United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Put;::
•-C 20460
.
EPA JOURNAL
Protecting Our
Drinking Water
-------
Protecting
Our
Drinking
Water
In a major environmental
action. Congress recently
passed sweeping
amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974.
This issue of h'PA Jounm/
examines the dramatically
changed statute and the
cooperative national effort to
protect our drinking water.
The magazine begins with
an interview witli Lawrence
[. Jensen, KI'A's Assistant
Administrator for Water, who
gives a perspective for the
Agency on issues involved in
protecting our drinking
water. U. S. Senator Dave
Durenberger (R-Mi\T). who
was instrumental in the
passage of the recent
amendments, explains the
how anil why behind the
Congressional action.
Closeups of efforts to
ensure safe drinking water
arc1 provided in articles Iroin
New York City. Utah, and
rural America.
An article explains a
preventive strategy to protect
drinking water supplies in
the ground hetore they can be
contaminated.
An /','J'A Journal special
supplement presents an
overview of the job ot
protecting drinking water,
milestones in the eilorl.
accomplishments under the
previous drinking water
safety law. and highlights of
the amended Act.
(Mher articles feature
comments by KI'A
Administrator I.ee M.
Thomas spelling out the
Agency's approach in dealing
with urban o/.one pollution,
and an environmental
internship program lor
minorities at KPA.
A regular feature
Appointments concludes
the issue. U
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs i.A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 12
Number 7
September 1986
JAN 12198?
&EPA JOURNAL
Envjron
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
Jennifer Joy Wilson, Assistant Administrator for External Afhurs
Linda Wilson Reed, Director. Office of Public: Affairs
EPA is charged by Congress to pro-
tect the nation's land. air. and
water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the
agency strives to formulate and im-
plement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between hu-
man activities and the ability of
natural systems to support and
nurture life.
The EPA Journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator of EPA
lias determined that the publica-
tion of this periodical is necessary
in the transaction of the public
business required by law of this
agency. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved
by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. Views
expressed by authors do not neces-
sarily reflect EPA policy. Contribu-
tions and inquiries should be ad-
dressed to the Editor (A-107),
Waterside Mall, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington. IDC 20460. No permis-
sion necessary to reproduce con-
tents except copyrighted photos
and other materials.
John Heritage, Editor
Susan Tejada, Associate Editor
Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
Margherita Pryor, Contributing Editor
Protecting Drinking Water:
An EPA Perspective
An Interview with
Lawrence J. Jensen 2
Revising the
Drinking Water Law
by Dave Durenberger 4
The Challenge of
Safe Drinking Water:
—New York City
by Joseph T. McGough, Jr. 7
—Utah
by Kenneth H. Boust'ield E P
RIN1
Co
-npa
ny N
arm
3 or
Add
tion
al Ac
Idre
5S L
ne
Str
eet
<\ddr
ess
Cit
i
Si.i
tc
Zip
Coc
ie
Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)
Charge to my Deposit Account No
-------
Protecting Drinking Water:
An EPA Perspective
An Interview with
Lawrence J. Jensen
To gel an overview of EPA's drinking
water protection program and policy,
EPA ]t)urn;il interviewed Lawrence J.
Jensen, the Agency's Assistant
Administrator/or Water. His office
includes drinking water protection
responsibilities. The interview follows:
water supply, and I think that
realization is reflected in the new
drinking water amendments.
What are the key elements of
EPA's drinking water program?
i\ The program basically consists of
two elements. First, to insure that tap
water is of good quality, EPA sets water
purity standards and then, in
conjunction with the states and local
utilities, monitors water supplies to
make sure the standards are being met.
Second, to protect ground water as a
drinking water source, EPA regulates
the disposal of hazardous wastes in
deep wells and, under the new
amendments, will substantially increase
its efforts to work with states through
grant programs to bolster state
ground-water protection programs.
V£ But most drinking water in the
United States is pristine compared with
that in some other countries. Why do
we need a special program?
/v To the extent that we have good,
clean water, the obvious answer is that
we want to keep it that way, and that
requires a special program. On the other
hand, there are significant new concerns
about water quality in some parts of the
country. For example, we've found well
over 700 different chemicals in ground
water, some of which may he toxic,
some of which may be carcinogenic. We
need to mount an effort to determine!
just what the presence of those
chemicals in our water supplies means.
An industrial society tike ours requires
a great deal of effort to maintain a guod
What sorts of health threats do we
face from contaminated drinking
water?
.A. Well, I think we sometimes
overlook the fact that there are still
significant numbers of cases of disease
that result from contaminated drinking
water in this country. We've made
enormous progress from the time 100
years ago when they were the number
one health problem in the country. But,
within the last decade, we still had
some 85,000 reported cases of disease
from bacteriological contamination of
drinking water. That's a significant
number. It suggests that we need to
continue our efforts to educate people
about the threats to drinking water and
to ensure that good systems are in place
and being operated correctly.
But bacteriological contaminants are
not even the major source of concern.
People are also worried about industrial
chemicals in their drinking water,
chemicals that might cause cancer or
other long-term health effects. This
concern is particularly strong in the
case of ground water which is often
drunk straight from a well without
being treated and which is, in any
event, very expensive once it becomes
contaminated.
Q
Consumers still seem very
concerned about the quality of their
drinking water, as evidenced by the
growth of the bottled water industry.
Are they being overly anxious?
/i The answer to that question
obviously depends very much on the
local circumstances. Generally speaking,
we still have so much to learn about the
health effects of chemicals showing up
in our water supplies that I think it's
premature to judge whether our current
level of concern is appropriate. 1 think
the answer to your question will emerge
in the next couple of years as we
develop new information and go
through the process of setting standards.
How can the public be sure that
standards are not being violated?
A The utility that delivers the
drinking water is required by law to
meet certain standards, and then to
monitor and make sure those standards
are being maintained. If monitoring
shows that the standards are not being
met, the statute states that the public
must be notified. So we depend on the
utilities to monitor, to notify the public
if there is a problem, and to take steps
to fix it. But, if that breaks down, the
next line of defense is a concerned
citizenry. There ought to be sufficient
public interest in drinking water
supplies to prevent a utility from hiding
problems in the water supply. Of
course, the Agency, like the states, does
gather some data on its own and does
have enforcement powers, so that when
a problem comes to our attention we
can correct it.
You mentioned the recent
legislation which strengthens EPA's
drinking water protection program.
Wasn't EPA doing its job?
/\ There's no question that many in
Congress felt that drinking water
standards were not being set quickly
enough under the old law. That was one
source of dissatisfaction. Consequently,
in the amendments, Congress has taken
steps to streamline the standard-setting
process considerably.
But, having said that, I don't think the
new amendments reflect on the past
quality of the drinking water program at
all. In fact, in many ways, the
EPA JOURNAL
-------
'amendments are a vindication of the
program in that it was through the
efforts of the program that Congress
became aware of new chemical concerns
and better ways of administering the
law. Congress responded by giving us a
much improved statute.
Q
The 1986 law also added new
provisions regarding ground water.
Why the new interest?
Fifty percent of the drinking water
in this country comes from underground
sources; in rural areas, the percentage is
95 percent. So ground water is a very
significant source of supply, and there
are significant numbers of people
drinking it. We are discovering that
many chemicals from our industrial
society are getting into it. As recently as
10 or 15 years ago, the public felt these
toxic substances just couldn't get into
ground-water supplies. We thought that
the soil would filter the chemicals out,
that this natural filter would keep
ground water uncontaminated. We've
found that's not the case. I think I
mentioned that over 700 chemicals have
been discovered in ground-water
supplies, and we're experiencing the
first Congressional reaction to that in
the new amendments.
Q
Do you think you're going to have
any special problems implementing the
new ground-water provisions?
/» There are two new ground-water
protection programs in the amendments:
the wellhead protection program and
the sole source aquifer demonstration
program. How well they function and
the degree to which they contribute to
the protection of our ground-water
supplies depends. I think, on the
monies made available to support them
by Congress. Both of them are grant
programs for the states to develop
specific protection programs geared
toward particular ground-water
resources. If significant money is
available, I would expect the programs
to inspire a good deal of state and local
attention to ground-water issues; if not,
then I don't expect a lot to come of
them. Unlike some of our other
programs, these don't have a "we'll step
in and do it if you don't" clause. In
other words, if the states don't pursue
these programs EPA will not step in and
take over.
Q
We've always had relatively
cheap water in the United States. Will
it always be affordable?
-iv I heard someone say the other
day, "It'll always be affordable, it just
won't be inexpensive." Something
essential to life like water is something
for which we will pay a great deal if we
have to, and, in that sense, it will be
affordable because we can't afford not to
have it. But I don't expect it to remain
inexpensive. I think that water has been
one of the great bargains for a long time.
As the cost of pollution control
In thr holtlfiii ivufrr srrt/im o( \ -Jcrs her
rlmnvs. Thi1 linnvlh ol the botllrd untrr
im/ustry rrflrcis. in purl, cons
uony over ivfjfcr
increases, as our population increases
and the demand goes up, as enthusiasm
for subsidized water costs wanes, there
are going to be adjustments in the price
of water. I think all of these things are
going to drive the price up in the next
decade.
I suppose this drought we're
having in the southeastern United
States is a good illustration of water
problems we could face.
/* Indeed it is. Our dependence on
water, the difficulties of managing it,
the necessity of keeping supplies
uncontaminated so they're usable — I
think all of these things have been
brought to the forefront of the public
mind by the drought.
You're from the West. Does that
give you a special perspective on the
whole subject of water?
/». The scarcity of water in the
Mountain West certainly made me very
aware of water issues. Also, in the West
you're generally apt to find a much
stronger feeling that "(ho water is on my
land, in my well, it belongs to me," and,
consequently, more of a resistance to
controls or regulations on that water.
Q A final question: Will EPA do a
better job of protecting drinking water
under the new law?
/* The new law gives us butter tools.
Our ability to enforce our standards has
been strengthened considerably, the
process by which we develop standards
has been streamlined, and we have
significant new programs aimed at
preventing the contamination of
ground water. With better tools, 1 would
expect EPA to do a better job. a
SEPTEMBER 1986
-------
Revising the
Drinking Water Law
by Dave Durenberger
[Durenbergei i.-< u U.S. Senator, fH-M.\j.
!!>• is- ('.hiiirniiiii <>l liir Subcommittee mi
Toxic Snhshnircs (incl h'rivinjiimenldl
i!.;h( of (lie Scnufc Commit!*'!' on
Hiivironiiicjii und Public Works mid ivns
Clttiirmuii of (lie i lousi'-Srmitr
(,'nnli'tiTK c ( .'on i mil tor lor I IK; ,S
-------
' • "- -I/
J^v
.X f-
* r
Autumn folia •! nmiJ i
pump. (;/i
-------
tin: Safe Drinking Water Act by local
public water suppliers number in the;
tens of thousands.
The failure of the program at the
local level is in large part
understandable. The operation of water
supply .systems in most small towns is
not a space-age science. While the
number of chemicals used in daily life
has exploded, there has been no
comparable revolution in the capacity of
small communities to protect their
water supplies from these new chemical
contaminants. Water supply is public
works. Many towns still don't charge
consumers for water. Few small towns
can afford to pay a water engineer
full-time to run the system. Management
is quite often done by a volunteer who
is not by training or inclination part of
the theory of the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
So the job did not get done in 90 days
in 1974.
On June 19, 1986, the President
signed into law a new drinking water
program which passed both houses of
the Congress by overwhelming margins,
but only after three long years of study
and debate. The 1980 Amendments go
beyond the simple two-part program of
the original law and include a series of
protection strategies. The Amendments
do not depend only on swiftly
established federal standards and
technically sophisticated local water
systems. Instead, the Amendments build
multiple; layers of protection which can
be seen in the following four-part
summary of the new law.
