Environmental
and Consumer Stakeholders Meeting
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
of 1996
Variances and Exemptions Rulemaking Effort
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Office of General Counsel
October 24, 1997
Washington, D.C.
Under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
EPA is required to promulgate revised regulations with respect to variances
and exemptions. To meet this requirement, EPA has established an inter-office
team led by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
and assisted by the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW)
ans Office of general Counsel (OGC). A stakeholder meeting was held on
October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C. at EPA Headquarters offices. The
purpose of this meeting was to solicit input from environmental and consumer
groups as EPA proceeds in this rulemaking effort.
John Lyon, OECA, opened the meeting by welcoming the attendees,
and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to solicit input from stakeholders
as opposed to reaching consensus on issues that were discussed. After
introductions, Andy Hanson, OGWDW, presented a brief overview of the variance
and exemption provisions of the 1996 SDWA Amendments.
EPA posed the following major questions to the attendees:
- I. Public Participation
- A. When, how, and by whom, should consumers be notified
that a variance is being sought by their public water system? Who
should be the recipients of such notification?
- B. States are required to conduct a public hearing if they
intend to grant a variance. By what means and how far in advance of
such a hearing should notification occur?
- C. How can EPA make the petition process most effective
given the 30 day window for the persons served by the system to petition
the Administrator?
- D. How much information should be in the petition and what
form should it take?
- II. Criteria for Granting Small System Variances
- A. What should the State consider when performing an analysis
of compliance options according to the State's affordability criteria?
- B. What should the State consider when evaluating whether
a variance will provide adequate health protection, or that an exemption
will not result in unreasonable risk to health?
- C. What should the State consider when determining whether
the public water system has the technical and financial ability to
effectively install and operate the variance technology?
- III. Other Questions
- A. How should consecutive systems be addressed? If the primary
supplier seeks a variance, should that variance also apply to other
consecutive systems?
Based on the above questions, the attendees provided a large amount
of useful information to the EPA team. Shown below are general responses
to the questions from the attendees.
A. Public Participation
Stakeholders provided comments on how the regulatory requirements
may ensure public involvement in the variance process. Some attendees
stated that a system should encourage the public to be involved in the
early stages of the variance application process and should notify the
public upon applying for a variance. Stakeholders provided a range of
comments and suggestions on the form of the notification such news media,
direct mailing, posting, and delivery to community organizations. One
stakeholder stated that a system or State could obtain the addresses of
persons, who may not receive water bills, through lists of postal patrons
that are available to the public. Some stakeholders recommended that public
hearings held by the State should be scheduled when the majority of the
public could attend (outside of working business hours) and conducted
at a location easily accessible to persons served by the system.
Stakeholders provided a range of comments regarding the content
of required notices. Some stakeholders recommended that EPA should specify
that notices should summarize information in non-technical terms, clearly
identify the contaminant at issue, including the health effects associated
with the contaminant, and contain preliminary information on compliance
options considered in the application process. Some stakeholders recommended
that notifications include a multilingual requirement that will facilitate
translation of the notice to non-English-speaking persons and should be
delivered to interested parties at least 30-days in advance of a public
meeting. Some stakeholders encouraged EPA to provide guidance to the States
and systems on how the notification provisions should be implemented.
In addressing the consumer petition process within the Act, some
stakeholders recognized that a consumer objection to a variance should
be somewhat specific. However, some attendees stated that the petition
process should not be over burdensome on the consumer especially in light
of technical information surrounding water treatment. Some stakeholders
suggested that notices proposing a variance should contain information
on how the reader may receive further information in order to make an
informed decision on whether or not to object to the proposed variance.
B. Criteria for Granting Small System Variances
Many attendees echoed concern regarding how EPA will oversee affordability
criteria established by the States and how the affordability criteria
relates to primary enforcement responsibility requirements. Environmental
stakeholders specifically asked EPA to consider how the "no less stringent"
primacy requirement relates to a State's affordability criteria. There
was also a request for EPA to establish guidance for States in establishing
their own affordability criteria.
Some stakeholders recommended to EPA that the regulation "walk through"
the affordability analysis for a small system and clearly indicate factors
that a system and State must consider in applying for and reviewing a
variance or exemption. Some attendees stated that the proposed regulations
should specify terms and conditions that protect public health and establish
specific dates by which the system must apply for financial assistance
and begin capital investments.
Some stakeholders suggested that EPA should address the health standard
to be used by a State in granting a variance or exemption. The point was
made that national health standards will ensure that variances and exemptions
are granted consistently throughout the country and are protective of
public health.
Some stakeholders notified the regulatory team of their interpretation
of § 1415(e)(6) which addresses the contaminants eligible for a small
system variance. The environmental groups stated that it is their understanding
that small systems variances are only allowed for those contaminants for
which an MCLs was promulgated after January 1, 1986. This interpretation
would exclude revisions to existing MCLs and treatment techniques from
those contaminants for which a small system variance may be granted.
C. Other Questions
Stakeholders were asked to discuss the issue of how the variance
and exemption regulations should apply to consecutive systems. Some stakeholders
recognized that variance and exemptions are source water issues applicable
to a wholesaler of water but, cautioned EPA in allowing variances or exemptions
to automatically apply to downstream systems. Some stakeholders suggested
that implementation of the regulations should consider the options available
to the downstream system as well as the wholesaler of water. Some attendees
further recommended that if a variance or exemption is granted to a wholesaler
of water, the public participation provisions should include all persons
served by the system, including persons served by a consecutive system.
EPA expressed its gratitude to all the stakeholders for attending
and for their participation and comments. EPA invited the attendees to
provide further comment.
The following is a list of all attendees:
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Name |
Organization |
Phone |
Erik Olson |
National Resources Defense Council |
(202) 289-2360 |
Brian Cohen |
Environmental Working Group |
(202) 667-6982 |
Paul Schwartz |
Clean Water Action |
(202) 895-0420 x105 |
Diana Neidle |
Consumer Federation of America |
(202) 667-9280 |
Michelle M. Harvey |
National Environmental Education and Training Foundation |
(202) 628-8200 x15 |
John W. Lyon |
EPA - HQ - OECA |
(202) 564-4051 |
Andy Hudock |
EPA - HQ - OECA |
(202) 564-6032 |
Joe Theis |
EPA - HQ - OECA |
(202) 564-4053 |
Richard Alonso |
EPA - HQ - OECA |
(202) 564-6048 |
Carrie Wehling |
EPA - HQ - OGC |
(202) 260-7710 |
Ken Harmon |
EPA - HQ - OECA |
(202) 564-7049 |
Andy Hanson |
EPA - HQ - OGWDW |
(202) 260-4320 |
Margie Jones |
EPA - HQ - OGWDW |
(202) 260-4152 |
|