Management-
by-Objectives" program to monitor day-to-day progress of the
Agency and the States. See Figure 1 for the general relationship
between goals, purposes, program objectives, and a limited
number of program activities.
Priorities
If the ultimate goals of the Safe Drinking Water Program
are to be accomplished on a rational basis, it is necessary
to establish, through a system of priorities, a hierarchy of
programs which indicates the relative emphasis that each
should be given. More specifically, a system of priorities
may be used to determine the levels of resources which will
be allocated to each facet of the overall program.
Table I provides a list of the criteria which have been used
in establishing priorities for the program activities:
-------
Figure 1. Program Structure of the
Safe Drinking 'Water Program
Overall Goal
To assure that the public
has safe water to drink
Purposes
Program-
Objectives
Program
Activities
(outputs)
cr icu-cas
ticiti;ic-> P.C' .. st.-nc'.irej .
D ensure that: VMCCI provided Co the
public -IJCES s.ir.t'aras
!
f \
1 Ce»J« =
J Sc'j«.-.rch
! and jo\olop-
irer;
1 Provide
Technical
Assistance
i
EsEJbush
Cor jUanci.
'and Sucveii-l i -crt
lance ' i
I
. A.-ard grA
ar,.] ;on-
Publish
handbooks
! T
f
. Issje
pcnrlcs
« hbtablish |
QuJli-_> i
Contri/1
, Tike L
LJ 1 Ull-'S !
'
1
. Garner
cv.ccrccj
. rre:are
bui:s
riold
public
hearings
-------
-15-
TABLE I
Tentative Criteria for Establishing Priorities
Safe Drinking Water Programs*
I. Is a deadline specified in the legislation?
II. Have actions been mandated by courts or ordered by
the President?
III. How immediate is the relationship to the program's goal and
objectives?
This criterion calls for two calculations:
How crucial is the objective to the attainment of the goal
of the program9
How crucial is the conduct of the activity to the attainment
of one or more objectives
IV. How sensitive is the desired program output to incremental
changes in resources9 Or, conversely, will a given incre-
ment of resources yield more output in one program as
compared to others?
V. Will the activity foster or hinder active State participation
in the program9
VI. Does the activity or program create the conditions necessary
for the success of other programs that will be of high priority
in the future9
Factors to be taken into account in applying this criterion
are illustrated by:
Do the skills the resources exist at the Headquarters,
Region, State, local government and water authority level
to implement the programs9
Is the scientific and technological base available to support
the program9
VII. Will the activity or program lead to secondary environmental
impacts? What is the relationship to other Federal programs
overlap, conflicts, or synergistic?
VIII. Is there a high level of public or Congressional intere c9
*Not necessarily in order of priority.
-------
-16-
Utilizing the criteria in Table I, EPA and the States must begin
setting priorities for the activities which form the basis for the overall
Safe Drinking Water Program. The activities are listed in a descending
order of emphasis:
First Priority Activities
0 Promulgate high impact regulations including:
- Interim and Revised Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
- State Program Regulations for Primary Enforcement
Responsibility;
- Regulations for State Underground Injection Programs;
Initiate National Academy of Sciences Study;
Certify States as having Primary Enforcement Responsibility;
Develop program for variances and exemptions;
Establish system for providing State program grants;
Provide such technical training and assistance to States as is
directly related to State acceptance of primary enforcement
responsibility
Provide for consumer participation in program development and
implementation;
Develop permit programs and rule making procedures for under-
ground injection control;
Certify States as having responsibility for undergound injection
programs;
Conduct studies relating to causes, diagnosis, treatment and
control of disease;
Publish lists of States requiring underground injection programs;
Design initial framework for recordkeeping and reporting;
Determine which utilities meet drinking water standards;
-------
-17-
Develop an Agency position on the designation of sole source aquifers;
o Implement compliance activities in States without primacy;
o Develop programs for emergency enforcement actions;
Second Priority Activity
Pro\ide for surveillance of water treatment facilities;;
Develop programs for emergency allocations;
Initiate studies on underground drinking water problems;
o Initiate non-emergency enforcement actions;
o Initiate Rural Drinking Water Survey;
Provide for surveillance of Underground Injection Programs;
Develop and implement Public Information Programs;
Third Priority
Begin demonstration projects;
e Promulgate Secondary Drinking Water Regulations;
Provide technical assistance which is not directly related to
State acceptance of primary enforcement responsibility.
Finally, two caveats should be noted in utilizing the above priority
schedule. On occasion it may become necessary to take action on a low
priority item in order to accomplish a higher level activity. In those
cases the priority of the low level activity should be upgraded in emphasis
as may be necessary. Secondly, different operating levels of government
may require different priority schedules. EPA recognizes this and variations
in the above priority heirarchy are both expected and encouraged to meet
regional or local needs.
* Actual level oi emphasis for this activity will be determined b perceived
need for monitoring. Monitoring systems will probably be dr sloped on
a phased basis with large systems being required immediate , to provide
for monitoring and smaller systems being given more time :> comply.
-------
Chapter 4 - Strategy Overview
EPA believes that the intent of the Congress was to place the principal
responsibility for the implementation of the SDWA on the State and local
governments.
Similarly, it is clearly the intent of the Congress and of EPA to assure
that consumers are aware of any problems in their drinking water systems.
Procedures for notifying consumers of non-compliance of public utilities
are an important part of the program. As noted in the letter from Russell
Train to Congressman Staggers, November 28, 1973, the Administrator
stated that:
"The enforcement approach that we favor is premised on the
belief that a Federal requirement that suppliers of drinking
water notify consumers of contaminants in their drinking
water will institute the necessary enforcement action. An
informed public is the best guardian of its own health and
safety. Accordingly, I believe the legislation should require
that whenever water delivered by a water supply system fails
to meet the health standards, the supplier be obligated to
notify its users of such failure and the possible resultant
health affects. Such a notification provision, coupled with
the citizen suit provision would, I believe render enforce-
ment actions by Federal, State or other regulatory agencies
largely unnecessary. . .. The possibility of a citizen suit
provides a strong additional incentive to suppliers to
maintain compliance with the standards. "
tate Program Responsibility*
There are a variety of factors which will determine whether or not
Host States will be willing to bear a significant degree of responsibility for
the Act, including: the political situation in the States; the level of resources
available to the States; the potential advantages (or disadvantages), as viewed
ay the states, of accepting responsibility for the program; and the quality
r workability of the program as developed by EPA.
ments of this program dealing with State Underground Injection
trol activities are dealt with in Chapter 5.
-------
-19-
The first issue EPA is faced with in developing a strategy which will
'-esult in a ioint Federal-State partnership for implementation of the Safe
IVi iking Water Program is determining the lorm or forms of State mvolve-
iTH-'it winch will be used. Tlit- three c:iveats to bear in mind jn reviewing the
alternative oyjtjons for certifiable State programs are:
Will the option provide a system whereby the actions
undertaken by the states will lead to the goals of the
program?
o Will the option lead to the most efficient use of State
and Federal total resources, given Congress1 intention
that the States should have primary responsibility?
Will the option satisfy the legal requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act?
State assumption of primary enforcement responsibility, and the
viability of the ensuing program may be constrained by a number of basip
obstacles. These obstacles include:
o Lack of funds;
Complexity of program;
Lack of trained personnel;
o Distrust of Federal programs;
Legitimate disagreement with or misunderstanding of the
program including the need for a national safe drinking
water program, the objectives of this program, and the
role States are expected to play.
The degree to which EPA and the States are able to overcome these
obstacles will in large part determine the success we achieve in
accomplishing the important goal of fostering an effective Federal-
-------
-20-
State partnership for the implementation of the major programs under
the SDWA. Together with the States we believe these obstacles can be
overcome. The intention of EPA is not to force a Kederal superstructure
on State programs but to fit and foster State capabilities to assume the full
responsibility of the Act.
The Safe Drinking Water Act specifies the requirements which States
must meet before they may be certified for program authority for the
water supply management elements of the Act. Section 1413(a) of the SDWA
establishes the five requirements for certification of State programs for
primary enforcement of the NPDWR. Basically, the State must have:
Adopted drinking water regulations no less stringent
gul
ta
than the current Federal standards.
Adopted and implemented procedures for enforcement
of the regulations.
Prepared to keep records and make necessary reports.
Adopted procedures for variances and exemptions not
less stringent than the Federal procedures. (If the State
chooses to give variances and exemptions at all).
Prepared an adequate plan for emergency^provision of
safe drinking water.
Given the requirements of the SDWA for State acceptance of program
responsibility, there are basically five different levels or forms of State
involvement which may be used. In descending order of preference to EPA,
they are:
I. Fully operational State programs, certified for primary enforcement
responsibility, without limitations or extensive Federal assistance
beyond the State Program Grants.
II. State programs certified for primary enforcement responsibility,
with EPA providing limited and informal technical assistance (along
with State Program Grants).
-------
-21-
III. State programs certified for primary enforcement responsibility
contingent on certain limited formal agreements for EPA to provide
specific assistance; to the State for a limited time period (along
with State Program Grants). The formal assistance provided to
the State could be used as part of the justification to obtain
certification of its primary enforcement program.
IV. EPA retaining primary responsibility for the program, with pro-
visions for working agreements whereby the State would carry
out certain aspects of the program. (State program grant v/oulc"
be available only f'pr FY76).
V. EPA retaining full responsibility for the program with the State
assuming no part of the program.
These five levels of State participation represent the range of flexibility
which we expect to apply to implementing the program. We seek to have
all States certified and do not desire to exercise options IV or V in any State
unless it is unavoidable.
