Unneo States
Environmental Protection Office of Water EPA 810-D-95-001
Agency 4601 November 1995
f/EPA DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
REDIRECTION PROPOSAL
A Public Comment Draft
-------
DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
REDIRECTION PROPOSAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
November 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary i
I. Background and Purpose 1
II. The Reassessment Process •. 4
III. Redirection Objectives and Approaches 5
IV. Resource Choices 8
/
V. Office of Water Investments and Disinvestments . 11
VI. Relationship of the Redirection to Other Efforts . . 18
VII. Next Steps 22
APPENDIX A
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
During 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted an
extensive reassessment of its drinking water protection program in response to a number of
issues which were being raised within the Agency, by a wide range of interested parties and
by Congress. The purpose of the reassessment was to assist the Agency in:
~ Formulating comprehensive redirection objectives that can serve to guide Agency
activities related to drinking water;
~ Identifying and implementing high-priority activities that will maximize risk reduction;
~ Realigning resources within the Office of Water's drinking water program at EPA
Headquarters to support as many of the activities as possible; and
~ Utilizing improved coordination with other Agency offices and the Regions to support
the redirection effort.
The Agency based the reassessment on extensive input provided by a wide array of
stakeholders on specific parts of the program. EPA obtained a wide range of comments
through a series of public meetings involving over 500 stakeholders (including individuals
associated with States, water suppliers, local governments, consumer groups, environmental
organizations, businesses and industries, academic institutions, the agricultural community, or
other interests) who attended meetings or provided written comments.
This document describes the outcome of the reassessment process, including proposed
resource realignments within the Office of Water's drinking water program at EPA
Headquarters. EPA is seeking public comment by January 17, 1996, on this
comprehensive program strategy prior to the Agency's efforts to finalize its plans for
redirecting the drinking water program. Written comments should be directed to:
Redirection Comment Clerk, Water Docket MC4101, Environmental Protection Agency,
410 M Street SW; Washington, DC 20460.
Redirection Objectives and Resource Choices
To guide Agency decisions in redirecting the drinking water program, EPA identified
four primary objectives, each of equal importance to ensuring safe drinking water:
~ Sound science and adequate data;
~ Risk-based priorities for setting high-quality standards;
i
-------
~ Strong, flexible partnerships with States and local governments in implementation; and
~ Community-based, effective source water protection.
As part of the reassessment process, EPA's Office of Water considered how resources
within its drinking water program at Agency Headquarters should be utilized to support these
objectives. The resulting set of Office of Water investments and disinvestments represents an
attempt to balance the four objectives while also providing for Headquarters involvement in
specific activities where most necessary.
Analysis based on FY 1995 resource levels showed, however, that it will not be
possible for the Office of Water to fully address all four objectives, given the current
distribution of drinking water program resources. To adequately address priorities related to
sound science, standard setting and chemical monitoring reform, the Office will have to scale
back or defer other critical activities, presently carried out at Headquarters, related to source
water protection and implementation of the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
program. The breadth of standard-setting activities under the drinking water program would
also be reduced (pending the development of necessary agreements to extend court-ordered
schedules for certain contaminants) to enable the Agency to focus on the highest-priority
rules.
The Office of Water plans will explore with EPA's Regions possibilities for specific
opportunities for Regions to support the redirection by taking the lead on certain national
priority activities where there is Regional expertise or the potential to develop expertise.
Similar discussions are anticipated with other Agency offices.
Office of Water Investments and Disinvestments
Among its priority activities in support of the redirection objectives, EPA's Office of
Water will:
~ Emphasize the development of new safety standards for high-priority microbial
contaminants such as Cryptosporidium;
~ Strengthen the scientific basis for selecting contaminants for future safety standards;
~ Improve risk assessment for better decision-making and priority-setting;
~ Streamline and simplify chemical monitoring regulations to eliminate unnecessary
requirements and to allow the States as much implementation flexibility as possible;
~ Upgrade the national drinking water data management system to help States ensure
that existing safety standards are met;
ii
-------
~ Revise the State Program Priorities Guidance for the Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS) Program to enable States to direct their resources towards activities that will
achieve the greatest risk reduction;
~ Encourage the development and use of treatment technologies which are affordable for
small water systems; and
~ Provide essential technical support to the Partnership for Safe Water -- an innovative,
voluntary effort by water suppliers to better protect consumers from microbial
contaminants in surface water.
The Office of Water will also continue to carry out key efforts related to source water
protection and implementation of the PWSS Program, but at significantly lower levels of
investment than has previously been the case.
~ Helping communities prevent pollution of their drinking water sources:
The Office will continue to carry out the Wellhead Protection Program and the
Underground Injection Control Program to help communities that rely on
ground water, but will do less in these areas.
Similarly, less will be done to develop and facilitate the local use of ground
water indicators.
Office of Water staff support for Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs will continue at minimal levels.
The Office will maintain a very limited presence in support of its recent source
water protection initiative for communities that use surface waters.
~ Implementation support for the PWSS Program:
The Office of Water will continue to meet its fundamental obligations such as
maintaining essential communication and coordination with the States and
Regions, awarding and managing State grants, and responding to Freedom of
Information Act requests.
Other Office activities (e.g., various types of technical assistance and outreach
to States, Tribes, Regions and water suppliers) under the PWSS program will
be discontinued or reduced.
Public Comment Issues and Next Steps
The Agency's intention is that the redirection effort will ultimately result in stronger
-------
science and improved approaches to standard-setting without compromising critical efforts to
prevent pollution of drinking water sources and to ensure the efficient implementation of
existing safety standards. Through the public comment process for this proposal, EPA is
seeking stakeholder input on the following questions:
~ Do the primary objectives of sound science, risk-based standard setting,
implementation partnerships and source water protection, as described in Section
III, provide an appropriate basis for redirecting the drinking water program?
~ Has the Agency made the right choices for utilizing Office of Water resources and
do these choices provide an appropriate balance among the four redirection
objectives?
~ Are there other ways that Office of Water resources could be utilized to more
effectively and efficiently support the four objectives?
~ How can the expertise and capabilities of other EPA offices, the Regions, the
States, water suppliers and other stakeholders be brought to bear to address
unmet national needs?
EPA also plans to consult during the public comment period with the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) to obtain the Council's recommendations on the
proposals contained in this document. The Agency will finalize the redirection plan on
completion of negotiations to extend court-ordered schedules for rule development and after
considering NDWAC's recommendations and other stakeholder comments.
Realignments within the Office of Water's drinking water program at Headquarters
that reflect preliminary redirection decisions will, to the extent feasible, begin in FY 1996.
The Office of Water will in the meantime work closely with the Regions to determine how
the Regions can support the Agency's drinking water program redirection objectives and to
identify specific opportunities for Regions to step into national leadership roles.