Standard-Setting. First, EPA is required
to establish standards for a list of 83
named contaminants within a three-year
period. The Agency is already well
along in the standard-setting process for
these: contaminants. The Congressional
mandate is intended to assure that the
drinking water office will get the
resources and support that it needs to
complete the task as soon as possible.
The 1986 Amendments are also
designed to simplify the
standard-setting process in the future by
Hundreds of small towns will
be surprised to learn that their
drinking water wells have
been contaminated by
unpronounceable chemicals
that they had never been
warned about.
establishing a technology-based
benchmark for MCLs. One specific
treatment technology, granular-activated
carbon, is identified as an available and
appropriate treatment technique to be
used in setting MCLs for synthetic
organic chemicals.
Monitoring for Unregulated
Contaminants. Even with the new
standard-setting process, it will be
difficult for the regulatory process to
keep up with the chemical revolution.
To assure adequate protection of our
drinking water supplies, the 1986
Amendments will require local water
supply systems to monitor periodically
not only for contaminants with MCLs,
but for a broad range of other
contaminants as well. Over the next two
or three years, hundreds of small towns
will be surprised to learn that their
drinking water wells have been
contaminated by unpronounceable
chemicals that they had never been
warned about. Armed for the first time
with adequate information, these
communities will, without
heavy-handed federal regulation, take
the steps necessary to protect their
drinking water supplies. We are
confident of this result because
programs to monitor for unregulated
contaminants have been conducted in a
few states already and with great
success.
Treatment and Protection. The third
part of the new provisions includes steps
to protect water supplies from
contamination and to treat all supplies
before distribution. EPA will mandate
filtration and disinfection, or steps
equally protective, for all systems to
remove contaminants. And the
legislation includes two new grant
programs directed to state and local
governments prepared to take steps to
protect ground-water resources.
Technical Assistance. The 1986
Amendments include significant
programs of technical and financial
assistance for small systems that would
otherwise not be able to fulfill their role
in the drinking water program. For
instance, EPA is authorized to spend
$30 million aiding small systems with
monitoring requirements for unregulated
contaminants. EPA will pay for the
analysis for systems serving under 150
connections and may even provide
technical aid in drawing the samples.
The Amendments also include grants for
states to manage the water supply and
ground-water protection programs.
grants for small systems and technical
assistance to implement the disinfection
requirement.
Although the 1986 Amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act are modest
in scope, we in the Congress believe
they contain the elements to bring the
theory of the Safe Drinking Water Act
closer to the reality of the human
institutions that must deliver,
day-to-day, the important public health
protection it promises . . . safe drinking
water for all Americans. Q
EPA JOURNAL
-------
THE CHALLENGE OF SAFE DRINKING WATER:
What is involved in insuring safe drinking water in a large city? A stale? A rural area?
Here a re articles on three examples: New York City, Utah, and parts of rural America.
New York City
By Joseph T. McGough, Jr.
These are turbulent times for water
supply planners in our nation's
largest cities. What needs to be done,
when should we do it, and what will it
cost are typical questions planners have
to deal with. But big city planners are
finding it more and more difficult to
come up with the answers.
New York City is a case in point.
Most of the problems facing Gotham's
water suppliers as they try to improve
'and expand the city's water services are
technically solvable. But, as in other
major metropolitan areas, it has become
harder than ever to decide which
solutions to implement, and in what
sequence. The array of issues faced by
water suppliers has been further
complicated by the ambitious
timetables—worthy though they may
be—in the recently amended Safe
Drinking Water Act.
For years, New York City has been
aware of the need for large-scale, costly
improvements in its water supply
system. Everything from the major
systems bringing over 1.5 billion gallons
of water a day into the city's five
boroughs to the aging waterpipes under
thousands of miles of streets needed
improving or upgrading. Some projects
had begun, but not nearly enough. For
years the city struggled with fiscal
problems that blocked aggressive new
action.
But by 1984 the city had surmounted
its fiscal crisis and once more began
making major investments in a
well-planned renewal of its vital
infrastructures. The ambitious 10-year
capital budget included $3.7 billion for
water supply projects.
(McGough is vice-presidenl for
Corporate (Jpcnilion.s for- IVirsons
BrinckerhojJ, Inc. I In is the former
!iiission<;r (if tin; .\Viv York City
/)f:piif ut Environmental
Protection, 1
With the exception of one private
company which supplies 600,000
residents in the borough of Queens,
New York gets all of its drinking water
from surface water sources outside the
city. Some comes from nearby
Westchester County, immediately to the
north. But most of it flows from the
Catskill Mountains in upstate New York
or from the Delaware River Watershed
in the mountains along the New
York-Pennsylvania border.
These are turbulent times for
water supply planners in our
nation's largest cities.
The plan adopted in 1984 called for a
number of major projects:
• Accelerated completion of the $4
billion Third Water Tunnel, a 24-foot
diameter installation that is to join two
similar conduits in bringing water into
the city from holding reservoirs in
Westchester County. Water from the
Catskills and the Delaware Basin is
stored there on its way to New York's
millions of water-users. Work on this
third tunnel was begun in 1968 to
improve delivery capacity and provide
back-up to the two existing tunnels.
New funding will accelerate the pace of
completion; a 14-mile stretch is expected
to go on line in 1990. This is just the
first of three phases. Total completion is
now expected to be achieved by 2020.
• Construction of the city's first water
treatment plant, for the 10 percent of
the New York water supply that
originates in the Croton watershed, the
city's oldest, located in Westchester
County. This $320 million project will
be built at the Jerome Reservoir in the
Bronx.
• Upgrading the city-owned reservoir
dams to meet recently revised federal
dam safety standards.
• $865 million for replacing, and
rehabilitating the city's aging water
mains, of which there are some 6.000
miles under the city streets.
• System extension, including
feasibility studies for the possible
expansion of the Hudson River pumping
station to augment supplies during
drought.
The 1984 plan seemed to address
every major issue which the water
system then faced and would face
during the next decade. Yet, this past
May, the city recast its long-range
capital budget, raising water projects to
$4.4 billion. Even so, the major
difference between 1984 aiul 1986 was
not the amount of money involved but
the number of existing water issues not
addressed because of tho uncertainty
that surrounds them.
The first issue is sufficiency ol
supply. In 1985, Now York City suffered
its second-worst drought on record. A
mayoral task force concluded that the
city should move ahead immediately to
expand the Hudson River pumping
station. The 1986 long-range budget
added $400 million for this purpose, but
whether this is adequate in the face of
growing demand is uncertain. The task
force raised the possibility that, droughts
notwithstanding, the city might nord
somewhere between 400 and 1200
million additional gallons pur day by
the year 2030. How much, and where it
will come from, are issues that necul to
be faced and resolved soon.
The drought also provided the final
impetus for universal water metering in
New York City. Metering of industrial
and commercial customers began in the
1860's, but residential water users have
been charged a flat rate. Now. in an
effort to reduce waste and consumption,
the city has embarked on a ten-year
program to meter 630,000 private homes
and apartment houses, but the ultimate
impact on consumption will not be
known until all the meters and new
SEPTEMBER 1986
-------
A u'orkcr inspecting n .scuinc/it <>t \mv
York City's Third Water Tunnel (ippetirs
du'orjed by (fit; conduit, ivliich is 2-4 feet
in diameter.
pricing structures are in place. Estimates
of savings from metering range from 10
to 30 percent.
The second issue concerns the
takeover of the last private; water
supplier in the; city, a firm that provides
well water to BOO,000 customers in
Queens, at the very end of tin;
municipal distribution system. Because
of questions about the quality of the
water being supplied and
state-approved rate increases, the city
has been forced to take over the system,
and now faces questions of rate
equalizaion, and the; quantity of city
water it will have to supply.
The third issue stems from the; 198(>
Safe Drinking Water Act amendments.
While New York City is blessed with
high-quality water, all of it flows from
surface supplies. Several provisions of
the new law could le;ad to a requirement
that the city, in addition to chlorinating
for microbiological contamination, filter
the remaining 90 percent of its supply
that will not flenv through the plant
being constructed in the Bronx.
The first of these provisions is the
surface water supply filtration section
itself. The second is the; Standard-setting
provisions tor microbiological
contaminants, notably giardia lambliu, a
bacterium found in animals that live in
the wilds in areas such as those from
which the city's drinking water comes.
The third is the Act's provision for an
assessment of the health effects of water
treatment chemicals and their
by-products, and a comparison to the
effects of water supply contaminants.
These uncertainties faced by
New York City may be larger
in scale than elsewhere, but
they are not unique.
This could lead to a lower turbidity
standard and requirements for filtration
or changes in disinfection methods for
surface supplies.
Given the great volume of water
involved, the cost of installing the
needed filtration plant would be;
between two and three billion dollars
over a 20-year period; it would cost
$250 million a year to operate. The city
has set aside land in Westchester
County for construction of a plant if
absolutely necessary, but is hoping that
further definition of the filtration
requirements will remove this issue
from the already crowded agenda of its
water planners.
The uncertainties attached to all of
these issues are further compounded by
their mutual connections. Continued
construction of the Third Water Tunnel,
the biggest part of the capital budget,
can't be delayed to make room for other
projects (a filtration system, for
example) because it is directly related to
the city's ability to deliver sufficient
water to replace that now supplied by
the private water company. The city's
need for increased supplies is directly
related to the effectiveness of its
metering program, which won't be
completed for 10 years. And the
specification of a treatment technique in
lieu of a standard for giardia or other
microbiological contaminants could
mean changes in the treatment system
for the Croton filtration plant, which is
now being designed primarily to reduce
turbidity and discoloration of otherwise
high-quality water.
These uncertainties faced by New
York City may be larger in scale than
elsewhere, but they are not unique.
Many other cities and towns face
similar local planning issues; to those
they must now add issues raised by
higher water quality standards and
tougher enforcement under the Safe
Drinking Water Act amendments. The
time-frames for compliance may be
realistic if compliance is the only issue
a system faces. But this will rarely be
the case, and it remains to be seen
whether the variance provisions of the
Act are sufficient to permit an orderly
resolution of all the issues all city water
suppliers confront. D
EPA JOURNAL
-------
THE CHALLENGE OF SAFE DRINKING WATER:
Utah
by Kenneth H. Bousfield
Out here in the nation's dry country,
many people still think of drinking
water as a resource that flows pure and
sweet from pristine mountain streams,
and that its purity and sweetness can be
taken for granted. Their confidence in
the quality of most of Utah's drinking
water is well founded, but its continued
purity and safety is in large measure
due to the increasingly important role
the state's government has played in
protecting the public health through
expanded drinking water regulatory
programs.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
of 1974 and subsequent amendments
provided a national framework,
promoted general continuity, and
expanded the federal role in drinking
water protection and regulation. These
laws have led to significant
improvements in the overall quality of
the nation's drinking water.
Nevertheless, states have traditionally
been responsible for direct oversight
and supervisory activities for the
protection of public: water supplies. In
some cases, this responsibility dates
back to 1914, when standards for
bacteriological quality were first
established. State programs provide the
backbone of the national regulatory
framework which ensures the high
quality of drinking water in the United
States.
As in many states, Utah's drinking
water program had humble beginnings.
Chlorination of Salt Lake City's water
supply began in 1915. Early efforts at
waterborne disease control were limited
and there were still localized outbreaks
of diseases like cholera and typhoid in
the 1020s and 1930s. The first
conventional water treatment plant was
not built until 1944. and prior to 1953
the drinking water supply in Utah was
not formally regulated by state
government. In fact, then! was only a
single individual who occasionally
conducted inspections of facilities and
watersheds, and arranged for the major
water supply systems to conduct a few
chemical and bacteriological analyses
on their water.
f/Jiiiish'i'M is Compliance Munugcr. 1 'lull
Hurrim nl /)i inki'ii'.; U'utcr Sdinluln'ii.