The Act is quite explicit in its requirements that a State adopt
drinking water regulations that are at least as stringent as the national
standards promulgated by EPA. This is the one area (of the five criteria
in §1413) that (along witn legal issues) will be reviewed in EPA Headquarters
prior to certification of primary enforcement responsibility. The other four
criteria of §1413 will be reviewed by the regional offices (under the general
guidance of the Administrator) .
Incentives for Encouraging State Involvement
EPA's past experiences in programs similar to that required by
the Safe Drinking Water Act have shown that neither the willingness
nor the ability of States to assume their share of responsibilities can
be taken for granted. To foster that ability and willingness, EPA must
structure a system of both tangible and intangible incentives. These
incentives must be directed at reducing obstacles which Sta'as will
likely face in developing a capacity for implementing the T ogram.
-------
-22-
The development of a program that is manageable would in itself
be a powerful incentive for encouraging State inyolvement. Such a
program would, of course, minimize red tape, minimize Federal
"big-brother-ism" and maximize the real responsibility in the hands
of the State. Throughout this discussion, it has been noted that most
States have existing programs in this area, and have had them for some time.
The more that base can be utilized and built upon, the more the prospects
for State involvement are enhanced. Other general incentives are:
Flexible Implementation. The SDWA requires EPA to
establish and implement a nationally consistent program, and this
objective is a desirable one. Nonetheless, that/'consistent program has
to be implemented in more than 50 States and territories that vary in terms
of existing laws, environmental conditions, ability, financial strength
and governmental arrangements. EPA will push its discretion to the
limit in all phases of the program to accommodate the diversity it faces.
Regional offices of EPA will have flexibility in establishing programs which
match the particular needs and capabilities of the individual States.
In particular, EPA will recognize the capability of local (e. g.,
county or municipal) governments in satisfying certain responsibilities
under the program and will give due credit to such capabilities when
evaluating State programs for certification.
Regulations and Guidelines
The promulgation of regulations and guidelines under the Act which
will prove acceptable to the States involves reviewing the general
capabilities of the States in terms of their available resources, their
administrative abilities and their organizational and administrative
structures. Provisions of the regulations which depend on a unreasonable
-------
-23-
increase in resource requirements or entail massive organizational
changes are unlikely to be acceptable to most States.
Technical Assistance. Although resources are currently very constrained
EPA will, to the degree possible, offer other financial and program ser-
vices to assist States in operating safe drinking water programs.
These may include:
Implementing a comprehensive program to aid the States in the
development of their programs. This assistance would include
the preparation of a jnodel State program. By "model", of
course, we do not mean that all State programs should b,e
the same and the model will provide various strategies which
States, if they choose, might employ.
o Provide training sessions for State and local personnel in
matters of administration, inspection, and enforcement. A
variation of this is to give a professional association such
as the American Water Works Association or the Conference
of State Sanitary Engineers a grant to provide training,
although such grants would have to be closely monitored.
Detailing EPA employees both from EPA Headquarters and
the regions to assist States in the development of drinking
water programs. EPA will advise States in both substantive
areas (developing monitoring and enforcement capabilities,
variance and exemptions programs, etc.) and in procedural
areas (developing adequate administrative structures, writing
draft legislative programs, etc.).
Providing limited contractural assistance to aid
States in areas not covered by program grants .
(Funds are currently available).
Sequencing
Full implementation of the requirements of the SDWA for all 240, 000
suppliers will take several years. Efforts by EPA and the States must be
be sequenced and ranked so as to attack the problem in the most efficient
manner.
The first point on sequencing implementation is the relativ , application
-------
-24-
of EPA and State resources. The five options for State participation cited above
represent the range of relative activity.
Relative State capabilities is the second point to consider in improving
program implementation. Obviously a State must have enacted the necessary
regulations (§1413(a)(l)). But assessment of a State's initial capability to
fully implement the program must be made with the full realization that if
a State is not certified for primary enforcement responsibility, then EPA
will, in most cases, be responsible for all aspects of the program in the
State. Also, if a State is not certified, it cannot receive a grant under
§1443 after the first year.
The third point in sequencing is to determine what and where are the
most serious drinking water problems, and what must be done first to
treat those problems. The circumstances will be different in every State,
and the approach should be flexible to fit with each situation, and should be
largely based on the State's own evaluation of the problems it faces.
EPA should provide some general guidance to the states (and for its
own use) on the emphasis to be given to various sized water systems in
the implementation and enforcement of the programs. Nevertheless,
regional and state offices shall have considerable flexibility in determining
which problem areas should have highest priority and in determining how
and where resources may best be utilized. In general, EPA will initially
emphasize the need for assuring that large systems are in compliance with
new standards.
State program managers will have to consider a variety of factors in
determining where to allocate resources. Historically the larger systems
have been better funded, better monitored, better maintained, and have
produced better water. Smaller systems have traditionally had difficulty
-------
-25-
raising funds for construction and maintenance, been less subject to State "Tf^'^
and local surveillance, and have been the cause of a higher proportion of acute
disease outbreaks. This presents each program manager with the need to model
Lhe necessary balance between the focus on Inr-ge or small systems. Included
m such a. jnodel would be, at least, the four most signifcant variables which
should dete.vm.ine the level of emphasis given to a particular system or set
of systems:
1. Population served by a system or class of systems.
2. Relative health risk from the system or class of systems.
3. The potential the State has for impacting on
the system(s).
4. The relative cost of surveillance and enforcement for that
class of systems.
State Program Grants
Implementation of the requirements of the Act is likely to require significantly
increased activity on the part of the States. To help defray these added administrative
expenses, the Act authorises EPA to make grants to the States. Funds are authorized
to be appropriated in FY 76 and FY 77, and it is clearly the intent of Congress
and of EPA that these funds be made available to assist States in the development
of water supply supervision and underground water source protection programs
that meet the primary requirements.
EPA intends to publish and promulgate State program grant regulations
simultaneously with the State primary enforcement regulations. The President's
budget for FY 76 contains a request for $10. 0 million for State program grants,
$7. 5 million for water supply programs and $2. 5 million for underground water
programs. EPA will have the necessary regulations, applicatior forms, and
program guidance available to permit the distribution of the gr /it funds to qualified
-------
-26-
Stales in Ihe second quarter of IVY 76. EPA intends lo keep Ihe requirements
for llu- grants as simple as possible in order to fju'ilitalr CMI-IV Kind distribution.
I'll'A rcc-ogni'/.rs thai most Stales liu'k sulTirionl, rcsouri-cs l«> adequately
implement the Safe Drinking Water Program and will require some continued
financial assistance for several years. At the same time, it is recognized that
the- initial nrogram grants are quite modest in comparison to total resources
needed to implement all aspects of the program.
Initially, EPA will not utilize a system of positive incentives in its State
program grants. EPA will set general standards of minimum performance,
and a State will receive a base grant which may be withheld if a State is clearly
not conducting a satisfactory program as required under §1413 for primary
enforcement responsibility. There will be no initial EPA national policy
that States should allocate 20% of their grant funds for monitoring, or en-
forcement, etc.
V a rianc es and Exemptions
The Congress included provisions for variances and exemptions in
the SUWA to assist those drinking water systems which will face particular
difficulty in meeting the standards of the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations. They are designed to provide additional time to these systems
to meet the standards while at the same time assuring that the public health
is not endangered. Table 2 describes the various characteristics of variances
and exemptions and the circumstances under which they may be utilized.
EPA's basic policy toward the variance and exemption provisions
of the Safe Drinking Water Act is that they are tools to be used by the
states in bringing public water systems into compliance with the National
-------
VARIANCES AND EXEMPTIONS
VARIANCE
(Sec. H15)
(Sec. 1416)
TABLE 2
)eadline for Conditions under ipccia. Cliar- -tt*t»inslbi 1 itic* Responsibilities Responsibilities of
:a-.pllircc hhicn granted actcrlsclcs -'I Utilities o£ States (.!'. id-uniscrjior
.
sr
deadlines ("as
expeditlously
as poss 3lti
(as the State
ir.ay reasonaoiy
dc centime" )
fCff 1 Al * f\ \
v^ec« i*»i JIL 1
tjL\ \
I. finances :rjy be granted
to a systcn wnich cannot
meet the maximum contami-
nant levels of the NPDWR
because of the character
of the raw uater reasonably
available to the system
using the best treatnent
techniques (as determined
by the Administrator to be
to be generally available
taking cost into consider-
ation)
2. Variances may be granted
from treatment techniques
only If the system can
demonstrate that the
treatment technique is
unnecessary because of
the nigh quality of its
water supply (lM5(a)(l)
(A))
3. Variances may be granted
it a system can J-mon-
strate that an alc-'r-
r.acive treatment tech-
1 nique is no less effft'ii
No later than
Jan. I, 1981
in the case
of an exemp-
tion froa an
intern
regulation
and no later
than i even
years after
the effective
date of a
revised
regulation
(except that
In either
case two
additional
years may
be granted
if the
system is
entering
into a
regional
system (Sec.
U160>)(2».
than the o-e prescribed
b> the Adninlscrator.
t
1. Exemptions: fro* either a !
maximum conta-ninent level
or a treatment technique
may b« granted to a system!
if the system can demon-
strate that due to com- j
polling factors (which 1
may Include economic fac-
tors) It cannot comply i
with the coal! aril noa It level
or treatment technique.
(UI6(a)(l).