The Agency is committed to the Administration's goals of reinventing government.
The redirection plan, as well as reorganization and streamlining efforts which are also related
to broad Administration initiatives, should be in place and operating during FY 1996 In the
meantime, the Agency will continue to work with Congress towards a balanced
reauthorization of the SDWA that would also support the objectives of the redirection
proposal.
iv
-------
DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
REDIRECTION PROPOSAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
November 1995
I. Background and Purpose
During 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted an
extensive reassessment of its drinking water protection program. EPA initiated the
reassessment in response to a number of issues which were being raised within the
Agency, by a wide range of interested parties and by Congress, including:
~ Concerns about priorities and direction of the program vis-a-vis the health risk
reduction returns;
~ Recognition of limitations on State and local resources to protect drinking water
and the need to enable more effective use of these resources to focus on the
highest risks to health;
~ Demands on the program for regulations and other outputs without sufficient
' resources to complete them all;
~ Need for improvement of the scientific and technical basis supporting the
regulations; and
~ Interest in positive, voluntary initiatives such as the Partnership for Safe
Drinking Water, stakeholder consultation during rule development and
community-based efforts to protect drinking water sources.
Many of these problems and issues arise from provisions in the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) that require EPA to issue standards for 83 specific contaminants
and for 25 new drinking water contaminants every 3 years after 1989. These
combined requirements are proving impossible to meet within the mandated timeframes
given the state of the underlying science and data as well practical limits on resources.
-------
EPA highlighted these and other key issues in the Agency's "White Paper,"
Strengthening the Safety of Our Drinking Water A Report on Progress and Challenges
and An Agenda for Action, released by Administrator Carol Browner on March 29,
1995.* The "White Paper" provided an overview of drinking water safety issues and
identified five major agenda items for improving drinking water protection:
~ Give Americans more information about our drinking water;
~ Focus standards on the most serious health risks;
Provide technical assistance to protect source water and help small systems;
Reinvent Federal/State partnerships to improve drinking water safety; and
Invest in community drinking water facilities to protect human health.
With the release of the "White
Paper," EPA committed to undertake a
comprehensive effort to redirect the drinking
water program, including actions that the
Agency can implement administratively or
through joint efforts with States, water
suppliers and other stakeholders. This effort
also responds to the President's
environmental reinvention initiative
announced on March 16, 1995. (The
relationship between the President's
initiative and specific activities under the
drinking water program redirection is
discussed on pages 19-20.)
"EPA will continue to work with
Congress to achieve balanced reforms
that will strengthen the federal
Safe Drinking Water Act. But we must
also act now to provide the protection
that will give the American people the
safe drinking water they have come to
expect."
Carol M. Browner
Administrator, EPA
March 29, 1995
Also in March 1995, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), an advisory panel established by
Congress, released An SAB Report Safe Drinking Water Future Trends and Challenges. The
report identified significant trends (population growth impacts, public demand for better water, a
changing contaminant profile, and changes in drinking water production and treatment) and
recommended improved management of water resources, consolidation of smaller systems,
accelerated research in risk assessment methodologies and establishment of an alert system for
emerging pathogens. Two earlier SAB reports, Reducing Risk Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection (Sept. 1990) and Beyond the Horizon. Using Foresight to Protect the
Environmental Future (Jan. 1995), respectively ranked drinking water contamination as one of the
highest environmental risks and recommended that the Agency give as much attention to avoiding
future environmental problems as to controlling current ones, establish an early warning system for
potential future risks and place greater emphasis on non-cancer human health risks.
-------
The purpose of the drinking water program reassessment was to assist the
Agency in
~ Formulating comprehensive redirection objectives that can serve to guide
Agency activities related to drinking water;
~ Identifying and implementing high-priority activities that will maximize risk
reduction;
~ Realigning resources within the Office of Water's drinking water program at
EPA Headquarters* to support as many of the activities as possible; and
~ Utilizing improved coordination with other Agency offices and the Regions to
support the redirection effort.
The Agency based the reassessment on extensive input provided by a wide array
of stakeholders on specific parts of the program. This document describes the outcome
of the reassessment process, including proposed resource realignments within the
Office of Water's drinking water program at EPA Headquarters. EPA is seeking
public comment by January 17, 1996, on this comprehensive program strategy prior to
the Agency's efforts to finalize its plans for redirecting the drinking water program.
As referred to throughout this document, the Office of Water's (OW) drinking water program at
EPA Headquarters comprises OW's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and certain
resources within OW's Office of Science and Technology.
3
-------
II. The Reassessment Process
EPA began the reassessment with a series of public meetings seeking input from
a broad range of individual stakeholders. The meetings were held to solicit ideas,
suggestions and options either for proceeding with specific activities related to the
drinking water program or to serve as the basis for strategic decisions on program
directions and resource allocations. The intent was to provide EPA with a wide array
of viewpoints, ideas and concerns held by stakeholders. Meetings were organized
around nine key subject areas.
For each subject area, EPA staff
conducted one or more meetings from
March through June open to all
interested parties. The Agency received
extensive input for all nine subject areas.
Over 500 stakeholders (including
individuals associated with States, water
suppliers, local governments, consumer
groups, environmental organizations,
businesses and industries, academic
institutions, the agricultural community,
or other interests) attended meetings or
provided written comments.
Subject Areas for
Stakeholder Meetings
~ Regulatory Reassessment
~ Scientific Data Needs
~ Health Assessment
~ Treatment Technology
~ Analytical Methods
~ Focussing & Improving Implementation
~ Source Water Protection
~ Small System Capacity Building
~ Consumer Awareness
Consensus was neither sought nor
reached in any area, nor did stakeholders
comment on relative priorities across the subject areas. Major themes that emerged
from the meetings are noted in Appendix A.
Although there was not consensus among stakeholders, their views and
suggestions were considered by senior drinking water program managers in EPA's
Office cf Water in formulating redirection goals and objectives and in developing
recommendations for priority drinking water protection activities and resource
allocations. The recommendations were provided to the Assistant Administrator for
Water, who made the preliminary decisions presented in this document after
consultation with the Deputy Administrator.
4
-------
III. Redirection Objectives and Approaches
Objectives
In carrying out the reassessment, EPA recognized the need for a balanced
program that targets priority issues and problems and develops cost-effective solutions.