Hull Stale ncpiirlmrnl of IfruJlh.)
During this time, there was simply no
recognition by the state government of a
need to devote extensive resources to
the regulation of drinking water
supplies. Utah gets 97 percent of its
drinking water from underground
sources—springs and wells. Since such
sources were often located in remote.
pristine mountain areas, they were
perceived as relatively invulnerable to
contamination. Even today it is still said
that the old-time prospectors and
As in many states, Utah's
drinking wo tor program had
humble beginnings.
mountain men could drink water out of
a ditch without getting sick. And the
relatively small number of reported
outbreaks of waterborne diseases
compounded the low priority concern
about drinking water quality, even
though resources for monitoring and
testing water supplies were generally
lacking and suspected bacteriological
contamination could not be confirmed.
Because of the lack of modern
treatment and testing capabilities (and
the lack of regulatory requirements for
such capabilities), it is probable that
significant water quality problems
actually did exist in various parts of the
state. In fact, in many of the mountain
areas the underground supplies are
subject to increasingly shallower
discharges and the systems are
becoming less and less resistant to
disease-carrying contaminants. Today,
however, Utah's state program is much
better able to monitor the water supplies
and implement quality protection
regulations.
'['he Utah slate program was formally
created by the legislature in 1053;
regulations published in 1955 specified
a number of duties for the fledgling
agency. Central to the state program
activities at the time was review and
approval of plans for the development
and/or modification of water supply
facilities. The central program office
reviewed proposals submitted by
utilities and determined if they met
siting, construction, and water source
protection standards. The Utah program
also required regular testing of water
samples by public water systems.
Although this represented progress for
the state, it still left much to be desired.
Only bacteriological parameters were
tested. Until relatively recently, acute
waterborne diseases such as hepatitis
and cholera were the major concerns for
drinking water quality. Most of the
many other potentially dangerous
substances that can turn up in drinking
water were overlooked, The sampling
that was done required only monthly
bacterial concentration averages so that
failure to detect brief, potentially
disease-causing contamination peaks
would not be unusual. And. because ut
continued shortfalls in resources, the
state program was unable to conduct
quality assurance activities to ensure
thai those samples that did come in
were accurate and legitimate.
Further, the lack of manpower and
automation made it necessary to
establish priorities for the types of
systems that would get the most
attention. Despite requirements that data
be collected from systems, only those
larger systems serving non-transient
type populations (i.e., a system serving
a small city as compared to one serving
one of Utah's many campgrounds or
resorts) generally submitted samples. In
fact, it would have been tairly simple
for the stale's utilities to ignore the
regulations if they were so inclined.
The third major component oi Utah's
early program involved on-site "sanitary
surveys" of existing water supply
facilities, their watersheds and drainage!
basins. These surveys were supposed to
assure continued compliance with
design, construction, and source
protection standards. Hut they tended to
focus largely on compliance with
construction standards and ignore the
others. What's more, less than 25
surveys wore done each year even
though there wore hundreds of
regulated systems in the state. Since
then, the quality and quantity ot these
crucial inspections have improved
dramatically; Utah's 40(i community
water systems and 544 non-community
SEPTEMBER 1986
-------
systems know the state means business!
With the enactment of the Federal
Water Supply Act in 1958 and the
subsequent establishment of additional
drinking water quality standards for
some chemical contaminants in 1962,
the state regulatory role became more
firmly entrenched, Utah's program
expanded as additional resources were
made available. The program staff grew,
even before supplemental federal funds
became available. Although the
additional resources could not overcome
all of the program's shortcomings, they
did allow the state to more clearly
delineate the needed improvements and
to devise strategies for solving major
problems. There were growing pains, of
course. As sampling and water testing
increased, there were tremendous
advances in mitigating bacteriological
and contamination problems, but, at the
same time, the volume of samples
caused seven; strains on laboratory
capacity,
As lime went on, Utah made every
effort to plan lor and anticipate side
effects ol problem-solving efforts. The
enaclmenl of the SDVVA in 1974 helped
I Mali and other states standardize and
stabilize their drinking water regulatory
efforts. Since assuming primary
responsibility for implementation of the
federal program, the state has expanded
its data management and program
evaluation, allowing it to further
identify and pinpoint problem areas and
adjust program areas accordingly. In
addition, (hi; state has gained greater
expertise in using technical assistance
and enforcement methods to improve
tin! quality of local water supplies. For
example:
• When tests in wells in the
area surrounding the town of Hinckley
showed arsenic levels six times higher
than permissible, enforcement
procedures were used to resolve the
problem. The town was made to drill
remote wells and then pipe the water in
to dilute the arsenic levels in the
system.
• Throe small towns in the Cedar
Valley area of southern Utah showed
extremely high nitrate levels in their
water supply. The people turned to
drinking bottled water while the state
looked for a solution. The pollution
source was not man-made; it came from
unusually large nitrate deposits that
were leaching into the underground
aquifer. The problem was solved by
"annexing" the towns to the purer water
supply system ot an adjacent
community.
• Although mining activities have
generally not caused problems for
Utah's water supplies, the world's
largest open pit copper mine on the
southern edge of the Salt Lake Valley is
believed to be contaminating
ground-water aquifers. While this has
no! affected any wells now in use, it
raises the question of future well
contamination as the pollution moves
underground and represents a
possible violation of laws protecting
natural resources. The state is currently
considering legal action against
Kennicott Copper, owner of tin; mine.
Violations of bacteriological
parameters have been confirmed
throughout the state, and water testing
problems were compounded by the
imposition of testing requirements for
more and more substances. As the state
looked at the problem, it seemed
obvious that the most significant
problem-causing factor was the; lack of
expertise and awareness on the part of
water system operators as to the proper
technical and regulatory procedures to
follow. This applied especially to the
smaller, rural systems. To remedy the
program, Utah initiated a technical
assistant:!,- program for operators and
later passed a mandatory operator
certification law which applies to larger
water systems serving non-transient
populations. In addition, the Rural
Water Association of Utah was formed
to help promote proper operation and
maintenance of the smaller systems.
This organization has played a crucial
role in assuring water quality and
public health protection in small
systems throughout the state;.
This evolutionary process of
progressively refined development in
the Utah state drinking water program
has led to significant progress in
improving the state's overall water
quality. The number of bacteriological
I'rovo Hii . :rd in port by
moimtm'ii
md other
sources u' ( 'lull's drinking unlr:
considered mvulnenib/e In
contamination.
quality violations has declined by 00
percent as a result of regulatory and
technical assistance activities. Sanitary
surveys have improved in number and
quality. The most important result of
this long term development may be in
the way Utah views its state role in the
regulatory process.
When the state program still lacked
large-scale information management and
program evaluation capabilities, there
was often a "we can (and should) do it
all" attitude. This has changed. The
Utah state program now recognizes the
important roles of supplying sate
drinking water played by many different
entities and sees its role more as thai of
a coordinator of cooperative
involvement on the part of utility
operators, local governments, the
educational community, laboratories,
national professional organizations.
equipment manufacturers, and design
and construction engineers.
As new needs anil problems are
identified, slate and federal regulatory
structures responsible tor drinking water
have had to adjust accordingly. For
Utah, this has been a drastic change
from 50 years ago—or less- when the
belief in the purity of mountain springs
dominated the state's approach to water
supply protection to the increasingly
advanced technical and regulatory
approaches of today. Utah, along with
other states, will continue to provide
state programs that, in combination with
federal programs, an; the most effective
means by which public health
protection through improved drinking
water quality can be maintained, n
10
EPA JOURNAL
-------
THE CHALLENGE OF SAFE DRINKING WATER:
Rural America
by Russ Donoghue
While growing up in Western
Colorado in the 1940s, I never
thought of my home town—Collbran,
population 301—as a rural community.
We had our own movie house, a
swimming hole in Buzzard Creek, and a
store where you could buy ice cream.
flannel shirts, Levis, knives, and
strawberry soda pop. The streets were
gravel for the most part, and there
weren't any stop signs. There was a
ditch, my ditch, that ran through town
and provided me with hours of
enjoyment and a drink every now and
then. Not everybody drank from my
ditch because the small ranching town
had a water system: at least water came
out of the kitchen tap. I never knew
•where that tap water came from, and. as
a young boy, 1 never really cared. I
never cared where my ditch water came
from either; it was always running when
I needed it, I liked the ditch water better
than tap water because 1 didn't have to
use it to wash behind rny ears, brush my
teeth, or wash the dishes.
I didn't drink much water in those
days. I preferred strawberry soda pop.
However, water sure did taste good
when I unhooked my grandfather's
desert water bag from his jeep and
tipped it up for what seemed like an
ice-cold drink.
If there was a local health department
in those days, 1 sure didn't know it. Hut,
I was only a seven-year-old boy, and
when I got sick my mother took me to
Dr. Zeigel and then to the store to get
some medicine!, That was my health
department.
Thinking back on my days in
Collbran, 1 remember mom giving me
advice and cautioning me about
swimming under the bridges in Bu//,ard
Creek and drinking water from my
ditch. Her words went something like.
"I don't mind your swimming in the
creek if you won't dive off the rocks and
if you'll take somebody with you." Now
those rules weren't too hard to obey, but
when she said that I couldn't swim
when 1 had cuts or scratches because 1
might get an infection, and that I
couldn't drink out of my ditch, well,
that was almost too much to "swallow".
iufi is (i Training Specialist ivifli
\ulioiHi! Hun;) Water Association.]
Like most boys, I never put two and two
together and figured out that if creek
water could infect a cut. it might do
something worse to my stomach.
My lamily moved to Utah in 1954
and settled in a rather large rural town
of 5.000 people that had a real
swimming pool, well water to drink,
and desert water bags for sale at every
service station. Only 37 miles away was
a little place called Thompson Springs.
Some 30 years later, 1 returned to the
area when the main water line in
Thompson Springs was destroyed by a
flash flood. Fifty residents, a truck stop,
and two state visitor centers were
without water. People hauled water
until service could be restored, and then
the system was placed on a boil order.
As Program Manager of the Utah Rural
Water Association. 1 was there to offer
our technical assistance service and to
encourage the residents not to drink
their ditch water.
The Utah Bureau of Public Water
Supplies and the Rural Water
Association worked together and helped
the town's part-time maintenance man,
Kenny Davis, install an emergency
chlorinator, flush the system, and start a
thorough sampling program. Local
health officials worked hand in hand
with the system in the months that
followed so that the results of the water
tests could be discussed and corrections
made on chlorine feed rates if
necessary.
Kenny, an old friend ol mine, knew
about Collbran. Bnx./ard Creek, ditch
water, ami cool drinks from a water hag.
He also knew other things about
drinking water: proper spring
development, adequate pressure,
operable valves, sufficient storage, and
the need for fire hydrants. He was a
little concerned about disinfecting the
system because he didn't know much
about chlorine and its effects. After
A (filch like tin's • :rs of
•', mcnt am! n drink every nun ni
-•'Jiiif IV/IC-N he ivas
.Unliving up in (.'olonido.
spending time with the health officials
and the Rural Water Circuit Riders, he
soon became comfortable with the
process. They explained to him the
need for a residual in the system, how
to operate the equipment and make
adjustments, and why a sampling
program was necessary.
Kenny is 75 years old and works
part-time because he wants to. He has a
pride in and a sense of worth in his
work that are hard to maintain at times
in rural America. The town will soon
have a new water distribution system,
and, even though trains don't run as
often as they used to run ami the
highway traffic goes by to the south, the
town will once again have quality
drinking water.