2. Exemptions are primarily
Intended to be used where
local water suppliers are
unable to obtain necessary
funds for capital improve-
aents.
.Tre?faent techniques
found co be genera 1 1>
available by the
Administrator are
those which would be
available to a large
urban system (House
Report )
2. Only the Admin. s-
trator -nay grant a
variance from a
treatment techni-
que if .1 suitable
alternative techni-
que is available
(lftlS(a)(l )(g)
(In) (3 )).
3. A pub' -c hearing
Is required both
before a variance i!
granted and before
compliance sch<.-''jle
is adopted (;.
2. The State (or the
Administrator must
find that the grant-
Ing of an exemption
will not result In
an unreasonable
risk to health.
(1416 (a)(3))
l.'-a'xe application
(jith suitable
justification)
tor an exemption.
2. Agree to conply
with the
schedule set
by the States.
1. Grant exemptions.
2.Flnd that the
exemption will
not result in an
unreasonable
risk co health.
3. Pro vide a
schedule of
compliance.
4. Provide for a
public hearing
on the compli-
ance schedule.
5. Notify the
Administrator
of all
s:emptlons.
5. Enforce the
compl lance
schedule.
l.If ths states docb not
have urii-'ji) enforcement
responsibility, the
Administrator will have
the same responsibilities
as a State for granting
^ari^nccs.
2. Revoke specific variances.
3. Perform a review of all
variances granted by the
States within 18 months
after the effective date of
the interln NPCHH and
subsequently, every 3
years thereafter.
<>. Determine if State Is
substantially violating
its authority in granting
variances and, if so,
revoke the State authority.
5. riant variances to systems
E "n triutment techniques
i .he syst--.m can demon-
"i*c tin effectiveness
an alternative rech-
. '
-------
-27-
Primary Drinking Water Regulations in those cases where the systems
cannot comply with the regulations in the otherwise relatively short time-
frame provided by the _^ct. EPA's objective is to brin^ public water systems
into compliance as quickly as feasible.
The following general and specific guidelines will characterize EPA's
program for variances and exemptions:
i
« States will have a reasonable degree of flexibility in
determining how they utilize variances and exemptions,
how they monitor the increments of progress in the
variances and exemptions, how they set compliance
schedules within variances and exemptions and how
they apply variances and exemptions to various size
systems within their jurisdiction; so long as they meet
the requirements of the SDWA.
The number of systems in compliance with the standards
meeting compliance schedules will be considered the general
measure of progress in achieving the goals of the Safe Drinking
Water Program. Progress will not be measured by the number of
systems granted variances and exemptions or meeting schedules
which will eventually bring them into compliance.
Variances and exemptions will not be used as a rigid
enforcement tool designed to beat utilities into
compliance; nevertheless, EPA's programs for granting
variances and exemptions will not be so flexible that
they do not effectively ensure that utilities will be brought
up to acceptable standards in a reasonable amount of time.
Based on an opinion of the Office of General Counsel, EPA's
policy will be that variances and exemptions are not to be
granted for other program requirements of the National
Primary Drinking Water Standards such as requirements
for monitoring, siting, public notification and reporting.
e EPA will proceed on the assumption that the need and the
justification for variances may vary due to regional and
State circumstances and EPA regional offices will have
considerable authority in applying guidelines which reflect
these circumstances. In general it will be recognized that
what may be the best available treatment in one caea might
not be applicable in all- other cases.
-------
-28-
EPA will require only that amount of technical and economic
information on applications for variances and exemptions
which is absolutely necessary for the evaluation of the
application. More specifically, EPA will permit smaller
drinking water system (and in particular, non community
systems) to provide considerably less economic justifi-
cation for exemptions than will be required of larger
systems. Also, for purposes of dealing with non-delivery
systems, EPA defines "unreasonable risk to health" to mean
clear violations of the bacteriological maximum contaminant
levels and selected toxic metal and chemical and maximum
contaminant levels. For other chemicals and metals where
the effect is of a chronic nature, a higher threshold level may
be set.
*
Finally, and most importantly, EPA 's key administrative objective
in the implementation of this program is that all possible steps will be
taken to reduce the management burden of granting variances and exemptions.
In particular, we intend to reduce, to the extent feasible, the paperwork
required of the utilities, the States and of EPA itself and to streamline the
procedures to be used in applying for and in processing variances and
exemptions. EPA intends to draw on its experiences with the NPDES
program under PL 92-500 as a guide; recognizing the problems which that
program faced and attempting to avoid them. Some of the administrative
lessons of the NPDES program which would guide implementation of the
SDWA variance and exemption procedures are that:
The technical problems involved in granting variances and
exemptions are likely to be more manageable to an Agency
like EPA or its State counterparts than are the administrative
(or paperwork) problems. Staffing for the program in both the
EPA Regional offices and the States should be balanced with
both technical and administrative personnel.
States are reluctant to assume responsibility for programs
where the guidelines are not known in advance.
-------
-29-
9 Public notification and public hearing requirements arc
costly and will have positive impact only if handled
creatively and if the program managers genuinely
desire public input.
Data systems Lo handle and keep tr;ick ol vaiirri' OK and
exemptions should be simple and direct, and should n-ly
on easily -available "fanned" programs. All data
processing systems will be developed in cooperation
with State agencies. EPA will, in general, ^ermit States
to take the lead in determining what type of systems are
most appropriate for their operations and EPA will, to
the extent feasible, adapt 'its system to those of the States.
e Applications for variances and exemptions will not be used
as general information collecting devices and data which
is requested will be only that relevant to the granting of
a variance or exemption.
A single public hearing may be held in certain cases to
review variance applications from a number of systems
and to adopt implementation schedules for both variances
and exemptions for more than one system.
i
EPA will operate its program for variances and exemptions
through its regional offices except for the provision of an
overall program guidance and, to some extent, the review
required by the law, which will remain Headquarters
activities. Determination on acceptable alternative
treatment techniques will also be made by Headquarters.
Regional Administrators will be responsible
for assisting states in the development of
programs, initial reviews of variances and exemptions
granted by states and in developing and maintaining
adequate recordkeeping systems. In states without primary
enforcement responsibility, Regional offices will operate
an EPA program for variances and exemptions.
-------
Local Utility Impact and Regionalization
Introduction
The ultimate responsibility for complying with the standards
set in the Safe Drinking Water program lies not with EPA or
the States but with the local utilities that provide the nation's drinking
water. At the same time, EPA recognizes the heavy burden
which the Act may place on some local utilities and water suppliers
and intends to develop its programs so as to reduce, to the degree
possible, the difficulties they will face in complying with the new
standards.
The Act, nevertheless, makes clear that local utilities will
be responsible for providing any treatment facilities
necessary to reach the standards contained in the regulations
and for monitoring required by the regulations except as required
by State law. Moreover, local water suppliers will be responsible for
obtaining the resources which will be needed to meet the program's
requirements. EPA does not forsee any direct subsidies to local water
suppliers, nor any construction grants program, and expects in
most cases that traditional sources of funds such as charges for water
and services, municipal bonds and so forth will be utilized to provide
suppliers with necessary resources.
The Existing Situation
The Community Water Supply Study of 1969-70 (our most recent
data) showed that a large percentage of local utilities and water
suppliers will most likely face significant problems in meeting
the requirements of the new regulations. Tables 3-4, taken
from the CWSS, give some indication of the severity of the
existing problem. As the tables show, a significant number of
-------
-31-
water systems have been unable to comply with both the mandatory
and recommended Public Health Service standards. Moreover,
a majority of systems of all sizes were not meeting the monitoring
criteria set in the PHS regulations. Tt should be noted thai in all
cases, the most severe problems are found among the smaller
systems.
Supplying safe water
An evaluation of the information and data currently available
to EPA suggests that a significant number of local water suppliers
may face serious financial problems in meeting the standards
required in the interim NPDWR.
Because large portion of systems do not currently provide
for the treatment which will prove necessary to remove many of
the contaminants listed in the NPDWR, there will be a substantial
need to upgrade facilities. Many systems will need to invest
significant sums of capital because of the high cost of some
of the treatment techniques.
While most governmentally owned systems have access to the
municipal bond market, a recent EPA analysis has shown that
because of the nation's economic situation, this source
may prove increasingly unreliable in the relatively near future.
Investor owned systems are also likely to face problems in this
area because of high interest rates and the difficulty of obtaining
investment capital through the private market.
-------
-32-
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OP1 WATER QUALITY KVALUA.TTON
Population Group Served
Number of Systems:
Evaluation of Systems:
Met Drinking Water
Standards
Exceeded recommended
limits
Exceeded mandatory
limits
Less
Than
500
446
50%
26%
24%
500-
100,000
501
Percent
67%
23%
11%
Greater
Than
100,000
22
of Systems
73%
27%
0
All
Population
969
59%
25%
16%
Note:
Study Population
in each Group in
Thousands
88
4,652
13,463
18,203
TABLE 4
MEETING BACTERIOLOGICAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Population Group Served
Less than 500 to Greater than All
500 100,000 100,000 Population
Number of Systems:
Met Criteria
Did not meet
criteria
466
4%
96%
501 22
Percent of Systems
15% 36%
969
85%
64%
10%
90%
Source - Community Water Supply Study of 1969-70
-------
-33-
There are some steps which EPA may take to help reduce
the financial burden water suppliers will face. EPA has authority
under the SDWA to provide for loan guarantees of up to $50, 000 to
small drinking water systems."" The agency's egulations will propose
allowing utilities to use the loans for a variety of purposes, including:
upgrading or expanding existing facilities in order to meet
the NPDWR;
providing assistance in developing regionalized systems;
Public water systems will be encouraged, where appropriate,
to "pool" their loans to develop regionalized facilities which
might be shared by all.
developing new water supply sources.