EPA identified four primary objectives to guide decisions under the redirection, each
of equal importance to ensuring safe drinking water:
~ Sound science and adequate data. A scientifically sound basis for each standard
is critically important in determining and demonstrating the need for regulation
and other Agency actions. A sound basis is needed for the health risk
assessment, for assessment of contaminant occurrence and exposure, and for
determination of effective treatment technologies, appropriate analytical methods
and cost of compliance. Scientific research and data should be as complete as
possible in each of these areas and the methodology and models used to assess
the data need to be consistent, up to date and peer-reviewed. The ability to
develop such comprehensive information is compromised by statutory
requirements to issue large numbers of standards on unrealistic deadlines.
~ Risk-based priorities for setting high-quality standards. Once data are collected
and research results are available, they must be interpreted and analyzed to
develop regulations that are genuinely needed to protect public health, are
supported by the public and industry, and meet statutory requirements. The
number of standards required under the SDWA, in combination with short
statutory and court-ordered deadlines, make it difficult to focus exclusively on
the highest risk contaminants and do the kind of data gathering and analysis that
are necessary to clearly demonstrate a need for the regulations and generate
public support. Meanwhile, stakeholders' expectations for thorough analysis and
justification have risen at the same time that the Agency is working to develop a
particularly complex set of rules related to microbial contaminants and
disinfection by-products. More research, analyses and consultation are needed
to ensure that each rule is not only defensible, but also satisfies these new
expectations, statutory requirements and Agency policies. To maintain quality
requires more resources per regulation. In identifying which rules should be
developed first, the overriding consideration should be health protection, i.e.,
which rules can provide the most risk reduction.
i
~ Strong, flexible partnerships with States and local governments in
implementation. Much of the expertise for identifying drinking water problems
and efficient, effective means for addressing them resides at the State and local
government level. EPA has begun to forge stronger partnerships so that this
expertise can feed into regulatory development more directly. Strong
intergovernmental partnerships are also needed to ensure that public health is
5
-------
protected through the implementation of existing drinking water standards * To
help support a partnership approach, EPA also recognizes the need to provide
flexibility so that States can implement drinking water regulations in a manner
that maximizes the return on the resources invested.
Communitv-based. effective source
water protection. Preventing
contamination directly enhances
public health protection.
Communities can develop a broad
strategy that reflects local needs and
conditions. With prevention as the
foundation, a comprehensive
approach to ensuring drinking water
safety will ultimately be a less
expensive means of attaining drinking
water quality than monitoring and
treatment alone. The Agency's role
is to help communities, public water
systems and other stakeholders
understand this relationship and
implement sound, workable source
water protection plans.
Drinking Water Program
Redirection Objectives
~ Sound Science and Adequate
Data
~ Risk-Based Priorities for Setting
High-Quality Standards
~ Strong, Flexible Partnerships with
States and Local Governments in
Implementation
~ Community-Based, Effective Source
Water Protection
As noted in EPA's March 1995 "White Paper," estimated health benefits that are expected to accrue
when existing standards are fully attained include reduced exposure to lead for an estimated
SO million people (including protection for 200,000 children against unacceptable blood lead levels);
prevention of well over 100,000 cases annually of gastrointestinal and other illnesses attributed to
microorganisms, reduced exposure for millions of people to dozens of contaminants that may cause
illness including compromised reproductive capabilities, malfunction of vital organs, "blue baby"
syndrome and nervous system damage; and over 100 excess cancer cases avoided per year.
6
-------
Redirection Approaches
The redirection objectives suggest a number of basic changes in the Agency's
approaches to carrying out the drinking water program, as indicated in Figure 1. In
some instances, EPA has already begun to adopt new ways of doing business, for
example by:
~ Leveraging businesses and citizen groups to help protect source waters instead
of focussing exclusively on State and local agencies;
~ Using regulatory negotiations to facilitate stakeholder involvement in rule
development for disinfection/disinfection byproducts;
~ Emphasizing voluntary efforts such as the Partnership for Safe Water* that may
achieve public health protection results more quickly while also reinforcing
regulatory program efforts; and
~ Working with States to reformat existing regulations for easier understanding.
EPA is also supporting increased State flexibility through the partnership
concept to devise State-specific approaches to carry out broad program objectives.
This change is reflected in the Agency's decreased emphasis on State oversight and
increased emphasis on compliance assistance activities.
The redirection proposals contained in this document do not signify a lessening
of the Agency's commitment to ensure compliance with current National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). The NPDWRs provide a base level of
drinking water'public health protection throughout the United States. EPA's
redirection of the drinking water program does not alter the legal obligations of public
water systems to comply with regulations promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA). EPA has, since the reorganization of its Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA), worked to balance traditional enforcement,
compliance assistance and other innovative approaches to achieve compliance.
The Partnership for Safe Water is an innovative, voluntary effort by water suppliers to optimize
existing drinking water treatment systems in order to enhance the potential to prevent the entry of
Cryptosporidium. Giardia and other microbial contaminants into treated water. Approximately 300
utilities have expressed interest in participating in the Partnership, which was announced in March
1995. EPA is working with key industry and State associations to promote the Partnership and is
providing necessary technical assistance.
7
-------
DRINKING WATER PROGRAM TRANSFORMATION,
OLD APPROACHES
NEW APPROACHES
Develop Many New Regulations
Fewer New Regulations
(Priorities Based on Risk)
Measure Activity
Measure Environmental Results
Source Water Protection/
PWSS Program Separate
Integrate Prevention
& Implementation
Extensive Oversight of
Regional/State Programs
Empowerment/
State Partnerships
Rely on Mandates
To Achieve Public Health
Protection Goals
Balance Mandates & Voluntary
Approaches (e.g., Reg Neg,
Partnership for Safe Water,
Community Source Water Protection)
Intermittent Coordination
with Stakeholders
Farly, Comprehensive
Stakeholder Involvement
"Do It" Ourselves
Leverage Stakeholders/Energize Communities
Less Flexibility
More Flexibility
(e g., Targeted Monitoring)
Detailed Program Reporting
Reporting Simplified
Paper & Travel Intensive
Computer & Telecommunication Intensive
Technical Jargon
Plain English
FIGURE 1
-------
IV. Resource Choices
Overview
As part of the redirection effort, EPA's Office of Water at the Agency's
Headquarters is undertaking a realignment of resources that are currently available
within its drinking water program to support the four primary objectives discussed in
Section III. The resulting recommendations consist of a set of high-priority activities
that can be accomplished at Headquarters, described on pages 11 - 17. EPA has not
yet fully addressed the redirection of Regional drinking water/ground water activities
or expanded coordination on activities with other EPA offices such as the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) and compliance programs in OECA.
In developing the recommendations, the Office of Water attempted to balance
the redirection's four critical objectives. The Office also gave special consideration to
activities that require extensive Headquarters involvement because of their
standard-setting or national policy nature.
