1. Protecting Sources of Drinking Water
Introduction for me
Chuck Kanetsky, EPA Region 3

2. Goal: Improve Source Water Quality
Minimize risk to public health through risk reduction in source water areas
Develop prevention & protection strategies, achieve substantial implementation of strategies for individual CWS
Using a multibarrier approach – source water protection the first barrier.
Other barriers for protection include treatment, monitoring, and development of criteria to protect consumers.

3. PROTECTION BARRIERS RISK MONITORING/ COMPLIANCE RISK PREVENTION RISK
Source water is the first place we can do prevention to reduce contamination.
- It is here that risk prevention measures have the greatest potential impact with the lowest cost.
- There are both regulated and unregulated sources of contamination at this point, e.g., UST and UIC
and nonpoint source
2) Treatment reduces contamination but its costly and can add additional risks such as via chlorine
3) Risk here include increased formation of trihalomethanes, lead leaching, and security concerns.
4) CCR, which references the source water assessment, is a tool to inform individual consumers about
risks and actions they can take. Consumers also become advocates for source water protection.
5) TREATMENT IS REQUIRED UNDER SDA – PROTECTION IS NOT.
PROTECTION BARRIERS
RISK
MONITORING/
COMPLIANCE
RISK
PREVENTION
RISK
MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL
ACTION

4. EPA’s Water Quality Laws
Clean Water Act (CWA) 1972
Water Quality Standards
Discharge Permits
Waste Water Treatment
Wetlands
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Assessment of water
Assessment of impaired waters
Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) 1974
Standard Setting for Drinking Water
Public Water Supply Supervision
Underground Injection Control
Sole Source Aquifer Program
Wellhead Protection Program
Source Water Assessment Program
UIC regulates injection activities to prevent contamination of underground drinking water resources. WHP vs SWP

5. Source Water Assessment Programs
Required through SDWA Section 1453, 1996 Amendments
Comprehensive assessment / prioritization of potential threats for every Public Water Supply System (PWS)
All States developed programs for EPA approval
Required extensive public involvement in program design
Wellhead Protection Programs cornerstone of SWP Programs
Funded through Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Diversity from State to State/system type by system type
Challenges
No requirement for protection
Resources
Numbers of systems change

6. SWAP Basics State assessment program plans were due in early 1999
EPA approval within 6 months of submittal
States assess sources for all public water systems by 2003
21,000 public water systems in EPA - Region 3, servicing > 25 million people

7. Source Water Assessment Dollars
Delaware $674,604
District of Columbia $405,778
Maryland $1,764,090
Pennsylvania $5,327,070
Virginia $2,944,240
West Virginia $1,255,880
About $12.5 Million in region 3

8. Key SWA Elements Delineation Contaminant Source Inventories
Susceptibility Analyses
Public participation and public access to assessment results
PWSS primacy States are required by the SDWA Amendments of 1996, Sections 1453 and 1428(b), to complete a source water assessment for each public water system. A complete source water assessment consists of four parts.
First is the delineation of the source water protection area (SWPA), which is the portion of a watershed draining to the surface water intake or the zone of contribution to a well that may contribute pollution to the water supply.
Second, is a contamination source inventory to identify all significant potential sources of contaminants to the drinking water supply within the delineated source water protection area.
Next, is a susceptibility analysis to determine the absolute or relative measure of the potential for contamination.
And finally, distribute the results of the source water assessment to the public.

9. SWAP – Delineation Immediate area of impact Well Surface water
5 year time of travel
1 mile radius
Surface water
Watershed boundaries
Intake

10. SWAP – Contamination Source Inventory
Permit Compliance System
Toxic Release Inventory
Underground Storage Tanks
RCRA
Superfund
Land Use Information

11. SWAP – Susceptibility Analysis
Analysis of risk
Hydrogeology/hydrology
Understanding of contaminants
Effectiveness of existing protection programs

12. SWAP – Public Participation
Public access to assessment results
Educate public on potential problems
Protection activities

13. Source Water Assessments Availability
Target completion September 2003
Region 3 States have completed assessments for about 99.5% of 21,0000 Public Water Systems

14. Use Assessments for Surface & Ground Water Source Protection
Source water protection strategies to address actual & potential contaminant sources
Target substantial implementation of protection strategies for 50% of CWS and 62% population by 2011

15. R3 SWAP Findings (GW) DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV
Most Prevalent Sources: Ground Water
Commercial/Industrial, Residential Housing, Agriculture
Highest rankings from R3 states: Residential septic systems, UST
Most Threatening Sources: Ground Water
Highest rankings from R3 states: UST, septic systems, crop production