Thanks to the Safe Drinking Water
Act, KPA, the state agencies that
administer the program, and other
water-related groups—including the
National Rural Water Association and
its member states people are able to
travel from town to town and state to
state and have some assurance that the
water they drink is being tested and
cared for by trained and competent
people. Rural America, wherever that
might be, is still made up of creeks,
ditches, windmills, and water bags, but
education and a keener awareness of
drinking water can show us a better and
safer way to get a drink, c
SEPTEMBER 1986
•
-------
Wellhead Protection:
A Preventive Approach
by Marian Mlay
One way of protecting drinking
water supplies is to prevent
contaminants from entering them in the
first plat:e. Half of all Americans get
their drinking water from wells. To
them, this means keeping pollutants
from getting into the ground water that
supplies these wells.
People building a house in the
country, for example, are concerned that
their septic tank does not leak into their
drinking water well, or that ol their
neighbors. Similar concerns exist in
regard to larger wells serving up to
hundreds or thousands of people
because of the many man-made
chemicals that can enter and
contaminate ground water. Such
pollution doesn't come just from big
industrial complexes or improperly
managed hazardous waste sites. It
results also from a large number of
common and socially beneficial
practices such as the use of fertilizers
and pesticides, the disposal of human
waste, the storage of gasoline in buried
tanks, or the disposal of used dry
cleaning fluids, all of which (.an
contaminate ground water unless
properly managed,
Preventive actions are necessary to
protect all potable ground water.
Considerable EPA and state attention is
being focused on developing and
implement ing comprehensive
ground-water strategies. These strategies
recognize that the problems of
contamination can become particularly
acute in areas close1 to wells for several
reasons:
• Although ground water moves very
slowly, unless contaminants are quickly
spotted they may move into the areas
immediately adjacent to a well and
make that well unusable unless the
water is extensively treated.
• Most ground water used for drinking
is untreated, There may be chlorination
for microbiological contamination, hut
rarely is there treatment suitable to
eliminate more complex man-made
chemicals.
• It is often difficult to find the party
responsible for the contamination. It is
also very expensive to remove or control
contaminants entering a well or to add
sophisticated drinking water treatment.
Therefore, the owner of the well.
whether a community or an individual
homeowner, is often stuck with the bill.
A number of communities in this
country have begun programs to protect
the ground water entering the wellhead
areas around their wells.
In some Western European countries,
including England, West Germany, and
the Netherlands, protective zones of 300
feet or more guard wells against
microbiological contaminants. Most
countries, however, are increasingly
concerned about man-made chemicals,
which are far more persistent because
they move through ground water for
much longer periods of time before
disintegrating. West Germany, for
example, has a series of zones, the
outermost of which extends a mile from
the well.
An outstanding program in this
country is now in place in Dade County.
FL, where the city of Miami is
totally dependent on a large cluster of
wells for its water supply. The county
protection zones range up to several
miles. A number of activities, including
the transport and handling of hazardous
wastes, the use of septic systems, the
disposal of small business wastes such
as dry cleaning fluids, and the siting of
potentially contaminating activities are
carefully monitored and controlled.
Florida is also embarking on a
state-wide wellhead protection program
for larger public: wells. The state has a
special problem because its ground
water is close to the surface and moves
relatively rapidly.
Smaller communities, too, are taking
major steps to protect their wells.
Several municipalities on Cape Cod, for
example, are protecting {he "zone of
contribution" around their wells.
Federal technical and financial
support for the development of
wellhead protection programs for public
wells is now available as a result of
the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1986. This assistance
includes federal guidance in the
delineation of wellhead areas and
federal grant dollars to states whose
programs are adequate to protect wells
from potentially health-threatening
contaminants.
In many ways this new program is
unique. It does not penalize states if
they do not set up a program (except for
the loss of associated grant dollars), nor
does it call for EPA to carry out the
program in lieu of the states as is
provided for in other EPA statutes. It
allows for maximum flexibility on the
part of the states in the design and
implementation of protection programs.
EPA will not be telling the states what
to do or how to do it, hut will provide
leadership, guidance, and financial
support.
During the coming year, EPA's Office
of Ground-Water Protection will be
grappling with many questions that
need to be answered in the guidance
materials which will be sent to slates:
• What is an adequate program?
• How will EPA exercise its
responsibility to make that
determination?
• How can wells be protected
adequately if they are located in the
middle of town?
• How mucn information i.s needed to
determine the wellhead areas, to
inventory the potential sources of
contamination, and to design
appropriate protection programs?
We will hope to answer these and
other questions with the help of state
and local officials, environmental
advocates, the business and industrial
community, and others interested in
protecting this precious resource: the
nation's ground water, u
EPA JOURNAL
-------
You and Your Drinking Water
An EPA Journal Special Supplement
Drinking Water in America: An Overview
A Decade of Achievement:
Accomplishments Under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1984
What Lies Ahead:
Our Nation's Agenda Under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986
SEPTEMBER 1986
13
-------
Drinking Water in America:
An Overview
"When the well's dry, we know the worth
of water"- Hen Franklin, Poor Hidirirri's Almanac
Safe drinking water is a blessing many
Americans take for gran ted. It's not
hard to see why. What could be easier
than turning on the tap and getting
gallons of drinkable water? But behind
each gallon, behind each drop, is the
unceasing effort of scientists, engineers,
legislators, water plant operators, and
regulatory officials. It is their mission to
keep this precious resource clear, clean,
and—above all—safe.
Our drinking water comes from two
different categories of untreated water.
About half comes from rivers, streams,
and other forms of "surface" water. The
other half comes from reserves of water
hidden beneath the earth in areas
known as "aquifers." Protection of both
surface and ground water is vital if we
are to have drinking water that is not
only safe but plentiful.
Protection at the Source
Concern over the quality of our surface
and ground-water supplies is a function
of geography as well as the effects of
human activity. Water moves
constantly, often passing from areas
benealb the ground to the surface, and
vice versa. The cycles of precipitation
and evaporation continue ceaselessly.
day in and day out.
Various natural processes—physical,
chemical, and biological—occur as
water moves above, on, and below the
earth's surface. These processes all, to a
greater or lesser extent, affect the quality
of our water resources. Exactly what
effect these processes have is
determined by the type and extent of
the contact the water has with rock,
soil, vegetation, and other substances,
both soluble and insoluble.
Several different kinds of
contamination can result from natural
causes. Undissolved material—known as
"suspended matter"—shows up
frequently in untreated water, as do
dissolved minerals and salts, such as
sulfates, chlorides, and nitrates. A
well-known toxic metal, arsenic, occurs
naturally as an impurity in various
minerals and in the ores of certain
commercially mined metals. If
untreated, arsenic can cause liver and
kidney damage when it gets mixed into
drinking water supplies.
Another natural contaminant
controllable with modem technology is
fluoride. This inorganic chemical.
which is the seventeenth most abundant
substance in the earth's crust, can cause
skeletal damage as well as a brownish
discoloration of the teeth known as
"fluorisis." Fortunately, modern
technology is well equipped to manage
fluoride and other forms of natural
drinking water pollutants.
Today's treatment techniques are also
effective against radionuclides.
Radionuclides include naturally
occurring minerals such as radium and
uranium as well as the radioactive gas
known as ration. Radon is a particular
concern at the present time. This
colorless, odorless, tasteless gas poses
unique problems. The gas is a decay
product of uranium deposits located in
various regions of the United States. It
enters American homes dissolved in
drinking water. When that water is
heated or agitated in a shower or
washing machine, it becomes a
breathable drinking water contaminant
that may, in the opinion of scientists,
greatly increase the risk of lung cancer.
EPA is now considering the proposal of
formal controls on radon and uranium.
People, too, can have an adverse
effect on water quality. Human organic
waste has, throughout most of recorded
history, posed the greatest threat to the
safety of drinking water. Typhoid and
cholera epidemics were commonplace
for centuries. Cholera was brought
under control by the early 1870s, but
typhoid was still killing approximately
28,000 Americans a year at the turn of
the century.
Typhoid, cholera, and other
water-borne infectious diseases could
not be fully conquered until U.S.
citizens backed serious efforts to
improve the quality of our nation's
drinking water. Water systems
throughout the U.S. adopted
chlorination and filtration, sometimes
against opposition, and these methods
have been remarkably successful.
Pollutants other than bacteria are
posing new challenges to the guardians
of our drinking water: contaminants
such as viruses, protozoa, and toxic
chemicals. One chlorine-resistant
protozoan, Gkirdiu, has caused 38
outbreaks of gastro-intestinal illness that
have infected 20,000 people since 1972.
Overall, waterborne illnesses afflicted
85,875 Americans from 1971 to 1982.
An analysis of these cases showed
that 49 percent were the result of
treatment deficiencies. Nearly one-third
were found to stem from defective
distribution systems. Surprisingly, these
figures represent a slight increase over
previous years, but most experts
attribute this seeming increase simply to
more active surveillance.
Whatever their cause—or trend—these
figures are clearly justification for
sustained vigilance. This is especially
true in view of the emergence in recent
years of a whole new group of
man-made drinking water contaminants.
Over 60,000 toxic chemicals are now
being used by various segments of U.S.
industry and agriculture. These
substances range from industrial
solvents and pesticides to cleaning
14
LPA JOURNAL
-------
preparations and septic: tank degreasers,
When used or discarded improperly,
these chemicals can pollute ground and
surface waters used as sources of
drinking water.
Subsurface activities can also cause
problems. Mining operations, the
injection of waste chemicals and brines,
and the storage of substances in
underground tanks have all been linked
to the contamination of ground and
surface water.
Not all problems of drinking water
quality originate with the surface or
ground-water supplies. Sometimes
contamination can occur during the
treatment process itself. In other cases,
it can occur in transit from the
treatment plant to your home.
Certain disinfectants used to purify
water can create potentially hazardous
by-products. A good example is
chlorine, which has for many years been
the major disinfectant used at U.S.
drinking water treatment plants. In the
late 1970s, scientists at EPA and in
Europe discovered that chlorine can
react with natural and man-made
chemicals in water to create by-products
known as trihalomethan.es. One of these
by-products—chloroform—has been
proved to cause cancer when
administered in large doses to
laboratory mice. Other disinfectants
have also been found to generate
undesirable by-products.
After purified water leaves treatment
plants, it enters pipes and conduits that
may themselves be defective or
contaminated. Corrosion by-products
from rusting pipes can pollute treated
water. So can bacteria and other
growths. In some of the older eastern
cities, as much as 40 percent of treated
drinking water is lost through these
leaks caused bv corrosion.
In Boston i;
.
leak, ciJ/oiving In-..
and cuntciniiruiiiis In enter.
Contaminants can enter carefully
purified drinking water through these
leaks. Furthermore, water passing
through lead or lead-soldered pipes can
become contaminated with lead, one of
the most harmful of metals.
Protection at the Tap
The Safe Drinking Water Act sets a very
exacting standard for EPA to follow: it
requires the Agency to set primary
drinking water regulations for any
pollutants that "may" have an adverse
effect on human health. In other words,
the intent of the law is preventive as
well as reactive. EPA is responsible not
only for eliminating demonstrated
hazards, but also for preventing
potential adverse health effects.
The Agency is charged with setting
contaminant levels at which "no known
or anticipated adverse effects on the
health of persons occur and which
allows an adequate margin of safety."
But the Safe Drinking Water Act also
specifies that these levels must be
technically "feasible," taking cost into
account— that is, achievable in the real
world of locally operated public: water
systems.
Today, as a result of the Sale Drinking
Water Act of 1974, the standards
governing the treatment of drinking
water in the U.S. are more rigorous and
uniform than they were a decade agi\.