EPA may propose that loan guarantees be provided to those com-
munities which can demonstrate that no other source of funding,
(such as FHA, Appalachian Regional Commission, etc. ) is available.
Most importantly, loan guarantee applicants will be required to de-
monstrate that the guarantee is not being sought in order to avoid
charging consumers a reasonable price for the water.
The NPDWR and the State program regulations clearly
recognize that some utilities and water suppliers will not be
in compliance with the maximum contaminant level standards
immediately. EPA regulations will allow compliance to be achieved
in an orderly, step by step basis. So long as the public health is
T7 For the purpose of loan guarantees, small drinking water systems
are likely to be defined as those serving less than 50 000 permanent
population.
-------
-34-
protected, EPA will encourage states to utilize a high degree of
flexibility when dealing with local water suppliers, and to take into
account the particular problems these systems may face in meeting
the regulations.
R e gi onali z a ti on
Another approach which EPA considers to be a viable solution
for certain water systems for meeting the drinking water standards
is regionalization. While it is recognized that regionalization may
be a reasonable alternative only under certain limited conditions,
it may prove to be a valuable alternative for some systems,
particularly because regionalization does not necessarily have
to be synonymous with total structural consolidation.
Jn many places, regionalization can reduce the cost and/or improve
the quality of water supplied. While regionalization customarily
involves at least some structural links between systems, such as
interconnecting pipelines, significant savings may be possible when
merely the management of systems is combined. This allows activities
such as operation, maintenance, monitoring, financial and administrative
management, overhead, etc., to be carried out by a single staff.
Many factors affect whether there is a cost saving, in both
structural and non-structural regionalization. These factors include:
ihe number of service areas, the distance between them, the relationship
between distance and flow, future population growth, hydrologic and
topographic features, the type of treatment employed, labor costs,
and even the particular functions to be combined (i.e., impoundment,
conveyance, treatment, distribution, operation and labor, and
management).
-------
-35-
Despite the impact of local site characteristics on economies
of scale, regionalization is a desirable alternative in many areas
for the following reasons:
Small systems, for which advantages of structural and non-
structural regionalization are greatest, are much more likely
to be in violation of drinking water standards and thus be required
to make extensive alterations in their facilities.
G Since economies of scale are generally greater for impoundment
facilities than they are for treatment, regionalization will be
advantageous where it is necessary to tap new sources rather
than merely upgrade existing treatment processes.
Apart from economies of scale, small communities can benefit
considerably from pooling capital resources, thereby obtaining
a more favorable market for their bonds.
Even where its benefits are apparent, some important barriers to
regionalization remain;
Fear of relinquishing control over water supply to a larger political
body.
0 Disputes over how control of the regional entity and cost of
facilities are to be shared by participating localities.
Genuine preference by a community for its present source of
supply, e.g., djjlike of flouridated water.
EPA Policy on Regionalization
EPA'B policy with reupert to regionalization be guided by the
following points:
EPA will encourage regionalization wherever it is clearly
appropriate, however, the Agency does not intend to dictate
any regionalization plan to any public water supply or group of
si:pplies. The benefits and costs of structural and/or
management regionalization are local decisions,
and the EPA will not interfere with those decisions.
e EFA expects that prior to (or simultai eous with) applying for
variances and exemptions based on cost or raw water source,
smaller systems, especially those serving less than 5, 000
people, will explore opportunities for regionalization.
In guaranteeing loans, priority may be
-------
-36-
The States should assess the potential for regionalization
(including integration of waste water treatment and water
supply), and where cost-savings would be significant, should
attempt to provide a climate conducive to regionalization
including the necessary legal authorization.
Within the limits of its resources, EPA will provide technical
assistance and support to States and communities which
pursue regionalization and which can significantly benefit
from doing so.
o EPA intends to implement fully the provision of the SDWA for
extending by two years the compliance period for systems holding
exemptions if they have, "entered into an enforceable agreement
to become a part of a regional public water system. . .
Monitoring and Laboratory Facilities
With the adoption of the interim NPDWR, most drinking water
systems will be required to increase significantly the frequency of
monitoring. Moreover, many will begin for the first time to test for
many organic, inorganic and radioactive contaminants. The step up
in monitoring will be reflected in the significantly increased costs.
Table 5 provides information on the specific costs which public water
systems of various sizes may face in complying with the new regulation.
EPA does not intend to provide direct financial assistance to
local utilities and water suppliers to cover routine costs of monitoring;
however, several steps are being taken to help reduce the costs which
these suppliers may incur, such as:
EPA is currently reviewing the level for frequency of monitoring
in the NPDWR. In particular, EPA is considering providing for
less frequent monitoring for smaller systems found to be in
violation of certain constituent levels where it can be shown
that reductions in frequency are not detrimental to the public
health. EPA is especially concerned about the substantial re-
sponse from the public and from state and local officials on the
problems of overly demanding monitoring levels and will attempt
to modify the proposed standards so long as any changes will
still be protective of the public.
EPA will continue and may expand its program for providing
information to utilities and to laboratories on improved
methods of performing monitoring. In particular, EPA
-------
TABLE 5
ESTIMATES OF COSTS OF
NON- ROUTINE
ROUTINE iswst-om in violation)
POPUUTrON
OF
51 STEM
Non-delivery
system
1000
1000
to
5000
5000
CO
10,000
10,000
CO
25,000
25,000
CO
50,000
50,000
100,000
100,000
1 CO
1,000,000
INORGANICS
Average
Single Cost
Test Eer tear
$150 S30
Surface
$150 150
Ground
_5_150 50
Surface
$150 150
Ground
S150 50
Surface
$150 150
Ground
$150 50
Surface
$150 150
Ground
$150 50
Surface
$150 150
Ground
$150 50
Surface
S150 150
i
Ground
$150 50
Surface
$150 150
Ground
$150 50
ORGAN ICS
Average
Single Cost
Test Eer Ifear
^300 S60
300 100
300 100
300 100
300 100
300 100
300 100
300 100
PLATE COUNTS
Average
Single Cost
Test Eer Year
<10 SlO
10 10
10 10
10 10
10 10
10 10
10 10
10 10
COLIFORMS
Average
Single Cost
Test Per year
*S *192
8 192
8 ' 288
i
1
, 8 768
8 1920
8 4320
8 7200
8 15?360
TOTAL
AVERAGE
COST
PER YEAR
t
$292 ,
452 L
!
352 '
548 j.
44S
IQ78
928 ;
f
2180 L
2080 '
!
4580
4480
7460
7360 f
I
15,620 f
15,520 ]
INORGANICS
Average
Single Cost
Test1* Per Yea*"*
$10 s 520
to to
$45 $2340
10 520
to to
45 2140
110 520
to to
45 2340
'lO 520
to to
45 2340
10 520
to to
45 2340
10 520
to to
45 2340
10 520
to to
*,5 2340
ilO 5?0
to to
45 2340
ORSWICS
Average
Single Cost
Test- Per Vsar-
J 40 3 2080
to to
* -15 - 23-10
40 2080
to to
45 2340
<,0 2080
to to
45 2340
"0 2080
to to
45 234°
40 2080
to to
45 2340
40 2080
to to
45 234"
40 2080
to to
45 2340
40 2080
to tc
45 2340
. COLIFOP.'S
Average
Single Cost
Test Per Year *
$ 8 $ 240
8 240
8 240
9 240
8 240
8 240
8 240
8 240
Per coitaTinant in violation
-------
-37-
will attempt to publicize information on low cost
monitoring techniques which utilities and laboratories
may employ.
Availability of Laboratory Facilities
In or dor for water suppliers to meet the requirements of the
interim regulations, there also must be an adequate nun.oer of
qualified "aboratories, capable of performing the monitoring tests.
EPA currently has a program for certifying State bateriological
laboratories and for reviewing chemical laboratories on request.
EPA also encourages State personnel to certify other laboratories
in their states. Presently, there appear to be a large number
of laboratories capable of testing for biological contamination and,
at least Tor larger and medium sized water utilities, there will
probably be no significant problem.
For smaller utilities and non-community systems, however, a
sufficient capacity may not exist. More importantly, even many large
utilities do not presently have access to laboratories qualified to perform
chemical monitoring. Less than two thirds of the states appear at
this time to have laboratories which have been certified as capable
of testing for all of the chemicals which will be listed in the interim
regulations.
EPA believes that the decision on whether to expand State
I/
laboratory capability or to depend on the expansion of private labs
should rest with the State. It is nevertheless EPA's policy that users
should bear ihe ultimate costs of providing safe drinking water and
hence individual drinking water systems should be responsible for
l_l An analysis of a sample of State monitoring programs sugg Jts that
over 85% of states currently pay for 50% or more of the cc cs of
laboratory services for municipal systems.
-------
-38-
monitoring costs. Regardless of the decisions of the States, EPA
may take certain steps to assist states, local governments and public
water suppliers in complying with the monitoring requirements including:
Expanding the certification program, particularly for chemical
monitoring, so that more state officials become qualified to
perform certification in their own states.
o Expanding the EPA training program or finance training programs
which might be conducted in universities, state facilities or
federal laboratories where new monitoring and testing techniques
might be taught.
Develop, with state assistance, a directory of all existing
public and private laboratories.
Consider establishing the Analytical Reference Service which
would provide a method of validating recommended testing
techniques.