It became apparent over the course of this analysis that it will not be possible
for the Office of Water's drinking water program at Headquarters to fully address all
four objectives, given the current distribution of drinking water program resources.*
To adequately address priorities related to sound science, standard-setting and
chemical monitoring reform, it is necessary for the Office of Water to scale back
or defer other critical activities presently carried out at Headquarters related to
source water protection and to implementation of the Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) program.** This is the case even after resources currently
dedicated to standard-setting are redirected to focus solely on the highest-priority rules,
Thus, the breadth of standard-setting activities would be reduced as well.***
The recommendations described in this proposal assume that resources for the Office of Water's
drinking water program will remain at FY 1995 levels and do not deal with potential FY 1996
Agency-wide reductions currently being debated.
These proposed disinvestments will not affect grants to States under the PWSS program ~ although
they will impact EPA's ability to provide technical assistance and training to help States and water
suppliers meet Safe Drinking Water Act objectives.
The Office also identified a preferred option that assumes sufficient investment in all priority
activities to fully support each of the redirection's four objectives, as indicated in the last column of
Figure 1. This would, however, require resources in addition to those currently available within the
Office of Water's drinking water program and/or a redirection of activities carried out by Regional
resources and some related EPA program offices.
8
-------
In addition to reductions in the source water protection and PWSS programs,
action will be possible on only some of the many suggestions put forth by stakeholders
for new or increased efforts across all four objectives. The Office of Water will be
unable to respond, for instance, to requests that EPA comprehensively redesign the
analytical methods approval process, enhance efforts to support source water protection
and develop a new consumer awareness initiative.
The Agency's intention is that the redirection effort will ultimately result in
stronger science and improved approaches to standard-setting without compromising
critical efforts to prevent pollution of drinking water sources and to ensure the efficient
implementation of existing safety standards. Through the public comment process
for this proposal, EPA is seeking stakeholder input on the following questions:
~ Do the primary objectives of sound science, risk-based standard setting,
implementation partnerships and source water protection, as described in
Section III, provide an appropriate basis for redirecting the drinking water
program?
~ Has the Agency made the right choices for utilizing Office of Water
resources and do these choices provide an appropriate balance among the
four redirection objectives?
~ Are there other ways that Office of Water resources could be utilized to
more effectively and efficiently support the four objectives?
~ How can the expertise and capabilities of other EPA offices, the Regions,
the States, water suppliers and other stakeholders be brought to bear to
address unmet national needs?
Key Decision Factors
As part of the redirection, EPA is seeking to prioritize the development of
drinking water safety standards based on the highest potential for risk reduction. The
proposed realignments within the Office of Water would support this approach by
redirecting resources to develop new safety standards for certain high-priority
contaminants -- primarily microbes and disinfection byproducts. Drinking water
program resources would also be redirected to strengthen the scientific basis for
selecting contaminants for future regulation based on an improved understanding of
health effects, costs and occurrence in drinking' water.
Standards for microbial contaminants and disinfection/disinfection byproducts
(M-DBP) were judged to offer the greatest risk reduction potential relative to other
9
-------
rules that are under development The development of the M-DBP standards will
require significantly greater levels of investment than previous estimates have
indicated. Thus, allocation of sufficient resources to ensure timely development of a
defensible set of rules for these high-priority contaminants, as well as to strengthen the
scientific foundations for future standard-setting, will force major resource shifts within
the Office's drinking water program.
Regional and State Impacts
The redirection of the drinking water program is coming at a time when EPA's
Regional offices are undergoing significant changes in their relationships with States
and in their own internal operations. The Agency as a whole and the Regions in
particular are rethinking and refining EPA's role with respect to oversight of State
programs. These shifts reflect Agency-wide efforts to provide States and other
stakeholders with greater flexibility to measure progress in terms of public health and
environmental protection outcomes, rather than strictly programmatic outputs. EPA's
Regional offices are concurrently engaged in major reorganizations across all of their
programs in response to government-wide streamlining efforts.
It is the Agency's intention that the redirection goals and objectives presented in
this document will serve to guide changes in Regional, as well as Headquarters,
implementation of the drinking water program. Resource realignments within the
Office of Water at Headquarters will also directly impact the Regions, as well as States
and other stakeholders, as Headquarters will rely more heavily on Regional, State and
local efforts to carry out source water protection and implementation activities.
In addition, the Office of Water will explore possibilities with the Regions to
identify specific opportunities to support the redirection by taking the lead on certain
national priority activities where the Region may have expertise or the potential to
develop expertise.
10
-------
Oi. - , ¦ ¦ > ^ I n I M I N 1 s \M)IjIMN\I > I N11 N I S
B\SE -- Resource levels the san.. in FN 1995 LESS -- Decrease in resources from FY 1995 le\el.>
MORE — Increase in resources rntr FN 1995 levels DEFER -- Allocation of resources postponed
OFFICE OF WATER (HQ) ACTIVITIES
Current
(FY 95)
Redirected
(Proposed
beginning
in FY 96)
Preferred
(additional
resources
required)
Contaminant Occurrence Data (for Drinking Water Priorities List)*
BASE
MORE
MORE
Risk Assessment Methodologies*
BASE
BASE
MORE
Cost-Impact Analysis*
BASE
MORE
MORE
Treatment Technology for Small Public Water Systems*
BASE
MORE
MORE
Standards/Risk Characterization for Microbes & Disinfection By-Products.
- Information Collection Rule (ICR)*
- Disinfection/Disinfection By-Products Rules 1 + II*
• Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules I + II*
- Ground Water Disinfection Rule
BASE
MORE
MORE
Other Standards/Risk Characterizations:
- Radon & Other Radionuclides
- Arsenic (Radon & other radionuclides, arsenic,
- "Phase 6B" chemicals Phase 6B, and sulfate are currently under
• Sulfate court-ordered schedules that will need to
- Aldicarb be extended)
- Nickel
• Atrazine
BASE
DEFER
(Arsenic
research
maintained;
some Health
Advisories;
Risk Char, for
total triazines,
inc. atrazine)
DEFER
(Do regs. for
radon & a few
other contams.
