Presentation on theme: "Protecting Sources of Drinking Water"— Presentation transcript:
1Protecting Sources of Drinking Water Introduction for meChuck Kanetsky, EPA Region 3
2Goal: Improve Source Water Quality Minimize risk to public health through risk reduction in source water areasDevelop prevention & protection strategies, achieve substantial implementation of strategies for individual CWSUsing a multibarrier approach – source water protection the first barrier.Other barriers for protection include treatment, monitoring, and development of criteria to protect consumers.
3PROTECTION 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 UICand nonpoint source2) Treatment reduces contamination but its costly and can add additional risks such as via chlorine3) 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 aboutrisks and actions they can take. Consumers also become advocates for source water protection.5) TREATMENT IS REQUIRED UNDER SDA – PROTECTION IS NOT.PROTECTION BARRIERSRISKMONITORING/COMPLIANCERISKPREVENTIONRISKMANAGEMENTINDIVIDUALACTION
4EPA’s Water Quality Laws Clean Water Act (CWA) 1972Water Quality StandardsDischarge PermitsWaste Water TreatmentWetlandsNonpoint Source PollutionAssessment of waterAssessment of impaired watersSafe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) 1974Standard Setting for Drinking WaterPublic Water Supply SupervisionUnderground Injection ControlSole Source Aquifer ProgramWellhead Protection ProgramSource Water Assessment ProgramUIC regulates injection activities to prevent contamination of underground drinking water resources. WHP vs SWP
5Source Water Assessment Programs Required through SDWA Section 1453, 1996 AmendmentsComprehensive assessment / prioritization of potential threats for every Public Water Supply System (PWS)All States developed programs for EPA approvalRequired extensive public involvement in program designWellhead Protection Programs cornerstone of SWP ProgramsFunded through Drinking Water State Revolving FundDiversity from State to State/system type by system typeChallengesNo requirement for protectionResourcesNumbers of systems change
6SWAP Basics State assessment program plans were due in early 1999 EPA approval within 6 months of submittalStates assess sources for all public water systems by 200321,000 public water systems in EPA - Region 3, servicing > 25 million people
7Source Water Assessment Dollars Delaware $674,604District of Columbia $405,778Maryland $1,764,090Pennsylvania $5,327,070Virginia $2,944,240West Virginia $1,255,880About $12.5 Million in region 3
8Key SWA Elements Delineation Contaminant Source Inventories Susceptibility AnalysesPublic participation and public access to assessment resultsPWSS 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.
9SWAP – Delineation Immediate area of impact Well Surface water 5 year time of travel1 mile radiusSurface waterWatershed boundariesIntake
10SWAP – Contamination Source Inventory Permit Compliance SystemToxic Release InventoryUnderground Storage TanksRCRASuperfundLand Use Information
11SWAP – Susceptibility Analysis Analysis of riskHydrogeology/hydrologyUnderstanding of contaminantsEffectiveness of existing protection programs
12SWAP – Public Participation Public access to assessment resultsEducate public on potential problemsProtection activities
13Source Water Assessments Availability Target completion September 2003Region 3 States have completed assessments for about 99.5% of 21,0000 Public Water Systems
14Use Assessments for Surface & Ground Water Source Protection Source water protection strategies to address actual & potential contaminant sourcesTarget substantial implementation of protection strategies for 50% of CWS and 62% population by 2011
15R3 SWAP Findings (GW) DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV Most Prevalent Sources: Ground WaterCommercial/Industrial, Residential Housing, AgricultureHighest rankings from R3 states: Residential septic systems, USTMost Threatening Sources: Ground WaterHighest rankings from R3 states: UST, septic systems, crop production
16R3 SWAP Findings (SW) DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV Most Prevalent Sources: Surface WaterCommercial/Industrial, Agriculture, Wastewater, TransportationHighest rankings from R3 states: General agriculture, grazing, overall transportationMost Threatening Sources: Surface WaterAgriculture, Commercial/Industrial, WastewaterHighest rankings from R3 states: General agriculture, Residential
17Strategic Actions Complete & improve assessments Use assessments as basis for SW & GW protection plansIntegrate actions:Federal, State, localCWA & SDWACollaboration among Federal agencies/programsUse assessment info for developing a strategy. Use water programs as a too l for implementation.
18Water Safe to DrinkMeasure #: Strategic Target SP-4 National Office Lead: OGWDWMeasure 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 protectionNational 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.
20State Definition for “Substantial Implementation” Region 3State Definition for “Substantial Implementation”DelawareStrategies 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).MarylandStrategy 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.PennsylvaniaEstablishment 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.VirginiaWaterworks 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 VirginiaAny 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 measuresMD – Strategy to address most significant risksPA- Actions to address priority risksVA – Management team, ID potential sources, doing recommended actionsWV – protection plan addressing at least 3 of the protection measurses ID in the plan.
21Integrate Federal, State & Local Actions Region 3 pilot projectsSchuylkill Action Network: PADEP, Philadelphia Water Department, EPAPotomac Partnership: DW utilities, MDE, VDH,VADEQ, DCDOH, ICPRB, WVDHHR, PADEP, EPASource Water/UST Collaboration
22Stream Impairments from the 2004 PA 303d list (98% assessed)– based on aquatic life use support, primarily biological data – over 750 sitesAbandon mine drainage problems in the headwatersAG issues in the middle andStormwater in the lower end of the watershed.22
26Wellhead Protection 4 biennial cumulative reports from ’91 – ‘99 WHP program used by states as foundation for SWP programWHP biennial data provides benchmark for progress on WHP and SWPFunded through CWA 106 and SDWA SRFIntegral to groundwater protection in watershedsNow can be reported in 305b.
27Protecting Public Health: Leaking USTs - a major threat to groundwater suppliesMOU with WCMD and EAID.Underground Storage TankEfforts:Prioritize inspectionsClean up priority tanksMTBE is major threat to ground water drinking supplies.35 states listed UST top potential source of GW contamination680,000 active tanks444,000 confirmed releases10,000 new releases annually132,000 releases in cleanup backlog62% operational compliancePrioritize UST inspections based on proximity to drinkingwater wellsSiteRank is a UST risk assessment tool used by WCMD.It ranks UST sites for inspections based on potential impactsto drinking water wells.Pilot done in 2 counties in VA,, currently doing statewide in DE, will be part of MD PPA.
28Resources & FundingDrinking Water State Revolving Fund: grants for SWP staff, wellhead protection projects; loans for surface water protection projectsClean Water State Revolving Fund: loans for point & nonpoint source projects, land acquisitionCWA grants: Sect. 106, 104(b)(3), 319, 604(b)Farm BillIn 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).
29Drinking 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 loans10 % grant statewide program funds – Match2% grant/contractor support to small systems, no match29
30Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Grants for SWP staff, wellhead protection projects; loans for surface water protection projects through set-asides15 % - Land acquisition, Capacity Development, Wellhead Protection10% – Administer or provide technical assistance through SWP programs2% Set-a-side – Technical SupportFor Small Systemsoverview
31Springdale, 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.
32Springdale, 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
33Zoning 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”
34Zoning 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 buffersRequires 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.
35Parkersburg, WVPrepared a Wellhead Protection Plan assisted by the Great Lakes Rural Community Assistance ProgramParticipated in the Source Water Assessment PlanPartnered with the USGS in developing a generic ground water model for water systems which use radial collector wellsAbandoned three city wells by safely and properly closing themThe 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.