As a matter of fact, drinking water has
reached a level of regulation in the U.S.
stricter than almost any place in the
world. Coming years will make
measures designed to protect our
drinking water even more rigorous, as a
result of the 1986 amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
Before we look more closely at what's
been accomplished in the past decade—
and what lies ahead in the next few
years—let's pause to reflect on the
broader outlines of progress toward
safer drinking water both in the United
States and elsewhere in the world. Q
SEPTEMBER 1986
15
-------
Water, Water Everywhere
•
The human body is mostly water:
55 to 65 percent water for women,
65 to 75 percent water for men.
People can survive without food
for two months or more, but no
one can survive without water for
more than a few clays.
Only one percent of the water on
Karth is fresh and accessible for
human use. The remaining 99
percent is either unusable brine or
ice.
Every day 4.2 trillion gallons of
precipitation fall on the U.S. More
Evaporation
ptic Tank/
Cesspool
Discharge
Injection Well
or Disposal
than half of this huge quantity of
water evaporates: 2800 billion
gallons. A sizable portion—1200
billion gallons—is carried by rivers
and streams across the U.S. border
to Canada or Mexico, or out into
the ocean. About 61 billion gallons
soak into U.S. aquifers.
The U.S. has 2 million miles of
streams and over 30 million acres
of lakes and reservoirs. In
addition, our country has untold
huge reserves of fresh water in
underground aquifers: 50 times
more, in fact, than our supply of
surface water.
Ground water supplies over 100
million people—about 50 percent
of all Americans—with their
drinking water.
The U.S. withdraws about 90
billion gallons of ground water
every day for all uses. This
includes 12 billion gallons per day
for public water supply.
Each day, public water systems
supply every person in the United
States with approximately 160
gallons of clean water.
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Ocean Evaporation
Precipitation vV.-,\
Landfill, Dump or Refuse (file
Pumping a
Well
Sewer Leakage
Percolation
Water Table"
The hydrologic cycle and sources
of ground-water contamination
Water Table Aquifer
———_
Confining Zone
Ground Water Movement
intentional Input
Unintentional Input
Artesian Aquifer (Fresh)
Confining Zone
Artesian Aquifer (Saline)
The world has a vast quantity of
water: 326 trillion gallons. That
amount of water remains constant,
but the various forms it takes are
constantly changing.
The same water recirculates over
and over again: first evaporating,
then condensing, then falling to
the earth again as rain or snow.
This precipitation replenishes
supplies of surface and ground
water. The pull of gravity draws
the water down to coastal areas
and the ocean—where it
evaporates and sets the cycle in
motion once again.
Sources of Drinking Water
Before Treatment
Natural minerals and salts
Decay products of radon, radium, and
uranium
Human and animal organic waste
Defective storage tanks
Leaking hazardous waste landfills,
ponds, and pits
Intrusion of salt water into depleted
aquifers near the seashore
Agricultural run-off [fertilizers,
pesticides, etc.)
Surface run-off {overflowing storm
Contamination
sewers, raimvatc.r from oil-slicked or
salt-treated highways, etc.)
Underground injection of industrial waste
During Treatment
Disinfection by-products
Other additives
After Treatment
Corrosion of piping materials, including
lead and asbestos
Bacteria and dirt from leaking pipes
Cross connections (incorrect pressure
gradients that can suck polluted water
into pipes instead of pushing il out)
SEPTEMBER 1986
17
-------
A Decade of Achievement:
Accomplishments Under the
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
"F^angerous" water According to a
LJ study completed in 1970, that's
what an estimated IMU.OOO Americans
were drinking. According lo the same
study, while 5!) percent ol the U.S.
public was drinking "good" water, an
alarming 41 percent was drinking
"inferior" water. Filly-six percent of
water systems, especially smaller ones,
were not constructed or operating
properly. Seventy-seven percent of
water plant operators lacked sufficient
training in microbiology, and 7'.I percent
of water systems had not been inspected
by federal officials in over two years.
With the exception of limited
regulations governing water supplies
serving interstate carriers, the United
States bad no enforceable national
standards for drinking water. Each state
set its own standards, and these varied
in range and rigor from state to state.
This was the situation in 1972 when
the Clean Water Act became law. The
United States set 1983 as its goal for
ensuring that all surface waler would be
"fishable and swimmable." In 1974,
with passage of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, "drinkable" water joined "i'ishable
and swimmabie" water on the national
agenda. Over the past ten years, the U.S.
government has spent approximately
$42 billion in pursuit of these goals.
Tins first regulations under the Safe
Drinking Water Act took effect in 1977.
Unfortunately, there is no benchmark
data from that year, so it is hard to
quantify the exact impact the law has
had. But it is clear that .substantial
progress has been made over the past
ten vears.
The enforcement universe of the Safe
Drinking Water Act consists of the
58,000 community water supply
systems in the United States thai serve
25 or more people, or have 15 or more
service connections. Also subject to the
Safe Drinking Water Act are
approximately 160,000 non-residential
water suppliers.
Water from both these sources reaches
the drinking glasses of 200 million
Americans—83 percent of the U.S.
population.
Today 87 percent of these 58.000
water systems in the United States are
in compliance with Safe Drinking Water
Act maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs). MCL standards are laid out in
the regulations that EPA has
promulgated over the past decade for 26
important drinking water pollutants:
two microbiological contaminants, four
radionuclides. 10 organic: chemicals,
and 10 inorganic: chemicals.
During the same period, EPA has sot
sodium monitoring and reporting
requirements to deal with the problem
of salt in drinking water, as well as
monitoring and distribution system
composition requirements for corrosion.
Responsibility for enforcing these
standards originally resided with EPA.
But 95 percent of the states have
qualified for what is known as
"primacy" in the enforcement of
EPA-promulgated maximum
contaminant levels. Primacy means
responsibility for enforcing standards at
least as stringent as those set by EPA.
As of August, 1986, only the District of
Columbia and the states of Wyoming
and Indiana do not yet have Safe
Drinking Water Act primacy.
Recent data show that the states arc;
rising to the challenge of their
enforcement responsibilities. In fiscal
year 1985. 72 percent of all public water
systems met EPA's monitoring and
reporting requirements. Approximately
89 percent of all public water systems
met all national microbiological MCL
standards, while nearly 95 percent were
in full compliance with turbidity MCLs.
Fewer than three percent of water
systems were found to be "persistent
violators" of turbidity and
microbiological MCL requirements. A
persistent violator is one who has been
out of compliance with federal
standards for four months or longer
during the year.
EPA does more than simply
promulgate drinking water standards for
states to enforce. The Agency also tries
to help the states become more effective
in exercising primacy. EPA has awarded
grants to many states for the purpose of
improving their testing and analytical
capabilities. In addition, the Agency has
expanded programs to train and certify
water system operators.
EPA has also sponsored research into
many different aspects of drinking water
pollution, including important research
on organic chemicals and radionuclides.
One of the most significant EPA-funded
research initiatives uncovered the
problem of trihalomethane (THM)
contamination. Further EPA action
helped to bring this potentially
dangerous group of chlorination
by-products under control. TlIVls are
now being monitored and regulated by
approximately 93 percent of U.S.
surface water systems.
EPA is also responsible for ensuring
that its own officials and those of states
with "primacy" notify the public in the
event that contaminant levels exceed
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
A ivi:
\ Jius
federal water quality standards. These
notices of violation must explain the
health significance of the violation in
non-technical terms. This important
requirement is a keystone of EFA's
efforts to assure compliance with the
national drinking water regulations and
to protect public health. It also fosters
awareness of the importance of safe
drinking water and encourages the
public to assist in solving water quality
problems, a
Other Laws Protecting
Drinking Water Supplies
• The Clean Water Act
sets water quality standards for all
significant bodies of surface water.
requires sewage treatment, and
limits the amount of industrial
effluents that can be discharged
into the nation's surface waters.
• Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), EPA has developed
"cradle to grave" regulations
governing the generation, storage,
transport, treatment, and disposal
of hazardous wastes. RCRA gives
EPA the power to protect
all sources of ground water from
contamination by hazardous waste.
This law also prohibits pollution
of surface water and air by
hazardous waste sites.
• The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), better known as
"Superfund," is used to clean up
existing hazardous waste sites that
pose a threat to water or other
resources.
• The Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) give El'A the
power to regulate pesticides and
toxic substances that may have an
adverse effect on the environment,
including ground water and other
sources of drinking water.
SEPTEMBER 1986
19
-------
Drinking Water
We have come a long way since the
days when water-borne diseases such as
cholera and typhoid won; deadly killers.
To appreciate what vast progress has
been made toward safer drinking water,
it helps to take a backward glance:
2000 BC: Sanskrit manuscript observes
that "It is good to keep water in copper
vessels, to expose it to sunlight, and
filter it through charcoal."
Circa 400 BC: Hippocrates emphasizes
the importance of water quality to
health and recommends the boiling and
straining of rainwater.
1832 AD: The first municipal water
filtration works open in Paisley,
Scotland.
1849: Dr. John Snow discovers that the
victims of a cholera outbreak in London
have all used water from the same
contaminated well in Broad Street.
1877-1882: Louis Pasteur develops the
theory thai disease is spread by germs.
18H2: Filtration of London drinking
water begins.
1890s: The Lawrence Experiment
Station of the Massachusetts Board of
Health discovers that slow sand
filtration of water reduces the death rate
from typhoid by 7!) percent.
Late 1890s: The Louisville Water
Company innovates by combining
coagulation with rapid sand filtration.
This treatment technique eliminates
turbidity and removes 99 percent of
bacteria from water.
1908: Chlorination is introduced at U.S.
water treatment plants. This
inexpensive treatment method produces
water 10 times purer than filtered water.
In fii
'
1912: Congress passes the Public Health
Service Act, which authorizes surveys
and studies of water pollution,
particularly as it affects human health.
1914: The first standards under the
Public Health Service Act are
promulgated. These introduce the
concept of maximum permissible safe
limits for drinking water contaminants.
The standards, however, apply only to
water supplies serving interstate means
of transportation.
1948: Congress approves a Water
Pollution Control Act. Its provisions,
too, are restricted to water supplies
serving interstate carriers.
1972: The Clean Water Act, a major
amendment to the Federal Water
Pollution Act, contains comprehensive
provisions for restoring and maintaining
all bodies of surface water in the U.S.
1974: The Safe Drinking Water Act is
passed, greatly expanding the scope of
federal responsibility for the safety of
drinking water. Earlier Acts had
confined federal authority to water
supplies serving interstate carriers. The
1974 act extends U.S. standards to all
community water systems with 15 or
more outlets, or 25 or more customers.
1977: The Safe Drinking Water Act is
amended to extend authorization for
technical assistance, information,
training, and grants to the states.
1986: The Safe Drinking Water Act is
further amended. Amendments set
mandatory deadlines for the regulation
of key contaminants; require monitoring
of unregulated contaminants; establish
benchmarks for treatment technologies;
bolster enforcement powers; and
provide major new authorities to
promote protection of ground-water
resources.
'.
1
- '>M
••
n
i
•
!
-
5
-
1
.
*
i
d
yl
-
i
?
r
i
1
f
\
I
«
I •
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
What Happens to Your
Water Before It Comes
Out of the Faucet?
1 EPA and the states work to
protect the quality of ground and
surface water needed to keep the
United States supplied with safe
drinking water.
w.
2 Water is moved from surface and
ground-water sources to storage
areas. Sometimes copper sulfate is
added to control algae growth.
3 Water is strained to remove
debris.
4 Chemicals such as chlorine,
lime, and alum are added to
coagulate particles, disinfect, and
sometimes to soften the water.