based on sound
¦ occurrence/risk
analysis;
Arsenic
research
maintained;
more Health
Advisories;
Risk Char, for
total triazines,
inc atrazine)
Partnership for Safe Water*
BASE
BASE
MORE
Revise Requirements for Chemical Monitoring for Public Water Systems*
BASE
BASE
BASE
Public Water System Supervision Program (includes implementation support)
BASE
LESS
MORE
Safe Dnnking Water Information Systems*
BASE
LESS
MORE
Wellhead Protection Program*
BASE
LESS
BASE
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
BASE
LESS
BASE
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP)
BASE
LESS
BASE
Ground Water Indicators (Data Collection & Analysis)
BASE
LESS
BASE
Source Water Protection for Surface Waters*
BASE
LESS
MORE
Standards for Total Triazines*
-
-
NEW
Streamline the Laboratory Analytical Methods Approval Process*
-
-
NEW
Laboratory Performance Evaluation Redesign*
-
-
NEW
Consumer Awareness Initiative*
-
-
NEW
* Asterisks indicate broad stakeholder support. (EPA did not ask stakeholders about the UIC and CSGWPP programs, ground
water indicators, and vanous aspects of the PWSS program)
FIGURE 2
-------
Office of Water, EPA Headquarters
Drinking Water Resources*
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES (143 FTE)
4* ~Sl.i I11
AC&C FUNDS (Approx. $13M)
Risk-Based
Science Standards
Implementation Source Water
Protection
Sound
Science
Risk-Based Implementation Source Water
Standards Protection
CURRENT
Based on FY1995 Resource Levels
REDIRECTED
-------
V. Office of Water Investments and Disinvestments
The following pages describe specific investments which the Office of Water is
proposing in support of the redirection's four primary objectives. Also described are
the corresponding disinvestments that the Office must make in other areas. The
disinvestments would primarily affect the PWSS program, source water protection
activities and rule development other than the M-DBP rules. The Agency will be
discussing with the Regions and potentially other EPA offices such as ORD and OECA
how they might be able to implement some of the disinvested activities on which they
have expertise and capability.
Figure 2 shows which Office of Water activities are targeted for increased
investment at Headquarters and which are targeted for disinvestments. As reflected in
Figure 3, the Office of Water's realignments would involve shifts in both the number
of full-time personnel (FTE) and the amount of extramural (AC&C) funds allocated to
specific activities.
In addition to the activities noted under each of the redirection objectives below,
the Office of Water will continue to carry out at current levels a number of activities
that cut across all four objectives of the redirection. These include facilitating the
deliberations of the Congressionally-established National Drinking Water Advisory
Council; operation of the Safe Drinking Water Hotline; and operation of the Drinking
Water Resource Center. The Office will also continue to ensure internal coordination
on small system issues that may arise across the redirection's objectives, as well as
continuing in partnership with the States coordination and outreach efforts related to
small system capacity building. '
~ Sound Science and Adequate Data
Occurrence Data: Increased investments in this area will improve contaminant
occurrence data used in developing the Drinking Water Priorities List (DWPL) to
enable EPA to more accurately identify contaminants which warrant future regulation
based on actual or likely risks to public health. EPA will undertake a concerted effort
to better use existing information. Existing data related to the levels and locations of
contaminants present in drinking water supplies will be collected from Federal
agencies, States, water systems and others. EPA will concurrently develop approaches
for the sound integration of occurrence data from different sources. The resulting
DWPL will form the basis for decisions on future safety standards and/or health
advisories. DWPL development will include consideration of contaminants which
EPA is currently proposing to defer for purposes of developing standards. In
addition to improved contaminant selection, better occurrence data should help to
I
11
-------
1) provide a stronger foundation for regulations and guidance; 2) assist in targeting
source water protection efforts; 3) support more meaningful risk estimates and risk
communication; 4) support improved cost models; and 5) provide a sound basis for the
establishment of explicit criteria for monitoring waivers.
Risk Assessment Methodologies: Many stakeholders encouraged EPA to use the
best available science and improve the methodology for estimating risks posed by
drinking water contaminants. EPA will undertake an effort to update the scientific
approach used to estimate risks associated with contaminants so as to better identify
drinking water contaminants that do not present high risks of adverse health effects and
to better characterize variability and uncertainty in risk estimates. Use of newer
methodologies is also expected to reduce the uncertainty in the risk estimates. EPA
will develop better approaches for characterizing the variability and uncertainty in risk
estimates, particularly dose-response estimates that are used to estimate the health
benefits of proposed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water
contaminants.
Cost-Impact Assessment: EPA will also revise and upgrade its economic
models for drinking water to better account for cost variability among water systems
(e.g., system size, design and customer mix), to enable consideration of a number of
different cost factors (e.g., better consideration of transaction costs of compliance to
States and utilities) and to make better use of existing information. EPA will use the
improved models to develop sensitivity analyses and allow for the consideration of a
broad range of alternatives in setting standards.
Treatment Technology: The emphasis in this area will be on assembling
information to improve implementation of drinking water regulations. One of the
major problems in implementing regulations has been the lack of simple, inexpensive
technology for small system compliance. EPA is working with the National Academy
of Sciences to produce a report on new ways to help small systems produce safe water
and will pursue efforts to specify an acceptable range of small system technologies for
compliance and creation of a third-party program for verification of equipment
performance. The Agency will also explore guidance for the full range of technologies
applicable to various contaminant situations in lieu of a contaminant-by-contaminant
approach. This total treatment concept is intended to help utilities invest with
improved confidence in technologies to meet current and future safety standards. It
will also serve as the model for future regulation development.
~ Risk-Based Priorities for Setting High-Quality Standards
Standards/Risk Characterizations for Microbial Contaminants and Disinfection
Byproducts (M-DBPV In a 1993 regulatory negotiation, EPA and a negotiating
12
-------
committee of interested parties agreed to a series of actions designed to better
understand and control risks from disinfection byproducts and pathogens. The action
plan consists of interim standards to reduce current risk, a major research and
information gathering effort to better understand the risks and the risk tradeoffs
between control of byproducts and pathogens, and long-term rules to maximize risk
reduction. Interim standards have been proposed; an Information Collection Rule to
gather occurrence and treatment information is about to be promulgated; and a research
effort to gather health effects, analytical methods, and treatment information, jointly
funded by EPA and industry, is underway.
Significant new investments, resulting from resource realignments in the Office
of Water, to develop these standards could enable the Agency to finalize interim
standards in 1999 and the long-term rules in 2001— although without additional
resources (beyond those provided by the realignment) the Tisk characterizations for
microbes and disinfection byproducts will be less complete than preferred. Also, as
another key part of this effort, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has
(1) proposed as part of the FY 1996 President's Budget a $3.1 million increase in the
level of funding for extramural research concerning disinfection byproducts and
microbes and (2) developed as part of its grants program for FY 1996 a special topic
area on disinfection byproducts and microbes in drinking water with emphasis on
health effects, method development, exposure and risk assessment.
The total M-DBP package is expected to consist of 6 rules:
i
~ Information Collection Rule (ICR);
~ Enhanced Surface Water Treatment (ESWTR) Rule, Phase I
~ ESWTR, Phase II
~ Disinfection/Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBP) Rule, Phase I
~ D/DBP Rule, Phase II
~ Ground Water Disinfection Rule
Other Standards/Risk Characterizations: Radon, other radionuclides, arsenic and
sulfate are among the 83 contaminants targeted by Congress in the 1986 SDWA
amendments for regulation. Standards for radon, other radionuclides, and sulfate have
been proposed. Health effects and treatment technology research is needed on arsenic
to reduce the uncertainty in the analysis before proposing a rule.
