|
 |
|
Public Meeting
on Variances and Exemptions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
September 16, 1997
Loew's L'Enfant Plaza Hotel
Washington, DC
Under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
EPA is required to promulgate regulations with respect to variances and
exemptions. To meet this requirement, EPA has established an inter-office
team led by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
and assisted by the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW).
A public meeting was held on September 16, 1997 at Loew's L'Enfant Plaza
Hotel so that EPA may solicit input from stakeholders to inform its rulemaking
effort.
John Lyon of OECA opened the meeting by welcoming the attendees,
and stated that the purpose of the meeting is to solicit input from stakeholders
that will help inform EPA's rulemaking effort. He then introduced to all
attendees the EPA inter-office team currently drafting these regulations.
Ian Kline of the Cadmus Group facilitated the meeting.
Peter Shanaghan of OGWDW presented to the attendees an overview of
the variance and exemption provisions of the 1996 SDWA amendments. The
overview included a discussion of the differences between variances and
exemptions, how these provisions have changed under the recent SDWA amendments,
and the new role of affordability in implementing these provisions. He
then presented the attendees with several key questions regarding the
content of EPA regulations on small systems variances and exemptions.
-
- I.
- As shown below, EPA posed five major questions to the attendees. Each
question included a subset of more specific questions to help focus
discussion.
- 1) What is a public water system's role in obtaining a Small
System Variance?
- - How much information (and with what level of detail) should
a public water system be expected to assemble in applying for a variance?
- - What type of analysis, if any, should the public water system
be expected to supply in its variance application?
- 2) What is a State's role in granting a Small System Variance?
- - How should the state use its affordability criteria and the
variance application to consider whether alternative treatment techniques,
development of alternative sources, or restructuring/consolidation are
affordable and practicable for the variance applicant?
- 3) What is the Public's role in the proposed granting of a
Small System Variance?
- - How, and at what time should the public be notified of a proposed
Small System Variance?
- - Should the State respond to significant public comment on the
proposed variance?
- - What types of information should be included in a petition to
EPA by consumers of the public water system?
- 4) What types of terms and conditions should a Small System
Variance contain?
- - To what extent should EPA define "technical and financial capability"
and operationalize operating and maintenance requirements under 1415(e)(7)(A)(ii)?
- - What types of considerations should compliance schedules and
milestones contain?
- - How often, and on what basis, should EPA review State programs
with respect to the terms and conditions of Small System Variances?
- - How should the State make determinations with respect to adequate
protection of public health?
- 5) What types of terms and conditions should exemptions consider?
- - How should the State determine that the proposed exemption will
not lead to an unreasonable risk to health?
- - What type of State review is necessary for an extension of an
exemption?
- II.
- Based on these questions, the attendees provided a large amount of
useful information to the EPA inter-office team. Shown below are general
responses to the questions from the attendees.
-
- 1) Small system variance application:
- Attendees provided a wide range of responses, including that the
system should have to provide very little information in its small
systems variance application. Others stated that the system should
provide as much information as is available to the system, and that
the State should provide other information where needed in its review
of the variance application. Some attendees stated that the information
that the system provides should include an assessment of the system's
financial status, the condition of its equipment, and who owns and
operates the system, as well considering the water system in the
context of the community it serves as a whole.
- 2) State review of variance applications:
- Attendees echoed many of their responses to the previous questions,
and some also stated that the State should have the flexibility
to determine how information for a variance application is gathered
and how its affordability criteria is used to make determinations
with regard to a small system's compliance options.
- 3) Public notification of proposed variances:
- Responses ranged from an acknowledgment the importance of the
consumers role in the small systems variance process to the need
for a public hearing, and that a public hearing is sufficient public
notice of a proposed variance. Also, some attendees stated that
the notice of proposed variance could be directly sent to the consumers
by the water system.
- 4) Terms and conditions of proposed variances:
- Responses ranged from a focus on State flexibility to determine
terms and conditions of proposed variances, to EPA accountability
to ensure that the terms and conditions achieve the intended result.
Some attendees stated that milestones should be established and
enforced by the State, while others stated that milestones are burdensome
to States. Some Attendees stated that EPA health advisories would
be useful to the States in determining "unreasonable risk to human
health", and while others added that the State should look at the
health effects of the variance technology over time.
- 5) Terms and conditions of proposed exemptions:
- Many attendees echoed statements made under terms and conditions
of proposed variances with regard to "unreasonable risk to health."
Some attendees stated that renewal of exemptions should require
another analysis of compliance options, and that states need the
flexibility to change the terms and conditions of exemptions. Finally,
the issue of environmental justice was raised and addressed.
John Lyon of OECA closed the meeting by thanking everyone for their
helpful participation and input. For further information, contact Richard
Alonso on (202) 564-6048 or Andrew Hudock on (202) 564-6032.
|