5 Water is allowed to sit in
sedimentation basins \vhile solid
particles sink to the bottom.
6 Water then flows through beds of
gravel and sand for final filtering.
7 Chlorine or other disinfectants
are added as a final treatment to
kill bacteria.
8 Water is then tested for purity to
ensure that it does not contain any
quantities of pollutants in excess
of EPA's Maximum Contaminant
Levels.
9 Treated water goes to reservoirs
or holding tanks. In some cases, it
goes directly into the water
system.
10 Drinking water comes gushing
out of the faucet in your kitchen or
bathroom.
Who Keeps Your I]
Local Water Systems:
• Site wells and intakes (pipes
that suck water into drinking water
systems)
• Treat water to meet standards
• Sample water and maintain test
records
• Notify the public if problems
arise
Local Pollution Control Agencies:
• Protect surface water
• Protect ground water from
contamination by controlling
contaminating sources
• Monitor ground water and
detect contaminants
State Drinking Water Programs:
• 95 percent of the states have
primary enforcement
responsibility, obtained by
establishing state drinking water
standards at least as stringent as
the national standards
• Train staff of local water
systems
• Inspect systems and maintain
records
• Take enforcement action against
systems that violate monitoring
and reporting regulations or
drinking water standards
• Regulate underground injection
wells if primacy in that sphere has
been granted by EPA
State Ground-Water Protection
Agencies:
• Develop comprehensive
ground-water protection strategies
• Develop programs and laws to
control contaminating sources and
activities
• Conduct statewide monitoring of
ground water
EPA Drinking Water Program:
• Retains primary enforcement
responsibility in three areas that
have not attained "primacy":
Wyoming, Indiana, and the District
of Columbia.
iking Water Safe?
• Sets primary and secondary
drinking water standards
• Establishes monitoring and
reporting requirements
• Provides funds and technical
assistance to the states, including
Health Advisories on unregulated
contaminants: steps in to help
during emergencies
• Sets rules for operation of
underground injection wells
• Conducts research
EPA Ground-Water Protection
Program:
• Manages EPA Ground-Water
Protection Strategy
• Assists states in developing
comprehensive programs
• Focuses EPA programs on
ground water
• Administers wellhead protection
and sole-source aquifer protection
programs
You, the Citizen:
• Have the right to know who is
supplying your water, where it
comes from, how it is treated, how
it is tested, and what its quality
level actually is
• When necessary, lend political
and financial support to efforts to
improve the quality of drinking
water
• Should follow results ot
drinking water tests in your area:
attend public hearings; and keep
track of other developments
relating to the quality of your
drinking water
• Should exercise your right to
bring civil suits when your local
water system, your state, or your
federal officials fail to do their job
• Should be aware of potential
sources of ground and surface
contamination; also, support
efforts aimed at protecting these
vital resources
SEPTEMBER 1986
21
-------
SBwIW^ASt
EPA JOURNAL
-------
What Lies Ahead:
Our Nation's Agenda Under
the Safe Drinking Water Act
of 1986
Et's do more to protect the quality of
our drinking water, and let's do it
faster: that's the message of the new
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act. Signed into law in June 1986, these
amendments change and strengthen the
Safe Drinking Water Act in many
important ways.
Protecting Drinking Water
Quality
Accelerated regulation of contaminants
is probably the singje most important
provision of the new law. During the
first 12 years of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, EPA developed final Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for 26
contaminants. Under the new
amendments, the Agency must speed up
its regulatory efforts. EPA has until 1989
to issue MCLs for 83 contaminants, and
until 1991 to issue MCLs for 25 more.
It should be emphasized that tin;
target of 83 includes the 26
contaminants already subject to
enforceable Maxniinuim Contaminant
Levels. For 4,'i of those, EPA has already
proposed Recommended Maximum
Contaminant Levels (Health Goals). The
Agency has also proposed MCLs for
eight volatile organic; chemicals.
Having more contaminants to regulate
will put a premium on effective
enforcement. Under the new
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act, EPA will he better able to take
enforcement action against violators.
Stiffer penalties against violators will
give greater weight to these enforcement
actions when they occur. The net effect
of these and other provisions of the new
amendments should be safer drinking
water for all Americans.
But even with this bead start, EPA
will need a major increase in funding to
meet its heavy new workload. In fiscal
year 1986, $63.59 million was
appropriated to implement the Safe
Drinking Water Act. For fiscal year
1987, the Reagan Administration will
make a much higher authorization
request: approximately $170 million.
Increased funding will go farther with
a slightly streamlined process for
promulgating Maximum Contaminant
Levels. The amended Safe Drinking
Water Act enables EPA to eliminate one
stage in the process required by the old
law. Under the old law, EPA issued
Recommended Maximum Contaminant
Levels (RMCLs) prior to promulgating
final MCLs. From now on, EPA will
propose Maximum Contaminant Level
Goals (MCLGs)—the new term for the
old RMCLs—at the same time MCLs are
set. This will make it somewhat easier
for EPA to issue regulations, from a
procedural standpoint. But all of the
same technical assessments will still
need to be done—with less time to do
them.
Moreover, enforcing all these new
MCLs—plus the old ones—will be both
difficult and expensive. In most cases
(95 percent), the states have primary
responsibility for enforcement. Many
states will find their resources strained
once the number of regulated drinking
water contaminants more than triples.
Local water systems will have to
scramble to monitor and control all of
these newly regulated contaminants.
Simply finding laboratory facilities
adequate to handle increasingly
sophisticated and numerous procedures
will be difficult. Drinking water systems
will also face another burden:
mandatory monitoring of unregulated
contaminants at least once every live
years.
The added cost of all this extra work
will, most likely, be passed along to
American consumers, who currently
enjoy much cheaper water than their
neighbors in Europe and eastern Asia.
Under the revised Safe Drinking
Water Act, it will be easier for EPA to
ensure that the states take enforcement
action swiftly and effectively. The new
law gives the Agency added authority to
take action against public water systems
found to be in violation of SDWA
standards. EPA can also impose heavier
fines on violators.
Effective enforcement is vital to the
success of the amended Safe Drinking
:
u'Jol
; hr
n dir
evulu don
SEPTEMBER 1986
23
-------
al leijniiriiiii Ami-
• inlinll ti
• ills (c,
thol
ters
Water Act. At present, small water
systems pose the greatest challenge.
Lack of resources and expertise often
impede small systems in their efforts to
meet federally mandated drinking water
standards. To alleviate such problems,
EPA will provide technical assistance to
such systems over the next three years.
Even large systems will have trouble
meeting some of the requirements of the
revised Safe Drinking Water Act. For
example, one amendment mandates that
granular activated carbon filtration—a
highly regarded but also expensive
technology—should be considered to be
the best available technology for
controlling synthetic organic chemicals.
Two other technological provisions of
the amended law will also force water
systems, both large and small, to invest
in new equipment. One of
these—designed as a safeguard against
Giardia and other forms of
contamination—requires filtration of
surface supplies of drinking water that
are not otherwise adequately protected
against contamination. The other
mandates the disinfection of all
drinking water supplies: a practice long
under way in large communities but not
in many small ones.
Several other key provisions of the
amended Safe Drinking Water Act
include:
• An immediate ban on all future use of
lead pipe and lead solder. Lead
contamination of drinking water has
been a source of growing concern in the
United States. It is hoped that a ban on
future use of lead pipe and lead solder
will help to reduce the risk of lead
poisoning in the years ahead.
• A requirement for EPA to evaluate
methods of monitoring Class I
(industrial and municipal disposal)
underground injection wells. Rules for
the monitoring of these deep man-made
wells already exist, but Congress has
asked EPA to investigate the best
methods of performing required
monitoring.
• The stipulation that EPA may now
deal with Indian reservations as
sovereign entities in all matters
pertaining to drinking water and ground
water. In the past, EPA has safeguarded
the quality of drinking water on Indian
reservations. Now, if Indian tribes can
meet the same criteria as states that
have attained "primacy," they too can
exercise primary authority in this
sphere. If primacy is granted, EPA will
provide grant money to qualified tribes.
The Agency will also distribute
development grants to tribes seeking to
attain primacy.
24
In a major initiative unrelated to
passage of the 1986 Safe Drinking Water
Act amendments, EPA is also
considering whether to undertake the
regulation of the 20,000 non-community
water systems supplied with water from
private sources. These systems provide
the drinking water for public places,
such as schools, offices, and factories.
Such facilities are already subject to
Safe Drinking Water Act standards in
areas where drinking water is drawn
from public water supplies.
Protecting Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water, which supplies half of
U.S. drinking water, will get its own
special protection under the new Safe
Drinking Water Act. Our dependence on
this source of water is growing greater
by the day. Two provisions of the new
Safe Drinking Water Act are specifically
designed to protect ground water:
• States are to develop programs fur
preventing contamination of surface and
subsurface areas around public water
wells.
EPA will cover from 50 to 90 percent
of the cost of these "wellhead
protection" programs, including
determining the area to be protected,
inventorying sources of contamination.
and designing protection programs.
• EPA will administer a grant program
to demonstrate innovative methods of
protecting the critical aquifer areas of
designated sole-source aquifers. These
are areas in which ground water is the
sole or principal source of drinking
water for a large population and the
ground water is particularly vulnerable
to contamination. Support will go to
states or local agencies for this effort.
which will highlight both technical and
institutional means of protecting
sole-source aquifers.
EPA will implement the new
ground-water provisions of the SDWA
as part of its Ground-Water Protection
Strategy. This strategy, developed in
1984, calls for better coordination of all
federal and state efforts aimed at the
protection of ground water. Specific
goals of the strategy are to:
• Build and enhance state ground-water
protection strategies and programs.
• Expand controls over currently
uncontrolled sources of contamination.
• Achieve greater consistency in
ground-water protection and cleanup.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
ivuti.T of the future':' .At Si
Aquaculture /'hint. ivater
hvui.inths pull nutrients from scu
tvhirh f'lmrs (/imiigh ponds hundreds oj
fee* long (foreground). In closeup,
Yvonne Hefl.L'. (if till! S
-------
Regulated Contaminants
and Their Health Effects
Drinking water regulations fall into
two basic categories: primary and
secondary.
Primary regulations determine
how clean drinking water must be
to protect public health.
Enforceable primary regulations
are known as Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs). These
must be set as close to generally
more stringent Recommended
Maximum Contaminant Levels
(KMCLs) as is "feasible." Feasible
means consistent "with the use of
the best technology, treatment
techniques and other means,
which (he Administrator (of EPA)
finds . . . are! available; (taking cost
into consideration)."
To retain "primacy," states must
adopt laws that are at least as strict
as EPA's primary drinking water
regulations, '['hey also must meet
certain reporting and monitoring
requirements.
In addition to interim Maximum
Contaminant Levels, most of the
contaminants listed below have a
proposed Recommended
Maximum Contaminant Level
(RMCL). One of them, fluoride, has
a final RMCL.
What is an RMCL? An RMCL is
an ideal health goal, which is not
enforceable;. As a result of the 1986
amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act, they will be known
hene:eforward as Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs).
Here! we will refer to them by their
old name: RMCLs.
RMCLs have been proposed at
levels that, in the opinion of EPA,
present no known or anticipated
health effect with a margin of
safety. They set goals for
contamination compatible with
virtually zero risk of cancer and
and other major illness. The
purpose of Recommended
MCLs—like that of the new MCL
Goals—is to serve as targets for the
revision of interim MCLs, the
enforceable drinking water
standards. "Health Goals," whether
RMCLs or MCLGs, are set without
regard to technical feasibility or
cost.
Secondary drinking water
regulations are not health-related.