Except for developing and overseeing the implementation of an arsenic research
plan, resources are not available under the redirection proposal to pursue these
regulatory actions or any other rule development (e.g., Phase VI-B contaminants) other
than the M-DBP rules for the next several years. EPA will need to obtain extensions
of the current court-ordered schedules reflecting these new priorities. In addition,
13
-------
work on regulations for aldicarb and nickel that were finalized but subsequently stayed
will be deferred for several years. Current risk characterization efforts for some
contaminants such as total triazines (which were generally ranked by stakeholders as
medium-high priority for rule development) will continue, but there will be no rule
development for the time being.
For some contaminants identified on the DWPL or deferred for regulation, EPA
will (depending on resource availability) develop Health Advisory Guidance
Documents as needed to respond to local needs and concerns. Such Health Advisories
will provide guidance that may serve to meet local needs in lieu of a standard. They
will also help determine if there is sufficient data to set a standard. Contaminants for
which EPA will issue Health Advisories include cyanazine, aldicarb, arsenic and
sulfate.
~ Strong, Flexible Partnerships with States and Local Governments in
Implementation
Partnership for Safe Water: The Office of Water will continue to promote and
provide technical assistance to this voluntary effort by water suppliers to optimize
existing drinking water treatment systems in order to enhance the potential to prevent
the entry of Cryptosporidium, Giardia and other microbial contaminants into treated
water. The Office will also continue to coordinate with key industry and State
associations to encourage water suppliers to participate in the Partnership. Volunteer
participation in the Partnership is limited initially to systems filtering surface water and
serving more than 10,000 people. It is anticipated that this innovative program could
be a prototype for other voluntary, cooperative drinking water protection efforts.
Revised Requirements for Chemical Monitoring for Public Water Systems:
EPA will propose the simplification, consolidation and streamlining of the chemical
monitoring requirements to enable more efficient use of State and local resources and
to provide States with expanded flexibility to tailor monitoring requirements to local
circumstances. This effort would be geared to improving the cost effectiveness of
small system monitoring requirements and the safety of drinking water from chemical
contamination by (1) providing the flexibility for state and local jurisdictions to
reallocate their resources to focus on actual contamination and identifiable risks of
contamination; and (2) encouraging the initiation of source water assessments and the
implementation of source water protection measures.
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program: In addition to revising the
chemical monitoring requirements, EPA's Office of Water will continue to meet its
fundamental obligations in administering the PWSS program. These include
completion of the Public Water System Infrastructure Needs Survey; maintaining
14
-------
essential communication and coordination (including management agreements) with
EPA's Regional offices and the Staicv awarding and managing grants as appropriated
by Congress to States and others, and responding to requests under the Freedom of
Information Act. In addition, the Office of Water will continue to coordinate on
drinking water issues with EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Activities and to coordinate on lead issues with other parts of the Agency. The Office
will also continue its ongoing efforts to modernize and update its data management
system (SDWIS) and to revise the State Program Priorities Guidance in partnership
with States and Regions in order to enable States to direct their resources towards
activities that will achieve the greatest risk reduction.
Certain technical assistance and other activities will be discontinued due to
resource realignments within the Office of Water's drinking water program. Office of
Water staff will no longer provide direct support to States for PWSS program
implementation, including training related to sanitary surveys and rule implementation
(e.g., Surface Water Treatment Rule, Total Coliform Rule). Nor will the Office
respond routinely to individual Regional and State inquiries and requests for assistance
which arise on a range of program issues. Other disinvestments include technical
assistance for Indian programs; assistance to the Regions in implementing both the
chemical monitoring revisions and the revised State Program Priorities Guidance; and
various field projects.
Other activities, although continued, will be considerably reduced. These
include a 50% reduction in early involvement meetings held to obtain State input on
regulation and policy development for a variety of issues and decreases in joint
information management policy development and assistance to States. Headquarters
staff from the Office of Water will generally participate in fewer meetings, conferences
and other forums for exchanging information and building partnerships under the
PWSS program with States and water suppliers than in the past.
To provide technical support to the States for implementation of the PWSS
program, the Office of Water will continue to work with EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD) and the Regions to administer the drinking water laboratory
certification program until the National Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLAP)
becomes operational. Due to resource constraints, the Office of Water cannot carry out
comprehensive efforts to streamline the analytical methods approval process and
redesign the performance evaluation study program as requested by stakeholders. The
Office will instead (1) attempt incrementally to deal with the methods approval process
as part of doing methods updates and (2) provide for limited drinking water program
staff participation in a joint effort with ORD across a number of Agency programs to
redesign and externalize the performance evaluation sample program.
15
-------
Safe Drinking Water Information Systems (SDWIS): EPA views the SDWIS
effort as integral to the overall success of the drinking water program and will
maintain its commitments in partnership with the States to develop and utilize this
new, upgraded national drinking water data base. Although resources will be
somewhat reduced from FY 1995 levels, the Office of Water will ensure that core
business system development continues to move forward during FY 1996 and beyond.
The Office will also continue to provide training and assistance with installation to
States. SDWIS is being designed for States' use to track public water systems'
compliance with SDWA requirements and to identify public health threats that need to
be addressed.
~ Community-Based, Effective Source Water Protection
Wellhead Protection ("WHP) Program: EPA will continue to promote the
Wellhead Protection Program as the Agency's flagship source water protection effort
and will work with a variety of partners to provide'education and technical assistance
to support local implementation ~ although at a lower level of investment than in
FY 1995. This decrease means that the Office will be less able to facilitate efforts to
develop national partnerships and leverage groups of stakeholders to protect local
drinking water sources. (Current estimates indicate that approximately 4,000 of the
60,000 communities served by community water systems in the U.S. have implemented
complete and sustainable prevention programs to protect their drinking water sources.)
Underground Injection Control (UIC1 Program: As part of the redirection
effort, the UIC program has re-ordered its activities to direct resources to higher
priority needs. Headquarters efforts related to the more mature Class I and Class II
well programs, which are in large measure implemented by the Regions, are being
de-emphasized to enable the Office of Water to focus resources on the Class V shallow
industrial well program, which has the greatest potential to affect local drinking water
supplies. EPA will complete the Class V rule that is currently underway and will
develop various essential program guidances, although resource limitations within the
Office of Water will delay the provision of all necessary efforts to support State
implementation of a Class V strategy (of which the rule is a small component). The
Office will carry out partial efforts to reduce and streamline regulations and ease
program burdens for the entire UIC program.