Training and Energy Requirements
EPA will, as resources become available, expand its management
and technical training programs so as to help assure that an adequate
supply of trained manpower exists to operate and administer drinking
water utilities. To accomplish this, short term training programs for
utility and laboratory personnel will be developed and EPA will provide
information to colleges, universities and technical schools on the need
for programs for instruction in the field of water supply.
EPA policy on the manpower and training requirements of the SDWA
program has not yet been fully developed. Public comment is requested
so that we may determine its priority relative to all of the many require-
ments placed on the limited funds available.
EPA intends to give serious attention to the potential energy
impacts of the new standards; both as they may affect the nation's
overall consumption of energy and the ability of local water suppliers
to afford increased energy costs. The interim NPDWR do not currently
-------
-39-
appear to require significant increases in the amount of energy which
will be necessary to provide treatment by local utilities. EPA will,
however, analyze the possible effects of other treatment techniques
(e. g. , activated carbon) which might be needed at some later date.
Finally,, EPA in general expects non- government owned
utilities to be treated equally with publically owned facilities in terms
of technicl assistance, access to laboratories, loan guarantees, and
so forth, except as may be required by law. EPA does not view the
Safe Drinking Water Act as a tool to be used to force investor owned
utilities into government operation nor conversely to pressure local
governments into taking over private water companies.
EPA resources devoted to the Safe Drinking Water Program are
by necessity limited. Public comment as to the priority of the above
actions is necessary before we can decide which are most useful to the
States and to pubLi >. water supplies.
Relationships between the SDWA and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Ac£ (FWPCA)
There are several areas of potential interface between the SDWA
and the FWPCA. These include:
FWPCA water quality standards include the designation of
beneficial uses, including the quality of water needed to
serve drinking water supplies.
0 There is also a relationship between the toxics standards
developed under §307 of the FWP^A and the regulations
developed under the SDWA.
NPDES permits issued under the FWPCA control the release
of pollutants to many of the same waters used as pablic water
supplies.
a Some forms of underground injection may be cc .-rolled under
the SDWA and through NPDES permits; the relf donships need
to be examined.
-------
-40-
o Planning under §208 of FWPCA requires consideration of the
protection of both ground and surface water quality.
o Research programs must explore the unknown along the
whole range of contaminant production, transport, treatment,
and toxicity.
These and the other SDWA and FWPCA programs, such as tech-
nical and financial asssistance, training, etc., should be treated as
two programs that have significant areas where the work
can be coordinated. These areas require careful treatment, more
detailed can be handled in this paper. EPA will publish a strategy
on the relationships between SDWA and FWPCA in the near future.
EPA plans to manage its water pollution control and drinking water
programs concurrently, giving each the priority attention it deserves.
-------
DRAFT
Chapter 5 - Protection of Underground Sources of Drinking Water
I. Underground Injection Control Program
Scope of Ground Water Use and Problems
Ground water is an immense potential source of drinking water.
It is estimated that the ground water is 2, 000 to 3, 000 times as plenti-
ful as all surface water combined. Although much of this ground water
is brackish, it is estimated that it constitutes about 97 percent of
all fresh water supplies in the United States. It is also estimated that
100 million Americans rely on underground sources for their drinking
water. This constitutes a reliance on ground water by approximately
a third of all public supplies and 95 percent of all rural domestic
supplies.
Ground water is found in water bearing strata (aquifers). The
ground water flow rate is generally quite slow, ranging from five
feet per day to five feet per year. For much of the the country only
episodic information is available on the extent of ground water con-
tamination. There are only a few areas, such as the Edwards Aquifer
in San Antonio, Texas, where there is adequate data to determine the
total ground water quality.
Ground water contamination comes in many forms and from many
sources. One study being done for the EPA by the National Well
Water Association identifies twenty-one sources of contamination (See
Table 6) The severity of contamination from these sou jes varies from
State to State.
-------
DRAFT
Table 6 ~ Sources and Causes of Ground Water Contamination
1. Landfills, dumps, and excavations - significance of hazard
is dependent upon the1 nature of deposit, disposal means,
and local geologic conditions
2. Wastepiles and stockpiles - may lead to contamination due
to infiltration from salt supplies (for winter road
spreading), certain ore stockpiles, etc.
3. Animal feedlots - infiltration of wastes from feedlots can
result in excessive concentrations of nitrate, chloride,
ammonia, bacteria, etc.
4. Fertilizers - mainly a pollution problem for surface water,
but they have resulted in ground water contamination
5. Pesticides - constitutes a potential problem for shallow
aquifers or where pesticides are applied near "wells"
6. Accidental spills - spills of toxic substances have posed
immediate health hazards for nearby water supplies
7. Wastewater sludges and effluents - sludge and effluents
disposed by various means (land application, evapora-
tion pits) can result in ground water contamination
8. Highway salting - can cause serious problems where exces-
sive amounts are used to melt snow and ice on highways
9. Polluted surfacewater - can result in infiltration and
direct interchange to aquifers from polluted surface
waters (addressed by P. L. 92-500)
10. Air pollution - could be considered a form of land spreading
of waste (controlled by the Clean Air Act)
11. Holding ponds and lagoons - widely used by industry and
municipalities; poor construction or operation can
result in infiltration and consequent ground water
contamination.
12. Septic tanks - potential for contamination is dependent on
population density, construction methods, and soil type
13. Storage transmission facilities - contamination results from
leakage from sanitary sewers, buried gasoline tanks, etc.
-------
Table 6 con't
14. Drainage wells and pumps - often used to dispose of surface
runoff, especially in areas with little natural surface
drainage
15. Artificial recharge - used to combat salt water intrusion
and subsidence (declining water table) by percolation-
infiltration or other means; can result in contamination
if not properly performed or monitored
16. Disposal wells - includes brine re-injection wells and
industrial waste injection wells; associated ground
water problems reported in Florida, New York, Oregon,
Idaho, and Ohio
17. Secondary recovery of oil and gas - poor well design and/or
construction of the wells can result in contamination
of the fresh water aquifer
1 H. Water supply wells - rontamlnaton can be caused by impro-
perly constructed or abandoned wells
1 9. Exploration holes and abandoned wells - abandoned oil, gas,
and coal exploration and production wells have created
considerable ground water contamination problems
(e. g., Michigan and Pennsylvania)
20. Mining - contamination from highly mineralized and/or
acidic mine leachates may be generated long after
mining operations have ceased
21. Ground water development (pumping) - overpumping of fresh
water aquifer can result in salt water intrusion
-------
DRAFT
Summary of Part C of the SDWA
Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act is intended to further
protect the Nation's drinking water supplies by providing safeguards
for underground sources of drinking water. The Act strongly empha-
sizes the prime role that the States are to play in implementing the
Act.
The Act calls for EPA to establish regulations for State under-
ground injection control (UIC) programs, and provides for grants to
the States to help in their implementation. These State program regu-
lations must include a program for control of "underground injections"
by means of permitting (or rule-making), monitoring, and enforcement.
In the case where a State is not certified by EPA to assume enforcement
responsibility for the UIC program, EPA must ensure that a Federally
"prescribed" program is implemented in that State.
The Act establishes a very restrictive time frame for permit issuance.
All required permits must be issued within three years of the
passage of the Act (deadline 12/15/77). However, the Act does allow
the States to issue less stringent "temporary" permits (of one year
duration) for existing underground injections if all permits are not
issued by the above date (See Figure 2).
Part C also establishes a program of more stringent control in
areas relying on groundwater as a "sole or primary source" of drinking
water.
Goals of the UIC Program
EPA's basic goals and policies in implementing Part C of
the SDWA are essentially the same as those stated earlier in this
-------
FIGURE 2 - TIME FRAME OF UIC PROGRAM
12-16-74
A
6-15-75
12-15-75
12-15-76
12-15-77
12-15-78
9-15-76
SDWA passed
Regulations State Regulations
gar State promulgated
programs
published
9 months for State
to apply for program
*
nitial list of
cates requiring a
1C program
EPA_decision All permits issued, Temporary permits
Deadline on State Program if temporary permits expire
for State not used
Applications
-A. ^A^ _A.
V" ""v"
3 months for 1 year minimum for
EPA to approve States to issue all
or not - regular permits
if not (maximum 3 years:
\
12-15-75 to 12-15-78,
using temporary permits)
/ 1 1 C -1-1
- all permits
issued .
V
1 year duration for
temporary permits
Program
("Prescribed
Program")
Promulgate Regulations for
EPA's "Prescribed" program
(no legislative deadline)
State program
not acceptable
"Prescribed"
Program takes
effect
Temporary Permits7
3 months for
EPA to establish
a "prescribed"
program in State
All permits
issued
9 month minimum
for EPA to issue
all permits
"Prescribed" "^
program continues
until State
program is approved
-------
DRAFT
paper for the rest of the program:
Our principal goal is to protect the public health to
the extent feasible, giving due consideration to the
economic and social costs which might result.
We intend to adopt a flexible, step-by-step approach
to the implementation' of this program, and desire
that the States play the principal role in its imple-
mentation as defined by Congress in the legislation.
The bulk of EPA's activities in this area will be
conducted by the Regional Offices, and not by
headquarters, with the exception of research and
regulation-preparation. These headquarters
activities, however, must be closely coordinated
with the Regions and the States.
Since resources are limited in this program area, EPA
must utilize Federal and State resources in ongoing
programs wherever possible.