They are intended to protect
"public welfare" by offering
unenforceable guidelines on the
taste, odor, or color of drinking
water, as well as certain other
non-aesthetic effects. Water
systems are not required to comply
with secondary standards. EPA
recommends them to the states as
reasonable goals for the aesthetics
of drinking water.
EPA also issues guidance
documents called Health
Advisories, which assist the states
in the implementation of their
drinking water programs by
identifying potentially hazardous
contaminants and their health
effects, along with available
analytical measurement techniques
and technologies for controlling
the contaminants.
Primary Regulations
Over the past 10 years, EPA has
set interim Maximum Contaminant
Levels for 26 drinking water
contaminants. These MCLs are
called "interim," because the 1974
Safe Drinking Water Act stipulated
that EPA was to issue its MCLs on
an interim basis and then
periodically to revise them. Thus
far, only the MCL for fluoride has
been issued in final revised form.
Listed below, with their health
effects, are the 25 drinking water
contaminants with interim
Maximum Contaminant Levels,
plus the twenty-sixth regulated
contaminant, fluoride, which is the
only one thus far that has a final
revised Maximum Contaminant
Level. The contaminants are
divided by category.
Also listed here are two other
drinking water regulations
promulgated by EPA since 1974:
one governing the monitoring and
reporting of sodium; the other
establishing rules for monitoring
distribution systems to see if they
are corroded or have other
problems.
Under the heading "Proposed
Regulations," you will find a
complete list of Maximum
Contaminant Levels and
Recommended Maximum
Contaminant Levels that were
proposed by EPA prior to the
passage of the 1986 Safe Drinking
Water Act amendments.
• iia lumblia rvsls fckrn from a
human I hose; found
in contaminated n •:
26
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Existing Standards
MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS
Microbiological organisms were the first drinking water
contaminants to arouse concern. The first federal standards to
control these "microbials" date back to 1914. Cholera has been
under control in this country since the 1870s, and typhoid since
about 1910. Two types of microbial-related contaminants are now
subject to regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Interim Maximum
Contaminant Levels in
Force: Principal Health Effects:
Total Coliforms
(Coliform bacteria, fecal Although not necessarily in
coliform, streptococcal, themselves disease-producing
and other bacteria) organisms, coliforms can be
indicators of organisms that cause
assorted gastro-enteric infections,
dysentery, hepatitis, typhoid fever.
cholera, and other diseases of
surface water; also interferes with
the disinfection process
INORGANIC CHEMICALS
Most inorganic chemicals, such as arsenic and fluoride, are
present naturally in water from geological sources. Others, such as
lead, enter the water as the result of human intervention.
Interim MCLs In Force For: Principal Health Effects:
Dermal and nervous system toxicity
effects
Circulatory system effects
Kidney effects
Liver/kidney effects
Central and peripheral nervous
system damage; kidney effects;
highly toxic to infants and pregnant
women
Central nervous system disorders;
kidney effects
Methemoglobinemia
("Blue-Baby Syndrome")
Gastro-intestinal effects
Skin discoloration (Argyria)
Principal Health Effects:
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate and Nitrite
Selenium
Silver
Final Revised MCL
In Force For:
Fluoride
Skeletal damage
()R(i \\K. CHEMICALS
The organic chemicals listed here—except trihalomethanes, a
chlorination by-product—fall into two main categories: synthetic
organic chemicals (SOCs) and volatile synthetic organic chemicals
(VOCs). In scientific terms, "volatile" means capable of being
readily vaporized, evaporating readily at normal temperatures.
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
SOCs are synthetic organic compounds used in the manufacture
of a wide variety of agricultural and industrial products. The
best-known SOCs are pesticides and herbicides.
Interim MCLs In Force For: Principal Health Effects;
Endrin Nervous system/kidney effects
Lindane Nervous system/liver effects
Methoxychlor Nervous system/kidney effects
2,4-D Liver/kidney Effects
2,4,5-TP Silvex Liver/kidney effects
Toxaphene Cancer risk
Volatile Organic Chemicals
VOCs are a broad class of synthetic chemicals used commercially
as degreasing agents, paint thinners, varnishes, glues, dyes, and
pesticides. They are most commonly used in urban industrial
areas, where they can contaminate ground water if improperly
disposed.
No interim MCLs are yet in force for VOCs, but RMCLS (now
known as MCL Goals) have been promulgated, and MCLs have
been proposed.
Other Organics (Disinfection By-Producls):
Interim MCLs In Force For: Principal Health Effects
4 Types of
Trihalomethanes
Cancer risk
RADIONUCLIDES
Radionuclides are radioactive compounds sometimes found in
drinking water. Radionuclides get into drinking water drawn from
ground-water wells. On occasion, these wells can become
contaminated by uranium and radon deposits that occur naturally
in the soil of various regions. In a few cases, man-made
radionuclides—from radioactive waste—can be the source of
contamination. Like other drinking water contaminants.
radionuclides pose a threat to human health when ingested.
Interim MCLs
In Force For:
Principal Health Effects:
Gross alpha particle
activity
Beta particle and photon
radioactivity from
man-made radionuclides
Radium-226
Radium-228
Cancer
Cancer
Bone cancer
Bone cancer
Monitoring Regulations
In Force For;
MISCELLANEOUS
Health Effects:
Sodium monitoring and
reporting
Monitoring of distribution
systems for corrosion and
other problems
Hypertension
Lead poisoning and oilier problems
SECONDARY
Non-enforceable secondary standards exist for the following:
Contaminant: Effects:
pH Water should not be too acidic or
too basic; must fall between li.ii and
8.5 on the pH si air
Chloride
Copper
Foaming agents
Sul fate
Total dissolved solids
(Hardness)
Zinc
Fluoride
Color
Corrosivity
Iron
Manganese
Odor
Taste; corrosion of pipes
Taste; staining of porcelain
Aesthetic
Taste and laxative effects
Taste; possible relation between low
hardness HIU! cardiovascular
disease; Also an indicator of
corrosivitv (Lead problems); can
damage plumbing and limit
effectiveness ot soups and
detergents
Taste
Denial fluorosis (A brownish
discoloration of the teeth)
Aesthetic; consumers turn Us
alternative supplies
Aesthetic; also health related
Taste
Taste
Aesthetic
SEPTEMBER 1986
27
-------
Proposed Standards
EPA already has a head start on many of the regulatory tasks
mandated in the 1986 amendments to the; Safe Drinking Water
Act.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCl.s) and Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (.VICLC.s. formerly known as
Recommended Maximum Contaminant Levels—or RMCLs) have
been proposed for a whole range of drinking water contaminants.
MCLGs, like KMCLs before them, are to be set at a level at
which, in the judgment of the EPA Administrator, "no known or
anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and
which allows an adequate margin of safety." MCLGs and RMCLs
are known as "Health Goals" both because they are unenforceable
and because they do not take feasibility factors, such as cost and
available technology, into account.
MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS
RMCLs Proposed: Principal Health Effects:
Giardia larnblia
Viruses
K.MCLs Proposed:
Gastro-enteric disease [Giardiasis;
sometimes known as "Backpacker's
Disease")
Gastro-enteric and other disease
INORGANIC CHEMICALS
Principal Health Effects:
Arsenic
Asbestos
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nitrate
Nitrite
Selenium
Dermal and nervous system toxicity
effects
Possible cancer
Circulatory system effects
Kidney effects
Liver and kidney disorders
Castro-intestinal disturbances
Central and peripheral nervous
system damage; kidney effects;
highly toxic to infants and pregnant
women
Methemoglobinemia ("Blue Baby
Syndrome")
Methemoglobinemia ("Blue Baby
Syndrome")
Selenosis (Liver damage from very
high doses; other effects from lower
doses)
ORGANIC CHEMICALS
Volatile Organic: Chemicals
MCLs Proposed For: Principal Health Effects:
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
p-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Cancer
Possible cancer
Possible cancer
Possible cancer
Liver/Kidney effects
Nervous system effects
Possible cancer
Cancer
RMCLs Proposed:
Principal Health Effects
Chlorobenzene
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Cis-1,2-dichIoroethylene
Final RMCLs In Place For:
Nervous system/liver effects
Liver/kidney effects
Liver/kidney effects
Principal Health Effects:
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
Cancer
Possible cancer
Liver/kidney effects
Possible cancer
Possible cancer
Nervous system effects
Cancer
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
RMCLs Proposed For: Principal Health Effects:
Acrylamide
Alachlor
Aldicarb, aldicarb
sulfoxide, and aldicarb
sulfone
Chlordane
Carbofuran
Dibromochloropropane
(DBCP)
1,2-Dichloropropane
Epichlorohydrin
Ethyl benzene
Heptachlor
Heptachlorepoxide
Pontachlorophenol
Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs)
Styrene
Toluene
Xvlene
Possible cancer
Possible cancer
Nervous system effects
Possible cancer
Nervous system effects
Possible cancer
Liver/kidney Effects
Possible cancer
Liver/kidney effects
Possible cancer
Possible cancer
Liver/kidney effects
Possible cancer
Liver effects
Nervous system/liver effects
Nervous system effects
RADIONUCLIDES
EPA is now considering proposal of a Maximum Contaminant
Level for the most significant of all the radionuclides linked to the
contamination of drinking water: radon.
This colorless, odorless, tasteless gas occurs naturally in several
types of rock and soil found in certain parts of the U.S. These can
contaminate adjacent ground water with radon. Wells pump this
radon-laden water into homes. When it is heated or agitated by
showers or washing machines, this dissolved gas can be released
into the air.
This presents a health problem, especially in air-tight dwellings,
because the inhalation of radon gas may greatly increase the risk
of lung cancer. Thus, radon is a drinking water contaminant that
is dangerous not when drunk, but when breathed. And
preliminary health data suggest that it may be one of the most
harmful to human health.
A Maximum Contaminant Level for uranium is also under
consideration.
Also on EPA's agenda is revision of its existing interim MCLs
for other radionuclides, including radium-226 and radium-228.
All of EPA's interim MCLs for other categories of contaminants
will be subjected to a similar process of review and updating.
28
EPA JOURNAL
-------
A Strategy to Reduce
Pollution from Ozone
by Lee M. Thomas
Ozone levels continue to be a serious
problem in many parts of our country
where efforts to reach safe levels are far
from our goals. Many major urban areas
such as California, (he Xortheasl, the
Texas Gulf Coast, and the Chicago area
have made progress over the last
several years in reducing oxone
concentrations, but still exceed the
Ciean Air Act standard of 0.12 parts per
million of air designed to protect
human health.
The most recent air qualify data
indicate that more them .'JO percent of
the American population Jive in areas
where they are potentially exposed to
peak ozone concentrations above the
level of the standard.
EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas
made a speech on the subject at the Air
Pollution Control Association
convention in Minneapolis, MX. on
June 23. Excerpts from his remarks
follow:
A number of areas across the country
still have not met the ozone
standard. Some should make it by the
deadline. Others will not make it no
matter how hard they try. The Clean Air
Act provides us with little guidance on
how to address chronic nonattainment
problems after the December 31, 1987
deadline. In short, ozone presents us
with two monumental challenges: how
do we protect the public health, and
how do we effectively administer the
Clean Air Act beginning in 1988?
We have regulated almost all the
major sources of hydrocarbons, and
we've spent a lot of money doing it. Our
efforts clearly have improved air
quality, especially in those areas with
the highest ozone concentrations. The
number of ozone nonattainment areas
has declined by about 15 percent since
1980. On a national basis, ozone air
quality has improved about 10 percent.
The health risks for millions of
Americans have been reduced
significantly.
This progress did not come easily or
cheaply. Sources in the automobile and
petroleum industries, sources that apply
surface coatings to cans and metal
furniture, and sources involved in
graphic arts—to name a few—have had
to spend millions of dollars so we could
improve air quality.