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP): EPA will
continue to promote a unified approach to ground water protection, with an emphasis
on preventing pollution of drinking water sources, through Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Programs. Headquarters investment in this EPA/State
partnership will, however, be reduced to minimal levels, with Headquarter's role
limited to occasional reviews of State and Regional recommendations for moving the
16
-------
CSGWPP partnership forward. This will reduce the Agency's ability to foster
flexibility for States in the operation of Federal ground water-related programs, which
in turn is likely to impede and limit States' efforts to focus resources on protecting
high-priority ground water used by public water systems.
Ground Water Indicators: Office of Water efforts to incorporate State and local
ground water data in the National Reports to Congress will continue, although at
reduced levels. The Office's capability to develop targeted pollution prevention
techniques to help communities protect their ground water will also be reduced. The
Office of Water will not develop additional environmental indicators. (EPA has
identified a first set of indicators for nitrates and several industrial chemicals.
Additional indicators would enable communities to measure ground water quality under
a variety of local conditions.) The national Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) will not track local source water protection programs to report community
progress.
Source Water Protection for Surface Waters: In FY 1995, EPA Headquarters
undertook a new initiative to better support local efforts to prevent contaminants from
entering lakes, rivers and streams that serve as drinking water sources for
approximately half of the U.S. population. In order to both accommodate overall
drinking water program redirection needs and maintain a meaningful baseline level of
investment in its other, more developed source water protection efforts, Headquarters
will disinvest in this focused surface water protection initiative, thereby limiting efforts
in this area mainly to those that others may choose to pursue under watershed
protection approaches.
17
-------
VI. Relationship of the Redirection to Other Efforts
Safe Drinking Water Act Reauthorization
Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization has been one of the Administration's
top environmental legislative priorities for over two years. In October 1993, EPA
announced 10 recommendations for reauthorization of the Act. While the shape of
specific proposals has changed over time, the general principles have remained the
same: greater regulatory flexibility coupled with stronger "preventive" approaches.
Legislation incorporating EPA's recommendations passed both the Senate and House
last year and, although a compromise was never reached, those bills are expected to
) form the foundation for SDWA consideration in the 104th Congress.
Many widely supported changes to the SDWA are consistent with EPA's
redirection effort. For instance, among regulatory changes, Congress is expected to
eliminate the requirement for EPA to establish regulations for 25 additional
contaminants every 3 years. As part of a risk-based rulemaking process, Congress is
expected to strengthen public participation and science requirements for future
regulations — two changes embraced in the redirection effort.
The Administration also supports a new State Revolving Fund to help improve
drinking water treatment infrastructure, monitoring flexibility, new affordability
variances for small systems, use of special small system technology, source water
protection, operator certification, improved consumer information and new State
strategies to build water system capacity. EPA's redirection priorities reflect likely
reauthorization priorities - to the degree funding is available and EPA has discretion
under current law.
Reauthorization is likely to create flexibilities for both EPA and States to carry
out activities that provide the greatest health protection. Funding constraints and heavy
program demands, however, may not be resolved by reauthorization. In fact, EPA
may again need to identify priorities among a range of new mandatory duties which, in
the end, are designed to improve program flexibility and State decisionmaking.
Ongoing Litigation
As discussed earlier, one of the fundamental problems currently confronting the
drinking water program is the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirement that
EPA issue safety standards for 25 new contaminants every 3 years. The SDWA also
requires EPA to issue standards for 83 listed contaminants, most of which have been
completed.
18
-------
These requirements, instituted by Congress as part of the 1986 SDWA
amendments, have proved impossible to meet given the state of the underlying science
and data as well as the'drinking water program's resource limits. EPA is increasingly
beset by concerns from both inside and outside the Agency that its efforts to meet all
of the statute's remaining standard-setting requirements are detracting from the
development of soundly analyzed, well-supported safety standards for the highest-risk
contaminants, such as microbes.
Congress has been working over the last several years with EPA, the States and
other stakeholders to reauthorize the SDWA. It is widely expected that, as a result of
reauthorization, the requirement for "25 every 3 years" will be eliminated, helping
EPA to focus its standard-setting efforts on risk-based priorities -- a change the
Administration has strongly recommended.
EPA is currently under court order to comply with the SDWA in issuing safety
standards for a number of drinking water contaminants. These include seven of the 83
contaminants listed in the 1986 amendments, the first round of 25 additional
contaminants and the ground water disinfection rule.
The parties to the litigation in which the court-ordered schedules were
established have agreed to interim extensions of these schedules while EPA completes
the reassessment of the drinking water program and clarifies the resources that will be
available. Thereafter, EPA will begin discussions with the Plaintiffs on revised
schedules. EPA will be seeking extensions of the current court-ordered schedules to
reflect the Agency's new priorities.
Environmental Reinvention
On March 16, 1995, President Clinton and Vice-President Gore announced an
Administration initiative to reinvent environmental protection as part of a broader
government reform effort. The environmental reinvention features 25 specific
High Priority Actions across a number of EPA's programs. These actions are intended
to substantially improve the existing regulatory system and move the nation towards a
new and better environmental management system for the 21st century.
The President's reinvention initiative incorporates several efforts which are also
key to the Agency's Drinking Water Redirection Plan, including:
~ Establishing priorities and new schedules for setting national drinking water
standards based on health risks and sound science;
19
-------
Supporting the Partnership for
Safe Water, which represents a
new level of cooperation
among EPA, States and
stakeholders to protect public
health; and
Simplifying and streamlining
monitoring requirements for _____
chemical contaminants and
allowing further tailoring of
monitoring to local contaminant threats.
"Do we need more common sense and fairness in
our regulations? You bet we do. But we can
have common sense and still provide safe
drinking water. . And we ought to do it."
President Clinton
State of the Union Address
January 24, 1995
The President's environmental initiative also includes Agency-wide goals to
reduce aggregate paperwork burdens by 25% and reporting frequencies by 50%. EPA
expects that contaminant monitoring reform will contribute to the Agency's efforts to
meet these goals. The Office of Water is assessing additional suggestions solicited
from stakeholders at a public meeting held in August. The Office is also preparing a
regulatory proposal to reduce paperwork burdens and reporting frequencies for the
Underground Injection Control Program based on written input that was solicited from
stakeholders in June.
Government-Wide Streamlining
Consistent with the National Performance Review (NPR), President Clinton, in
September 1993, issued a series of Executive Orders with the intention of reinventing
the practices of the Federal government focusing primarily on efficiency, streamlining
and creating a "government that works better and costs less."