16. R3 SWAP Findings (SW) DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV
Most Prevalent Sources: Surface Water
Commercial/Industrial, Agriculture, Wastewater, Transportation
Highest rankings from R3 states: General agriculture, grazing, overall transportation
Most Threatening Sources: Surface Water
Agriculture, Commercial/Industrial, Wastewater
Highest rankings from R3 states: General agriculture, Residential

17. Strategic Actions Complete & improve assessments
Use assessments as basis for SW & GW protection plans
Integrate actions:
Federal, State, local
CWA & SDWA
Collaboration among Federal agencies/programs
Use assessment info for developing a strategy. Use water programs as a too l for implementation.

18. Water Safe to Drink
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-4 National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of community water systems and percent of the population served by community water systems where risk to public health is minimized by source water protection.
(SP-4a) Community water systems:
2011 Target: 50%
(SP-4b) Population:
EPA Strategic target for source water protection
National Goal for 2006 – 20% of systems, Achieved 24%
National Goal for 2007 – 25%
Region Goal – 12%, Achieved 14%.
Region Goal – 18%
Region Goal – 21%?
Population (SP-4b) – thru 2007, just tracking. In 2008, population becomes official target – 37% Nationally.
Region 3 population numbers very good – 53% IN 2006, Target in 2008 probably 56%.
National Program Manager Comments:
2011 Target: 62%
Target measure; FY 08 State Grant Template measure. SP-4a is a PART measure. Note: “Minimized risk” is achieved by the substantial implementation, as determined by the state, of actions in a source water protection strategy. The universe is the most recent SDWIS inventory of community water systems. * FY 06 national commitment total adjusted to reflect weighted regional commitments. ** 2006 Adjusted is adjustment of the FY 06 commitment to reflect FY 05 results.

20. State Definition for “Substantial Implementation”
Region 3
State Definition for “Substantial Implementation”
Delaware
Strategies substantially implemented – These strategies refer to “enforceable” protection measures or standards adopted at the local or state level that require protection of water quality or quantity in a source water areas ( wellhead and watershed). (Examples would be local ordinances with SWP regulations, County wide ordinances with SWP regulations, UST Secondary containment policy).
Maryland
Strategy developed and initially implemented means that a local planning team has been established agreed upon a strategy and implemented a portion of the strategy. Substantially implemented means that the most significant risks were or are being addressed by implementing a strategy. For example if a community purchased the recharge area for a well or spring source for protection then the strategy is substantially implemented, even if it was accomplished many years ago.
Pennsylvania
Establishment of an approved local Source Water Protection Plan or the undertaking of relevant and sustainable actions/efforts that address priority risks as identified in the source water assessment.
Virginia
Waterworks has developed a watershed or wellhead protection plan. Plan does not have to be approved or certified by state but should include all elements of source water strategy such as:
a. management team or advisory group that meets on a regular basis,
b. identified potential contaminate source(s) [results of SWAPs],
c. recommended action(s), and contingency planning [may be already stipulated in VA Waterworks Regulations]
West Virginia
Any community public water supply system or a group of systems that has a protection plan in place and is addressing at least three of the top protection measures identified in its state supplied source water protection plan and/or locally defined protective measures approved by the state is considered substantial implemented. For systems serving 3,000 or fewer people, substantial implementation will be determined on a system by system basis.
DE – enforceable measures
MD – Strategy to address most significant risks
PA- Actions to address priority risks
VA – Management team, ID potential sources, doing recommended actions
WV – protection plan addressing at least 3 of the protection measurses ID in the plan.

21. Integrate Federal, State & Local Actions
Region 3 pilot projects
Schuylkill Action Network: PADEP, Philadelphia Water Department, EPA
Potomac Partnership: DW utilities, MDE, VDH,VADEQ, DCDOH, ICPRB, WVDHHR, PADEP, EPA
Source Water/UST Collaboration

22. Stream Impairments from the 2004 PA 303d list (98% assessed)– based on aquatic life use support, primarily biological data – over 750 sites
Abandon mine drainage problems in the headwaters
AG issues in the middle and
Stormwater in the lower end of the watershed. 22

23. SAN Structure Reflects Priorities
Executive Steering Committee (PADEP, Phila. Water Dept, EPA, DRBC)
Education/
Outreach
Planning Committee
Universities/Science
INTEGRATED TECHNICAL WORKGROUPS
Storm Water
Agriculture
Watershed Land
Protection
Collaborative
Acid Mine Drainage
Pathogen/
Compliance
Monitoring Strategy
Funding Coordination
Data Team

