Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Protecting Sources of Drinking Water

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Protecting Sources of Drinking Water"— Presentation transcript:

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.

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

Download ppt "Protecting Sources of Drinking Water"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google