The Executive Orders addressed downsizing and flattening the government
bureaucracy, reducing regulatory burdens and establishing a new "customer service"
standard. Specifically, the Orders require:
~ Reducing the number of supervisors by 50% in five years;
~ Reducing overcontrol and micromanagement that now generate "red tape" and
hamper efficiency;
~ Cost savings, improvement in the quality of Government service, and raising the
morale and productivity of departments and agencies;
~ Elimination of internal management regulations that are not required by law by
20
-------
not less than 50% within three
years; and
~ Establishment of a Federal
government customer service
standard equal to the "best in
the business".
The Office of Water's drinking
water program is reevaluating its
present organization in light of the
requirements of the Executive Orders,
stakeholders' concerns and the new
priorities and redirection resulting from
this posed reassessment. In addition,
reorganization concerns must factor in
changes to program priorities that may be reflected by reauthorization of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and any revisions to the current court-ordered deadlines
for standards development.
EPA has temporarily put a hold on all reorganization efforts until resource
implications of the FY 1996 budget can be determined. At this time, EPA is uncertain
when the FY 1996 Appropriation will be signed, and, if it is, what the resultant impact
will be on the various Agency programs, including the extent of Reduction-In-Force
procedures that may be mandated.
"We view these performance reviews as an
opportunity for EPA to strengthen its role as a
national and world leader m preparing for the
environmental challenges that lie ahead in the
21st century while meeting the pressing needs of
today. Our Agency is exploring avenues for
change • to work better and smarter to deliver
quality results at reduced costs. Our aim is to
treat citizens as customers, improve the service
and delivery of our programs, and eliminate
waste and inefficiency."
"Improving Environmental Protection through
Empowered Employees - Streamlining the U.S.
EPA", November 1, 1993
21
-------
VII. Next Steps
EPA is seeking public comment by January 17, 1996, on its proposals to
redirect the drinking water program, including resource realignments within the Office
of Water. The Agency will consult during this comment period with the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) to obtain the Council's recommendations
on the proposals. Results of the reassessment will also be included in future
discussions with the litigant.
The Agency will finalize its redirection plan on completion of negotiations with
the litigant and after considering NDWAC's recommendations and other stakeholder
comments. Realignments within the Office of Water's drinking water program at
Headquarters that reflect preliminary redirection decisions will, to the extent feasible,
begin in FY 1996. Once finalized, EPA's plan will be integrated with ongoing efforts
to reorganize the Agency's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. The Office
of Water will in the meantime work closely with the Regions to determine how the
Regions can support the Agency's drinking water program redirection objectives and to
identify specific opportunities for Regions to step into national leadership roles.
The Agency is committed to the Administration's goals of reinventing
government. Along with SDWA reauthorization and revisions to court-ordered
schedules, the reorganization, the streamlining and the redirection efforts should be in
place and operating during FY 1996. In the meantime, the Agency will continue to
work with Congress towards a balanced reauthorization oi the SDWA that would also
support the objectives of the redirection proposal.
22
-------
APPENDIX A
STAKEHOLDER MEETING SUMMARIES
1 Regulatory Reassessment
For regulation development, stakeholders generally rated as high-priority (i.e., offering
the maximum potential for risk reduction) six rules related to microbial contaminants and/or
disinfectants/disinfection byproducts (hereafter referred to as the M-DBP rules) and an update
of analytical methods. Control of cyanazine was generally rated as medium-high, while the
ground water disinfection rule, radon (at a level of 1,000 pCi/1 or higher) and aldicarb were
given medium priority. For research or information development, stakeholders generally rated
arsenic and total triazines as medium-high priority, and corrosion control, the total coliform
rule and MTBE as medium priority.
Major themes which were raised during the discussion included: 1) good occurrence
data and a computerized data base to house them are essential to demonstrate the need for a
national drinking water regulation; 2) OW needs to coordinate better with other parts of EPA
and other government agencies to ensure a consistent regulatory approach; 3) treatment
technologies used to implement drinking water regulations need to complement one another;
4) updated analytical methpds are critical to effective rule implementation; 5) microbiological
and other acute contaminants are more important to regulate than contaminants posing chronic
effects; 6) distribution system contamination merits more attention; and 7) contaminants with
localized occurrence don't warrant national regulation.
2. Scientific Data Needs
Stakeholders underscored the need for updated, extensive occurrence data and
treatment technology cost data that are peer-reviewed before being incorporated into
regulatory decision-making.
3 Health Assessment
Stakeholders commented on a number of scientific issues that are currently being
debated. These included whether EPA should set the MCLG at zero for carcinogens and
microbial contaminants, how to estimate benefits for carcinogens and non-carcinogens,
whether to use risk characterization as a key component of decision-making, methodology for
conducting microbial risk assessment, and acceptable levels of microbial risk. On the MCLG
of zero issue, most stakeholders objected to a policy of zero across the board and said it
should be a case-by-case decision, depending on the potency and threshold nature of the risk.
There was broad support of the use of risk characterization considerations in decision-making.
-------
4. Treatment Technology
Stakeholders noted needs for 1) establishing standardized technology performance
testing protocols and 2) a third-party database of verified treatment performance data to help
increase acceptance of package technologies for small systems and to possibly reduce State
specific pilot testing requirements. Stakeholders also commented that EPA should define Best
Available Technology (BAT) for small systems, that small system BAT should be product-
specific and that point-of-use devices should be considered as a means of compliance for
systems serving fewer than 500 persons. A number of stakeholders also recommended that
the Agency increase its efforts to coordinate research with industry.
5 Analytical Methods
Streamlining methods approval was generally identified by stakeholders as the highest
priority within this subject area. Most stakeholders wanted to simplify the approval process
and recommended increased flexibility for making minor technical changes in the analytical
methods themselves. Many stakeholders also endorsed rapidly approving newer versions of
methods, including those issued by consensus methods organizations such as Standard
Methods. Stakeholders expressed differing views about instituting a performance based
methods system. Centralized EPA management of methods-related programs was endorsed by
many to maintain program consistency. Some stakeholders also voiced support for use of
immunoassays as screening tools. Revisions to the laboratory certification program were
suggested, as were approaches to the way the Agency defines an
-------
8 Small System Capacity Building
Stakeholders generally viewed small system capacity building as an important issue
that is best addressed at the State level taking local factors into consideration. Most viewed
EPA's role to include providing information, guidance, incentives and technical assistance to
help States address small system capacity concerns. There was support for continuing EPA's
training and technical assistance efforts.
9 Consumer Awareness
Stakeholders expressed broad support for improved public information and notification
on the quality of the nation's drinking water. It was noted that the information needs to be
balanced, accurate and in a user-friendly format. Suggestions for ways to provide information
included annual reports, cooperative education and awareness initiatives, partnerships with the
private sector, and increased use of the media.
------- |