24. Potomac Partnership Mission
Cooperative and Voluntary Partnership
Improve Source Water Protection
Multi-barrier Approach
Safe Guard Public Health

25. Potomac Partnership Workgroups
Strategy
Ag/Pathogens
DBP
Early Warning
Emerging Contaminants
Urban
Funding

26. Wellhead Protection 4 biennial cumulative reports from ’91 – ‘99
WHP program used by states as foundation for SWP program
WHP biennial data provides benchmark for progress on WHP and SWP
Funded through CWA 106 and SDWA SRF
Integral to groundwater protection in watersheds
Now can be reported in 305b.

27. Protecting Public Health:
Leaking USTs - a major threat to groundwater supplies
MOU with WCMD and EAID.
Underground Storage Tank
Efforts:
Prioritize inspections
Clean up priority tanks
MTBE is major threat to ground water drinking supplies.
35 states listed UST top potential source of GW contamination
680,000 active tanks
444,000 confirmed releases
10,000 new releases annually
132,000 releases in cleanup backlog
62% operational compliance
Prioritize UST inspections based on proximity to drinking
water wells
SiteRank is a UST risk assessment tool used by WCMD.
It ranks UST sites for inspections based on potential impacts
to drinking water wells.
Pilot done in 2 counties in VA,, currently doing statewide in DE, will be part of MD PPA.

28. Resources & Funding
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: grants for SWP staff, wellhead protection projects; loans for surface water protection projects
Clean Water State Revolving Fund: loans for point & nonpoint source projects, land acquisition
CWA grants: Sect. 106, 104(b)(3), 319, 604(b)
Farm Bill
In some states, the Drinking Water SRF are under utilized. EPA-HQ is currently working on new guidance to allow more DWSRF funding to be used for source water protection. Draft Guidance coming out in May 2007 (I hope).

29. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
The SDWA, as amended in 1996, established the DWSRF to make funds available to drinking water systems to finance infrastructure improvements.
Funds are also provided to small, disadvantaged communities and to programs implementing pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water.
Nationally about $800 Million
(20% State Match)
15 % - Land acquisition, WHP, Easements, Voluntary Protection – Low interest loans
10 % grant statewide program funds – Match
2% grant/contractor support to small systems, no match 29

30. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Grants for SWP staff, wellhead protection projects; loans for surface water protection projects through set-asides
15 % - Land acquisition, Capacity Development, Wellhead Protection
10% – Administer or provide technical assistance through SWP programs
2% Set-a-side – Technical Support
For Small Systems
overview

31. Springdale, PA - Stormwater, UST
Storm event caused a salt storage pile to leach into the ground and into drinking water supply.
Due to leaking UST, benzene contaminated ground water.
Trichloroethylene (TCE) from another source also contaminated GW well.
Springdale needed to improve management of land use.

32. Springdale, PA continued
The Water Department set-up the Springdale Borough WHP Committee, with guidance from PRWA, and Allegheny County Health Department, to make recommendations to town Council and Planning Division of Allegheny County.
With assistance from PA DEP SWP grant, the Committee developed a WHP plan, approved by PA DEP in 2003.
Established a student education program with brochures and newsletters for residents

33. Zoning and Ordinances, Town of Townsend, DE
Townsend is in southwestern NCC, in Middletown-Odessa-Townsend (M-O-T) Planning Region. Recently M-O-T has had accelerated growth and development.
Townsend increased area through recent annexations, from original size of 111 acres to 587 acres today.
Result is primary land use inside the town boundaries is “Vacant Developable”

34. Zoning and Ordinances, Town of Townsend, DE continued
In 2002 the Town adopted a source water protection land use ordinance.
Comprehensive environmental ordinance protects all wetlands, recognizes critical natural resource areas, promotes reforestation and preserves buffers
Requires new building in “water resource protection areas” to discharge all roof runoff into underground recharge systems and limits the surface area that can be covered by asphalt, cement or other impermeable surfaces.

35. Parkersburg, WV
Prepared a Wellhead Protection Plan assisted by the Great Lakes Rural Community Assistance Program
Participated in the Source Water Assessment Plan
Partnered with the USGS in developing a generic ground water model for water systems which use radial collector wells
Abandoned three city wells by safely and properly closing them
The Parkersburg Utility Board was chosen in 2003 because the city has achieved a significant level of source water protection. Drinking water for approximately 35,000 residents is being protected courtesy of this source water program.

36. Contact Information