Yet today more than one-third of the
American people live in ozone
nonattainment areas. If those areas are
Today more than one-third of
the American people live in
ozone nonattainment areas.
to reach attainment, and if current
attainment areas are going to stay that
way in the face of economic growth,
then we will have to search for
additional emissions reductions from
smaller sources that play an even bigger
role in our everyday lives. The cost is
bound to go up, since the cheapest,
most obvious targets have already been
regulated. Cities not in attainment are
going to have to work that much harder,
cut that much deeper, if they hope to
reduce ozone concentrations to the
extent required by law. We also know
much more today about ozone's health
effects than we knew in 1980.
Everything we've learned gives us more
impetus to control.
Two months ago the Clean
Air Scientific Advisory
Committee concluded that the current
short-term health standard had little or
no margin of safety, and that more
lasting health effects might result from
long-term exposure. And loosening of
the standard now is quite unlikely.
Another disturbing consequence of
nonattainment is its effect on human
welfare. Studies have confirmed that
ozone can significantly decrease the
yield of important agricultural crops,
cause severe damage to some trees in
the West, and is potentially playing a
role in forest decline in the East.
The need to act is compelling, but the
way is not at all clear. EPA prefers to
follow a risk-based management
approach in designing a control strategy.
We balance the benefits of control
against the costs. The Clean Air Act
does not allow this approach in the case
of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. They are set strictly on the
basis of health and welfare effects.
Deadlines are set, and states and
communities are charged with attaining
the standards by the deadline. Our
regulatory options to address chronic;
nonattainment after 1987 are somewhat
limited.
Given the complexity of this problem
and the lack of legislative guidance,
EPA could delay implementation of now
control strategies and let Congress
clarify the situation. Congress certainly
has a strong interest in any strategy that
shapes the implementation of the Clean
Air Act after the 1987 deadline. We are
bringing the problem to the attention of
Congress, and we want to work closely
with the Congressional committees. But
EPA can't afford to delay developing a
strategy for post-1987 attainment. States
and communities need to make
decisions now about what to do about
their ozone problems. From a health
perspective, there is an even more
compelling reason to act. If we reduce
ozone concentrations incrementally, we
will reduce the risk to human health
incrementally, even when the standard
is not attained.
We can't afford to do everything, and
we can't afford to do nothing. So we
articulated the goals that we thought our
ozone strategy should strive for:
• Be consistent with the spirit of the
Clean Air Act.
SEPTEMBER 1986
29
-------
• Reduce o/.one concentrations to better
protect human health.
• Strengthen federal, state, and local
ozone control programs.
• Build cooperation among all levels of
government, especially since ozone is
transported across jurisdictional lines.
• Treat all parties fairly.
• Encourage states to fulfill their
obligations to plan and implement
controls, but don't be punitive.
• Avoid unnecessary economic
disruption.
Although we are still most willing to
consider any good idea, I am presently
inclined toward four specific: actions.
First, we can improve the
effectiveness of our existing regulations
and programs. Existing regulations have
not been implemented or enforcecd
consistently across the country. Their
effectiveness has been uneven, and their
overall impact weakened. We can
strengthen what's already on the hooks
by expanding our monitoring networks
and tightening compliance procedures.
Vigorous enforcement of our standards
for new motor vehicles will bring
significant decreases in hydrocarbon
emissions. Further gains can be
achieved through improved Inspection
and Maintenance (I/M) enforcement and
better tracking of emissions reductions
from stationary sources. We can provide
state; air agencies with training and
technical support needed to carry out
permitting, source inspections, and
enforcement actions.
Second, we are evaluating a
number of possible new control
measures or policy changes to
determine which could be included in
our ozone strategy and for which areas.
The most likely candidate is control of
gasoline refueling through on-board
controls (a vapor collection on board the
auto) and/or Stage; II (vapor control at
the gas pump). We are also actively
considering controls on gasoline
volatility. Other measures to be
evaluated include tighter light-duty
truck hydrocarbon standards, enhanced
I/M programs, and the control of
stationary source categories like
architectural coatings, auto body
refinishing, wood burning refinisbing,
and metal rolling. We'll also look at
procedural charges in Reasonably
Available Control TechnoIgy (RACT)
determinations, new source review, and
other air quality management policies.
Third, we could require states to
demonstrate attainment within some
specified time frame, say three years,
For the worst areas, EPA could begin by
making State Implementation Flan (SIP)
calls in the spring of 1987. Additional
nonattainment areas would receive calls
based on an analysis of their 1987 or
1988 ozone data. Within one year of
receiving SIP calls, states would be
required to develop plans that attempt
to demonstrate how they would achieve
attainment within the three-year time
frame.
pump,
{.'mil." • iUi/<7 help
'ittry rf
-------
Opening Doors for
Minorities at EPA
by Margherita Pryor
As an organization devoted to
environmental protection, EPA is
accustomed to dealing in the long term.
Not only must the Agency handle
current problems that will continue for
long periods; it must also try to predict
future problems in hopes of preventing
them.
That's difficult enough. But how do
you figure out now what kind of people
you may need down the line to solve
those future problems? And, once that is
decided, how do you ensure those
people are available? And that they
truly represent a cross section of the
nation's population?
EPA is working on that.
One example is the Agency's
commitment to increasing the number
of minority employees in higher-grade
positions. Despite recent gains,
minorities historically have been
severely underrepresented in the
scientific and technical fields. Rather
than wait for time to correct this
situation, EPA is taking a sort of "back
to the future" recruitment strategy.
Simple mathematics suggests that the
more minority students enrolled in
science and engineering courses, the
more minority professionals will be
available to work for EPA. So EPA is
encouraging young people to enter these
fields now, trying to catch them before
they dismiss the possibility of
technological careers.
To carry out this strategy, the Agency
has three key programs: the Faculty
Intern Program; the Minority Fellows
Program; and the Minority Apprentice
Program. Each rests on the premise that
direct experience will encourage kids to
choose environmental careers.
The Faculty Intern Program is EPA's
newest effort. Begun last year with only
two professors, the program this year
selected 17 faculty members from 15
predominantly minority institutions to
work in five EPA facilities. In addition
to the opportunity to work with
state-of-the-art equipment in their
professional specialties, they also had
the chance to become familiar with the
(J'ryor i.s Contributing
Journal.]
SEPTEMBER 1986
Agency's scientific and administrative
requirements and staffing needs. With
this first-hand knowledge of Agency
operations, EPA expects that faculty
members will be able to develop
curricula in their schools that reflect
some of EPA's needs, keep abreast of
current environmental concerns and
developments, encourage environmental
interests in their students, and establish
a tradition of employee referrals. In
short, their mission is to replace the
"old-boy" network with a "new-boy"
(and girl) network.
The Minority Fellows Program is a
little older. By Executive Odor, EPA
and 26 other federal agencies were
directed to increase their involvement
with a group of institutions known as
Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs). Since 1982, the
Research Grants Program in the Office
of Research and Development has
awarded 30-40 fellowships each year to
college seniors and graduate students
enrolled in environmental fields. All the
Fellows are screened for high academic
standing and interest in environmental
careers; this summer, 11 outstanding
Fellows were also given the chance to
work as summer interns in EPA
laboratories and private facilities.
.At I: serin.!: l-ih in (iul
FJ.. JJnrvi Moo
L'luipmmi I'.vHiii.'i'
nuJiiiiili.1 in
riivironmf.'jii;' : .'(implon
(nstitul
:;iinvs I'r.
The third element of EPA's strategy is
also the oldest. The Minority
Apprentice Program grew out of a 1979
initiative to stimulate interest in science
and engineering among minority
students. But it's unique in that it is
geared to students as young as
sophomores in high school. The students
are paired with "mentors"—EPA
professionals who volunteer to work
with students on substantive
projects—and exposed to a variety of
scientific and engineering approaches to
environmental protection, research, and
development.
Clarence demons, manager of the
program at EPA's Environmental
Research Center in Cincinnati, claims
that "These young people really make a
contribution."
The program has been a great success.
according to demons, because the
students are screened to ensure the
selection of only highly motivated.
science-oriented kids. "One of our
problems has been getting kids before
they make choices. We hope we're
giving them that encouragement. And
80 percent of the kids have been truly
outstanding. Probably 98 percent of
them go on to college, and they still
maintain their interest in the
environment. One of our first students
was just graduated from tiie Air Force
Academy, and another one was
graduated from one of the other service
academies. Lisa Ford, another one of
our students, is now at Case Western
Reserve University preparing to go on to
medical school."
Is this effort in long-term people
planning paying off?
"Yes. We are johnny-come-lately, but
we are picking up momentum very
fast," says EPA Civil Rights Director Nat
Scurry. "With our Faculty Intern
Program, just this year alone we're
reaching 50,000 students that we would
not otherwise roach; we are involving
15 universities with EPA and its
mission that might not Otherwise be
involved. That's good. But not as good
as we can be;. The real kicker is whether
we can sustain the momentum. Next
summer, we have set a goal to employ at
least one intern in each ol KPA's 11)
Regions, 3 major laboratories, and 12
Headquarters' organizations. This would
allow us to almost double the number of
professors in the program, reach
indirectly close to 100,000 minority and
women students, and expand the
number of universities involved with
EPA by two-fold. We're getting on with
it. We can do it." a
31
-------
Appointments
Gerald Harwood has been appointed to
the position of Chief Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ).
Judge Harwood has been an ALJ with
EPA for nearly 10 years. Prior to joining
EPA, lie served as Assistant General
Counsel for Litigation and
Environmental Policy with the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC). Judge
Harwood joined the FTC as a trial
attorney in 1956.
A native of New York, N Y,
Judge Harwood received a B.A. from
Yale University and an LL.B. from
Harvard University in 1948.
Long has served as Director of the
State Department's Office of Food and
Natural Resources in its Bureau of
Oceans and international Environmental
and Scientific Affairs since 1979, and
before that was Deputy Director of
Environmental Affairs. He has held
positions at the College of William and
Mary, the Smithsonian Institution, the
National Council on Marine Resources
and Engineering Development in the
Executive Office of the President, the
President's Council on Environmental
Quality, and the Agency for
International Development.
William I,. Long has been named as
KPA's new Deputy Associate
Administrator for International
Activities.
Chuck Elkins, Special Assistant and
former Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, will become the
new Director of the Office of Toxic
Substances.
Elkins was one of the persons
responsible for the creation of EPA.
Prior to joining EPA he was budget
examiner for environmental health
programs at the Bureau of the Budget.
He later served as principal deputy to
the Assistant Administrator for
Hazardous Materials Control in EPA,
and helped create the Office of Toxic
Substances. Since 1983, he has held
various policy positions in the air
pollution program. He was a key figure
in the development of the Air Toxics
Strategy.
Elkins graduated cum laude from Yale
University with a H.A. and received a
law degree from Yale Law School.
William M. Henderson, Director of the
Resource Management Division in the
Office of the Comptroller, has been
selected as the new Associate
Comptroller.
Henderson has held key positions
throughout the federal government.
From 1971 to 1979 he held
positions in the areas ot banking, debt
financing, and cash management at the
Department of Treasury. From 1979 to
1983 he served at the Office of
Management and Budget, Executive
Office of the President as Deputy
Director of the Debt Collection Staff and
Director of the Cash Management Staff.
From 1983 to the present he has worked
at EPA in the Office of the Comptroller,
where he was responsible for overseeing
the Agency's internal control programs
under the Federal Manager's Financial
Integrity Act. a
32
EPA JOURNAL
-------
A young possum on
-------
f
United States
Environmental Protection
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use S300
Third-Class Bulk
Postage and Fees Pai
EPA
Permit No. G-35
------- |