Objectives of the UIC program
Chapter three of this strategy details the general goals of the SDWA
(including the UIC Program) and outlines the objectives of the water
supply section. The objectives o'f Part C (protection of underground
sources of drinking water) of the Act are:
(not listed in order of priority. )
Promulgate regulations and guidelines necessary to
implement the SDWA in a timely manner.
- publish and promulgate State program regulation^
- publish a list of the State's requiring a UIC program
- publish and promulgate regulations for the Federally
prescribed program
- publish and promulgate procedural regulations for
determination of sole source aquifers, Federal review
of projects, and well injection permitting (no deadline
established in the Act).
f Promote an effective Federal/State partnership in the UIC
program by certifying States to assume authority for UIC.
Provide technical assistance to the States on permitti ig,
inspection, monitoring, reporting, and enforcement
-------
-44-
procedures.
Initiate and implement research and demonstration
projects. '
- determine health effects of groundwater
contaminants
- investigate control procedures for the various
forms of groundwater contamination
Establish a permitting and compliance program for
underground injection in all States requiring one,
based on the State lead role wherever possible.
- certify States to implement UIC programs
. issue permits for underground
injection wells and temporary
permits if necessary
monitor and enforce against
injection well violations
Strategy Overview - Policy Issues
This section addresses the most pressing and significant policy
issues facing the program:
1. Extent of Protection under Part C - What is well injection?
2. Step-by-step Program Implementation
3. Relation of UIC and P. L. 92-500
Issue #1
Extent of protection under Part C -- What is well injection?
A major issue in the implementation of Part C of the Act con-
cerns what is to be regulated under the State and "prescribed"
program regulations. The Act calls for a program to protect
underground sources of drinking water by requiring permits for
"underground injection." "Underground injection" can be defined in
a variety of ways.
Section 1421(b)(l)(A) of the Act prohibits any underground
injection which is not authorized by permit or rule. Underground
DRAFT
-------
-45-
injection in turn is furthep defined as "the subsurface emplacement
of fluids by well injection'1 [Section 142t (d;'i)]
There are generally £hree different .options for defining what
is to be controlled in the UIC program:
1. Broad Definition. Define "well injection" very
broadly (including pits, lagoons, etc.) and require
all "well injections" to be permitted.
2. Narrow Definition. Define "well injection" as the
"classical" waste disposal well, including brine and
secondary recovery (the use of fluids or other meenc
to flush more oil or gas to the earth's surface), and
require only these to be permitted.
3. Mixed Definition. Define "\vell injection" as a
practice consisting of several categories of \vellr.
(including all the sources of contamination of Opting 1),
but do not require permits for all categories.
The major difference in the various definitions of well injection is
the flexibility of the "by rule" versus the permitting approach. The
permitting approach would require the States, and EPA if necessary,
to establish an administrative process of gathering data, writing a draft
permit, issuing a final permit,, and re-issuing a permit periodically for
each "well" in that State. If an injection well was broa.dly defined to
include pits,, lagoons, and drainage wells, hundreds of thousands of
permits would have tp be issued which would place a very resource in-
tensive burden on the States.
The "by rule" approach allows the State greater flexibility in imple-
menting the UIC program without requiring the detailed administrative
procedures of permitting. Rather than issue a permit for each "well",
States would be required to have regulations (or rules) that require
control procedures to be implemented in an appropriate tJoie frame.
-------
-46-
DRAFT
These would probably result in more flexible procedures and time
frames than required for permits, thereby preventing the administrative
nightmare of permitting
Option 1 - A Broad Definition of Injection Well
This option is generally supported by the House Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce report on the Safe Drinking Water
Act (July 10, 1974), (p. 31):
"The definition of 'underground injection1 is intended
to be broad enough to cover any contaminant which
may be put below ground level and which flows or
moves, whether the contaminant is in semi-solid,
liquid, sludge or any other form or state. "
The Committee placed only the following caveat on the definition
(p. 31):
"While the Committee does not intend this definition
to apply to septic tanks or other individual residential
waste disposal systems, it does intend that the definition
apply to a multiple dwelling, community, or regional
system of injection of waste. "
This option would therefore include under "well injection"
any possible source of ground water pollution (e_.g_.. any man made
structure, artificial excavation, natural opening, or other means
used for underground injection).
The advantage of this option is that it provides for a greater
authority to regulate the possible contamination of underground
sources of drinking water. However, a broad definition could subject
the EPA to extensive criticism from industry, municipalities, and
individuals that do not consider themselves to be regulated by the
permitting provisions of this Act. Bluntly, EPA could be accused
of "calling a lake a well". In addition to the legal problems, there
-------
-47-
would also be enormous administrative problems. A broad definition
of well injection, without any flexibility for the States to implement
it, would place a huge administrative burden on the States to issue
the number of permits required. This task could be so great that many,
if not all, States would refuse to accept the EPA certification of their
UIC program. The EPA would then be faced with the enormous task
of implementing a nation-wide permitting program for hundreds of
thousands of permits.
Option 2 - Narrow Definition of Well Injection
This option would define "well injection" as the "classical" well
used for the injection of waste products (i. e_., a drilled hole, reinforced
with casing used to dispose of waste products), of which there are
approximately 380+ identified nation-wide.
The advantage of this option is that it probably would not be contested
by the parties to be controlled, and the permitting program would be
fairly easy to administer since so few permits (380) would be required,
There are several disadvantages to this option. EPA could be con-
sidered negligent for not implementing the will of Congress to protect
underground sources of water. Research indicates that the "classical"
disposal well is not at this time the major source of contamination to
aquifers. Regulation of Only deep industrial waste disposal wells
therefore would, therefore, not be controlling the main sources of aquifer
contamination.
Option 3 - Definition of Well Injection as a Practice With SeveT al Categories
A third option is to incorporate the better aspects of both ne broad
and narrow definitions, that is, the more defined, legally defensible,
-------
-48-
DRAFT
and administratively manageable aspects of the narrow definition
and the greater ground water protection aspect of the broad definition.
This could be accomplished by defining the well injection practice
as consisting of several categories of "wells", each requiring different
control procedures. This would allow for varying degrees of State
flexibility in the implementation of each category. This categorization
could take the following form:
Category I - "Classical" waste disposal wells
(exclusive of brine re-injection and secondary
recovery operations) must be permitted.
Category II - Brine re-injection and secondary
recovery weHs (associated with oil and gas
production) must be permitted for new con-
struction, -^xisting brine and secondary
recovery wells that are already permitted
or otherwise controlled by the State will not
have to be permitted again under this Act,
if the State agency certifies that these wells
do not endanger the public health. These
wells could be controlled by rule. The
State agency may also wish to examine older
or other suspect wells for new permits under
the Act.
Category III - Other wells - major sources of
contamination of ground water (e.g., ponds,
lagoons, ground pits, quarries, sinkholes,
drinking wells, etc. ) that are not required
to be permitted. States would be supplied
with technical assistance on the various
measures available for control of contamination
from these sources. After study, States with
major .pr.ob.Iems_with these "wells" could negoti-
ate with the EPA Regional Administrator to
determine appropriate control procedures (e_. g.,
by rule) and time frames for control that would
be appropriate, v
This third option allows EPA to establish an incremental program
of UIC for those major sources of ground water contamination listed
under Category III. For example, the first phase of UIC (1 to 2 years)
would address the Category I and II permitting program as described
-------
DRAFT
above. The second phctcb ;3-10/u-vs. v.-o. ^ - . -T'I-. '.ii
establishing a control proj-i 3rn for '. *ry m we'Is :h."'. j.1-- found
to be mtijoc sonii;. o 01 oont&mii-.^: : iv -.,.e ,»-,, Th. . -. controls
could be effected by rule, and -.70^*.. .../?- ^o be implemented
until three or more yec. _ . - . ' c*te v.-.is certified
A separate category ~vr L.AJ.C - iriection (a.sso.-,iat«*d *~:t!.
oil and gas production) and secondtu;' i-ecovery wello ^s n."--::o&sa *
to ensure that energy production is not jrrned* ' unless j- res'.nts
in the ^or*tQnvrii\*'r-n of un'1e'"";fro'ir;d drin^iT-' "'^.c" so-ur^'"' ." «
* j
mandated by Secciori 14r.iO-»)/7)). Theie t.: -. :^i~. -y'-r 'teiy ..
brine and ?e^ondary recovery wells nati-~i- -i \ ' .-i- ^".rinittijij1 ,'
all these v.ells by 1977 or 1978 wovid pcs'- - '.- /» bv.'dt-.-i -..-. Ui;
cr EPA. Consequently, the nior'' flcxlD'e; app^ '?vh />. C. : -;g«
is more
Category III is intended to be -ma-e flexible in ---_-".?]
ths_'i the first two categories becaur-o -.t inc:. ^dso rnaiv/ ODurje:- »."
goundwft"!- contamination +riat soinerinies ar^ eiiht-r tfi":.1! /'it *o
control or ar : useful to ^i .. .rai -omtnunicy. -"i? .^i-- - ' v-ch-/ :-.
of aquiftVF - -iih waste water to ':o-nbat zail--'.--.'.?;- -, '-r .r.'.'-ij ' - ^ -'.
(declining ir.-4., r^?.bln
As stated in the earlier sectic-r., of toir stra;^j^' r?'-!-.i', v/:/j.;
public water siipply systems, the successful imnl n~ier;.?Jior- ~f'' -
-------
-50-
DRAFT
SDWA is dependent on the willingness of the States to assume the lead
role. This section deals with the Step by Step option for ensuring that
States are capable of being certified. Step by step implementation is
considered from the two following approaches, which can be implemented
separately or jointly:
A. Staggered listing of the States requiring
a UIC program;
B. Prioritized requirements for certifica-
tion of States' UIC program.
A. Staggered listing of states
Section 1422(a) requires that the Administrator publish within six
months of the passage of the Act a list of States that require a UIC
program (See Figure 2). The States on that list then have nine months
after the promulgation of the State program regulations to apply for
control authority under the SDWA. If some of these States do not
apply or EPA determines their program to be inadequate, then EPA
must institute a UIC program in those States.
If EPA promulgates a list of all 50 States on June 15, and a large
number of these States are not certified to assume the program, then
a
the Agency will be faced with the enormous problem of immediately
establishing a UIC program for all of these non-certified States.
This situation would not only be difficult for EPA to handle, but it
would be a clear violation of the intent of Congress that the States
should take the lead role.
The House Committee report (p. 32) suggests that all 50 States
should be listed. Section 1422(b)(l)(A) of the Act allows nevertheless
for a staggered listing of the States:
-------
-51-
"Each State listed under subsection (a) shall,
within 270 days_after the date of promulgation
of any regulation under section 1421 (or, if
later, within 270 days after such State is
first listed, under subsection (a.)) submit to
the Administrator an application. . . "
In applying both the Committee's intent that all 50 States be
included and the Act's flexibility to stagger the listing of the States,
EPA could propose a strategy of listing all 50 States in stages,
perhaps ten per year for five years. This would allow EPA to
establish criteria (number of deep disposal wells, worst ground
water quality, etc.) for listing the ten States most needing a. UIC
program, followed the next year by the next ten, etc. At the end
of the specified period, in this case five years, all 50 States would
be listed and would have a UIC program.
If a State or citizens of a State were displeased because individual
States were not listed the first year, EPA could establish beforehand
a procedure for either State governments or residents to petition
to have their State listed as requiring a program earlier than EPA
proposes. The criteria used in determining which States would be
listed would be available for public review.
The value of this policy is that it allows EPA to concentrate
limited resources in areas such as technical assistance to the States
with the highest priority need for a UIC program, rather than spreading
the effort among all 50 States immediately. Furthermore, if some
States still might not apply nor have an acceptable program, EPA
would be able to stagger its own workload required to implement
its prescribed program over five years or more, instead of all at
once in 1977.
-------
-52-
ORA.
With the Agency's presently limited resources in this area, the
simultaneous non-certification of even some of the States could make
the implementation of the Act very difficult.
This ranked State list option would likewise be beneficial for
the States. The limited first year State grants could be divided
among those ten or more States on the first list, thereby granting
more funds initially to those States with the most critical ground
water problems. As more States are listed, the per-State share of
grant funds would decrease (contingent on continuing, constant funding)
but this decrease would occur only as States with decreasing ground
water problems came aboard.
B. Prioritized requirements for State UIC program certification
This section deals with the policy option of step by step State
implementation of the SDWA (discussed earlier in the public water
supply section of this strategy) as it relates to the UIC program.
The requirements for State certification of the UIC program
are discussed in Section 1421 (b)(D of the Act. The requirements
for State certification are rather loosely defined, and fall into two
main classes, (1) permitting, which has strict time limits and two
forms of issuance (temporary and regular term), or rule-making,
and (2) all other requirements (inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements) which are not elaborated upon in the
Act.
A step by step implementation policy for State certification,
which recognizes differences among the States, can be applied to
both classes. The permitting program would follow the "mixed"
-------
-53-
DRAFT
option described above combining permiting and rulemaking for UIC.
The other, less explicitly defined requirements of the Act allow
for a greater amount of flexibility in their implementation. For
the first few years of the program. States could be required,
for example, to inspect only the major or most suspect wells. When
the workload has leveled off, a gradual, more intensive inspection
program for other major sources of contamination could be started.
This same prioritized approach could be applied to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting. (See the following examples).
An Example of Step-by-Step Program Implementation for
Category I Wells (Waste disposal wells)
Monitoring (all time periods calculated from the date
of State program certification--See Chart A)
Within first year of - Require self-monitoring reports monthly (or
certification quarterly) from all permittees.
Within 3 years - Initiate a program of test wells for all
potentially problem permittees.
Within 5 years - Require test wells for all new well
disposal projects that have a potential
for groundwater contamination.
Inspection
1st year - Initial program design period, most resources
directed towards establishing a permitting
program.
I
2nd year - Initiate a program of inspections on major
or most suspect wells.
Within 3 years - Require yearly inspections on all suspect wells.
Within 5 years - Require routine inspections (varying intervals,
one year minimum) on all major and suspect
wells.
Another advantage of the step-by-step approach is tha, it takes
into consideration that many States already have an exisl ng program
-------
-54-
maff ^« Bn>
ORAF
for the protection of ground water. These programs naturally vary,
however, as to the degree and extent of the control of the various
sources of aquifer contamination. The following list illustrates the
extent of present State waste disposal well control programs:
14 States prohibit deep waste disposal wells
23 States require permits for waste disposal wells
13 States have no control policy
Within the States there are a variety of agencies, with differing
levels of resources, responsible for the various forms of well
injection. Florida, for e'xample, has three state-wide and five
regional agencies involved in the control of industrial disposal wells
alone. There naturally are several more agencies in each State
involved in controlling the other major sources of ground water
c ontamination.
The step-by-step approach allows the States time to develop an
integrated ground water control program that covers the major sources
of contamination in each State. In the meantime, however, EPA must
work with the States to agree to either (1) one State agency to act as the
lead agency for State/EPA negotiations, or (2) grant and workload
agreements with all the major State agencies involved.
Issue #3
Relationship of the UIC program and P. L. 92-500
Even with the maximum certification of States, EPA is still going
to be hard pressed for resources. EPA should therefore strive to use
existing Agency programs to assist in the implementation of the UIC
program.
-------
-55-
Before the passage of the SDWA, the EPA was involved in
matters related to ground water contamination mainly through
various provisions of P.L. 92-500. Some of these provisions
(e_.£., research and reportmaking) are discussed earlier in the
strategy. These P. L. 92-500 provisions relevant to UIC fall
into two main areas:' (1) permitting under Section 402 (NPDES)
and (2) planning mechanisms.
Under the authority of Section 402 of P. L. 92-500, EPA and
the States have permitted a few hundred municipal and industrial
injection wells (121 in Texas and 77 in Michigan) with which there
was an associated surface water* discharge. Hov.-pyer, P.L. 92-500
permitting authority is restricted from the control of brine re-
injection and secondary recovery wells, whereas the SDWA is not
so limited. The UIC permitting program will be designed so as not
to require a re-permitting process unless the existing NPDES
permits are determined to be inadequate to prevent the endangerment
of drinking water sources.
The SDWA has no planning provisions similar those contained
in P.L. 92-500 for the control of aquifer contamination. EPA
should, therefore, consider utilizing planning mechanisms provided
under P.L. 92-500 which are related to ground water protection. The
major planning provisions of P.L. 92-500 related to the SDWA are:
Section 106(e). Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the
Administrator shall not make any grant under
this section of any State which has not provided
or is not carrying out as a part of its program--
(1) the establishment and operation of appr
priate devices, methods, systems, and
procedures necessary to monitor, and to compile
-------
-56-
DRAFT
and analyze data on (including classification
according to eutrophic condition), the quality of
navigable waters and to the extent practicable,
ground waters including biological monitoring;
and provision for annually updating such data
and including it in the report required under
section 305 of this Act;
Another major planning processes of 92-500 is the § 208
Areawide plan. The §208 plans are intended to be the focal point
for the control of point and non-point surface water pollution. How-
ever, 208 plans are also intended to address ground water problems.
Section 208 (b)(2). Any plan prepared under such
process shall include, but not be limited to--
(K) a process to control the disposal of
pollutants on land or in subsurface excavations
within such area to protect ground and surface
water quality.
With this broad application to ground water protection, 208
areawide plans should also be designed to be the major planning
mechanism for ground water protection. Requirements for UIC
permits could be coordinated by the 208 management agency.
t
Furthermore, the 208 mechanism could be used to gather ground
water data and to determine what additional control procedures
are required to protect each area's aquifer. This will be especially
helpful if the well injection definition by category is utilized.
Finally, petitions for sole source determination within a 208 area
should also be channeled through the 208 process.
The 303(e) planning process should also be applied to the
protection of ground water, in that the results of the 208 plans,
especially the Statewide 208 plans, are to be incorporated
into the 303(e) plans.
-------
-57-
DRAFT
This reference to the FWPCA planning mechanism with
provisions applicable to the SDWA is not meant to be exhaustive.
However, it does illust.-ate the existing resources ihe States and
EPA have in the water planning area that could be applied to this new
Act. EPA is especially interested in getting comments from States
and from the public on the desirability of applying these planning
mechanisms to the SDWA program.
II. Sole Source (Section 1424)
Introduction
Section 1424, "interim Regulation of Underground Injections,"
poses a potentially enormous administrative burden for the EPA.
Section 1424
-------
-58-
DRAFT
Differences between 1424(a) & (e)
Section 1424 of the Act provides for a program of greater
protection from contamination for aquifers which are determined
to be the "sole or principal" drinking water source for an area.
The actual form of protection varies according to which of the
two "determination" procedures established in the Act (1424(a) or
1424(e)) are cited when determining that an area is a sole (or
principal) source aquifer. These two determination procedures
are quite different in their scope and application.
Section 1424(a) calls for a temporary program of permitting
all new injection wells in the determined area. This Section was
designed to provide interim protection for the residents of a sole
source area until the State UIC program was instituted. Once
the State's UIC program was certified by the EPA, the State would
automatically assume the permitting program for the determined
area. Section 1424(a) requires EPA to either determine or
non-determine an area 30 days after the petition for determination
is published in the Federal Register.
Section 1424(e), on the other hand, calls for a permanent
program to review Federally financially assisted projects for the
possible contamination of the aquifer in a determined sole source
area. It appears that 1424(e) review cannot be delegated to the
States. Because of its potential workload requirements, 1424(e)
is the main concern of this section of the Strategy. Also, unlike
1424(a), there is no legislative deadline in §1424(e) for determination
after the petition is published in the Federal Register.
-------
-59-
Current Status
EPA has received two petitions under Section 1424(e) for sole
source determination (the Edwards Aquifer in Texas and Long
Island). The petition for the Edwards Aquifer was published in
the I?. II. March 6 for a 60 day period of public comment. A
public hearing may be held after this public comment period.
The EPA's actions on these first two petitions represent a
major, precedent-setting action. The methodology for designation
and the procediires used 'or review of Federally assisted projects
for the first determined area, must be well thought out to prevent
as much as possible any legal, technical, and administrative problems
with these or future petitions.
As mentioned above, there io no exhaustive collection of data
on the nation's aquifers. Certain aauifers, such as the Edwardr,,
have been studied in great detail. Its rather ooniined boundaries,
flow, and water quality have been well established. Other aquifers,
however, are rcnich more extensive, and less is kr.ovn regarding
their characteristics. A petition for determination of such aquifers
would constitute a rn-ich greater pi-oblen as to whether The area
required determinationn or how larga an ai'~a should bo determined.
The tasks to be performed under Soolion LfL24(e) can be divided
into two major areas: the sole source determination process and the
review of Federal financially assisted projects.
-------
DRAF
Sole Source Determination
Definitional problems
The determination of a sole source area is complicated by
the problem of defining what constitutes a "sole or principal"
drinking water source. The Act does not elaborate what constitutes
a sole or principal source. The Agency must define how great
of a reliance on groundwater is necessary for determination, what
size of population must be affected, and how large an area is
then to be determined.
A Webster's definition of "principal" would indicate that a major
or greater than half reliance would be the minimum criterion.
However, it is unlikely that EPA could base its decision on just
percentages of population relying on ground water . The availability
or lack of other drinking water sources would also have to be
considered.
The decision of how large an area to be designated would require
an extensive study of the aquifer. An aquifer with a slow and limited
horizontal flow would probably require that only a relatively small
area be determined. Furthermore, it would probably be more
expedient to establish a "boundary" for the area, if (1) the petitioner
was required to submit boundaries for the area petitioned and (2) the
eventual area of determination was to be drawn, if feasible, along the
boundaries of local governments. This would respectively provide
an area of focus for the EPA's study and a set of well recognized
borders. Local governments should be included in the determination
and review process.
-------
-61-
Options for determination
The Administrator has two separate options for determination
of sole source aquifers. He can either (1) only react to petitions
for determination, or (2) intitiate a long term, detailed study of
the nation's aquifers to determine if there are areas of the country
where a "significant hazard" exists without the benefit of sole source
determination.
a. React to petitions. Since the Act does not require the
Administrator to initiate determination, this is the administratively
"safe" way to handle determinations. The Federal review entailed
in the process could develop into a large resource requirement, could
involve the EPA in local land use issues, and could result in the delay
or stoppage of many Federal projects. This option would limit EPA's
involvement. However, this could be viewed as bureaucratic inertia
in the face of possibly serious contamination problems.
b. Initiation of a nation-wide study. This option would supple-
ment the Administrator's reaction to petitions. Although the study
itself could be done largely by contract under Section 1442 (a)(4), (5),
(6) and (8), any resulting determinations would naturally require
additional resources. The study could be used to determine how
extensive the implications of 1424(e) are for Federal involvement
in local land-use policies. The results of the study could then be
submitted to Congress with a recommendation that 1424(e) be either
maintained or revised, to give the States and localities be g-"veii
a significant legal role in the determination and project review
process.
-------
-62-
DRAFT
Public comment on these two options is desired before EPA
adopts either one.
Project Review
As mentioned in regards to sole source determination, there
also are definitional uncertainties in 1424(e) regarding the required
project review. Under the broadest interpretation, EPA could be
required to review all Federally financially assisted "projects" which
could contaminate a sole source aquifer ". . . so as to create a
significant hazard to public health ..."
"Significant hazard" is not strictly defined in the Act or the
legislative history. However, it could be reasonably assumed that
a significant hazard to public health should be less dangerous than
an "imminent and substantial endangerment" (Section 1431) and
perhaps equal to the maximum contaminant levels published as part
of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. It could also
be said that since Congress did not equate "significant hazard"
with the NPDWR maximum contaminant levels (which establish
"safe" drinking water standards), then "significant hazard"
standards could be established somewhere between the NPDWR
contaminant levels and an "imminent and substantial endangerment"
level. This would allow EPA and the States greater flexibility
in implementing 1424(e).
Criteria of size, type of facility, and location must be established
for those Federally assisted projects which could possibly to create
a significant hazard to public health, and which therefore require
EPA review.
-------
-63-
These criteria must be responsive to the intent of the legislation,
but also realistic in the consideration of EPA's review capacity.
If the task is greater than EPA's capacity, the Ager.cy will have to
return to Congress to clarify the intent of §1424(e)
Proposed Federally assisted projects will then have to be reviewed
to determine if the effects of the projects on the sole source aquifer
would be enough to prevent the achievement of the "significant health
"standards" in the alloted time frame, as amended by variances or
exemptions granted to supply systems using the aquifer.
Options for Project Review
EPA has basically two options for project review, either a
revision of the established EIS process or a separate project review
process. Both options pose considerable problems for the Agency.
The thrust of both options must be. to place the greatest burden of
project review on the other involved Federal agencies. Since these
agencies are proposing projects which may contaminate sole source
aquifers, they must bear the burden of proving their projects
"safe. " In order to limit resource demands, EPA's review should
be either a "yes or no option, " without the design review and change
responsibility that the Agency has in the municipal waste water
treatment program.
1. EIS Option. This option would require the EPA to revise the
Section 309 regulations of the Clean Air Act so as to incorporate
those Federal projects that could contaminate sole source aquifers
as described above. This option has the advantage of utilv-ing
an existing mechanism for review. However, the EIS aj" roach
-------
-64-
may be criticized for not fulfilling the will of Congress and being
insufficient to protect sole source aquifers. Since Section 1424(e)
does not refer to NEPA, project review could be interpreted to
be a much more massive task of reviewing all Federally financially
assisted projects.
2. Separate Project Review Option.. This option would allow the
EPA greater flexibility to establish varying thresholds for Federal
project review. This option could be considered more responsive
to Congress1 intent to review all Federally assisted projects. The
Agency could thereby establish broad or narrow thresholds for
review without going through the 309 revision process.
A disadvantage of this option is that it would require the EPA
to establish an entirely new inter-agency review process. Further-
more, if broad boundaries for project review are used, it will
result in a task too immense to be aoc'omplished with EPA's limited
resources. It could also result in the delay of many Federal projects
and involve the EPA in local land use controversies.
Tasks Necessary to Effect Project^ Re view
Whichever option for Federal project review is chosen, the same
three major tasks must be performed:
1. Promulgation of project review standards for use by
Federal agencies.
2. Definition of the size, class, and location
of projects to be reviewed.
3. Establishment of EPA review procedures
and criteria.
-------
-65-
DRAFT
Until these necessary review tasks are completed, EPA's
decision on the Edwards Aquifer petition will either have to be
delayed, or the first determination decision, if positiv.., will
have to be implemented in a less than thorough manner.
Recommended Action;
The options available to EPA fall between the two following
extremes:
1. EPA determines sole source aquifers only upon petition, and
review projects through the EIS process --
This option is the least administratively burdensome, but it
also offers the least protection for sole source aquifers.
2. EPA takes the initiative to determine broad areas of the
country as sole source aquifers, and also reviews all Federally-
financed projects (VA., FHA, etc.).
It could be argued that this option offers greater protection
for sole source aquifers, but it also poses such enormous burden
on limited EPA and State resources that the aquifers would not be
protected. It would involve the EPA in many local land use issues
and perhaps result in delaying of many Federal projects that should
not be delayed for a day.
It is recommended that EPA choose the following
more appropriate option;
EPA must react to incoming petitions. But in addition the
Agency should initiate a study (under Section 1442) to determine
the extensiveness of sole source aquifers and the benefits thr sole
source determination would produce. USGS should play a rr ajor
role in this study, since it is the main monitoring and data gathering
-------
-66-
DRAFT
authority in the field. The results of the study could be used
to determine (1) what areas should be determined and (2) if EPA
has the resources to implement such action.
Finally, it is recommended that EPA use the EIS process
to fulfill the project review requirement. Although this might be
criticized for not being a sufficient response, EPA's limited
resources would prohibit any broader action.
-------
Acknowledgment
This draft strategy document was prepared by the Program
Evaluation Division, Office of Planning and Evaluation, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., in
cooperation with the Water Supply Division, other EPA Head-
quarters offices, the EPA Regional Offices, a wide variety of
State water supply officials, the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council, and other interested parties. Any person,
public body, or organization may comment on its contents.
Comments should be directed to the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Water Supply, U.S. EPA, Washington, D. C.,
20460.
------- |