Sample letter concerning Draft Pennsylvania Source Water Assessment & Protection Program

written comments are due by Monday, 29 March 1999.

23 March 1999

Joseph J. Lee, P.G.
PADEP Bureau of Water Supply Management
Rachel Carson State Office Building, 11th Floor
P.O. Box 8467
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8467

In re: Comments on Draft Pennsylvania Source Water Assessment
          & Protection Program (SWAPP)

Dear Mr. Lee:

This letter is to provide comments on the Draft Pennsylvania Source Water Assessment & Protection Program (SWAPP), dated 1/29/99, which was released for public comment on 27 February 1999. These comments are provided as a public service and not on behalf of any client. They are based on my experience during more than 20 years as a private-sector environmental consultant during which time I have worked closely with the PADEP regulatory processes and programs.

Overall, I think the proposed SWAP Program is a travesty. Little of substance is offered. As presented, the Program is difficult to follow and understand. The proposed assessment will rely primarily on existing data, information, and programs, which themselves are incomplete and inconsistent and therefore inadequate.

The quality of the drinking water of Commonwealth residents is not something that PADEP should take lightly. Many people who are generally in favor of environmental protection may not particularly care if a rare plant becomes extinct or if their car is not the most fuel efficient. Calls to preserve biodiversity or to prevent global warming do not always seem relevant to our daily lives. However, when a family's drinking water becomes contaminated, they legitimately can demand to know why it happened and whether it could have been prevented. The PADEP is unlikely to be able to provide satisfactory answers if its Assessment and Protection Program is instituted as proposed.

A) There is a tremendous need in Pennsylvania for a comprehensive and reliable statewide assessment of water sources, and the gap between what PADEP has done to date and what remains to be done is enormous. The SWAPP does not adequately address this situation. The few statistics provided in the SWAPP Introduction do not present a clear, overall framework for the necessary assessment effort. Each state is required to assess all of the surface and ground water sources serving public water systems (PWSs). There are 14,000 water sources associated with 10,400 PWSs in this state. Most of the residents of Pennsylvania rely on community water systems (CWSs), which account for 2,400 of all PWSs. Surface water sources are used by most (84%) people who rely on community water systems. Thus, about 9 million people in Pennsylvania rely on surface water sources (streams and lakes) for their drinking water. So, how good is the water quality in those surface waters? Unfortunately, the answer is not known in many cases. Pennsylvania has about 83,260 miles of waterways. Only 12,902 miles (15%) have been assessed according to the 1998 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report. Put another way, more than 70,000 miles of streams have not yet been assessed. Of the assessed streams, 34% were found to be impaired. If the same rate of impairment applies in the unassessed streams, more than 28,000 miles of streams are degraded statewide, of which 24,000 miles have not yet been identified.

B) Because the scope of the assessment problem is enormous, PADEP does not intend even to try to complete the program on time. This is inexcusable. The Executive Summary states that the 2-year timeframe established for the SWAPP process will not be met, and instead the PADEP intends to rely on the allowable 18- month extension. Thus, if everything goes smoothly and in accordance with the planned schedule, the Pennsylvania SWAPP process will be completed in mid-2003 rather than by the end of 2001. Some might say that this is a more realistic timetable. However, if the PADEP plans to finish the SWAPP in 3.5 years, it is guaranteed to take longer. Indeed, the 8 February 1999 deadline for submission of this draft SWAPP to EPA has been missed, and at best it now will be submitted several months late. It would be far better for PADEP to aim to finish the SWAPP in the designated 2 years, and then use the potential 18-month extension as the buffer period it is meant to be to refine the assessment and fill in any remaining gaps. If the SWAPP is not completed in the 3.5-year period, Pennsylvania will be in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Worse, Pennsylvania residents who should by then have received some assurances concerning the quality and safety of their water supplies, will not have them.

Before even undertaking the task, the PADEP seems to want to shift the blame away from itself by citing "limited resources" and the tight "statutorily allowed time frame" for completing the SWAPP process. If the funds available from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act program are inadequate by themselves, the Commonwealth should at least match them with state funds. Better yet, Pennsylvania should earmark additional funds to ensure that this worthwhile effort is done right. After all, this SWAP Program is fundamental to what we expect PADEP should be doing anyway. If the Department of Environmental Protection does not believe that providing basic information about the quality and integrity of our drinking water supplies is a high priority, what does it consider important?

C) The PADEP intends to rely primarily on existing data rather than conducting new studies. This is inappropriate. The proposed method may sound like a reasonable approach, but if one examines the quality and completeness of the existing data, it is clear that this approach is not only inadequate, but irresponsible. A close reading of what is proposed is less than reassuring:

"An initial statewide assessment will be conducted of all water sources serving PWSs. From these results, priorities for resources will be established..." [SWAPP pg. 9]. "...differential methods will be used based on state priorities and resources." [SWAPP pg. 10]. In other words, all water sources will only be screened, not fully assessed as they are supposed to be. Manpower and funds will be assigned as available, depending on other PADEP priorities which are not specified. Apparently, protection of water supplies from contamination is not a high PADEP priority.

"SWAPP will be based primarily on readily available GIS databases." [SWAPP pg. 9]. Unfortunately, the status of the GIS data available to be used (listed in Appendix B) does not generate great confidence. Many of the databases to be relied upon are either "partially complete" or "under development". For example, 'abandoned mines' and 'acid mine drainage sites' are two databases that are only "partially" complete, yet acid mine drainage is reported [in PADEP's 303(d) list] to be the cause of water quality impairment in more miles of degraded streams than all other causes combined. Another example: there are only 9 operating nuclear power plant units statewide, but their relevant water quality data also are listed as only "partially complete". Among the databases that are "under development" are seemingly important ones for water quality such as hazardous waste sites, storage tanks, and Act 2 (recycling of contaminated land) sites. For the data that are available statewide, the quality of those data must be considered. Land use is said to be "available", but is based on high-altitude LANDSAT photographs taken almost 10 years ago. Just because a database exists does not mean that it is compatible with other databases, so combining the "available" data in any meaningful way may be impossible.

D) The "cornerstone" for the SWAPP, the Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP), is inappropriate and inadequate. The WHPP focuses on groundwater, yet more than 80% of the state's population using community water systems rely on surface water sources. Also, a crucial component of the SWAPP is that there be an assessment of the susceptibility of the drinking water source to contamination, an aspect that the WHPPs do not address.

PWSs which rely on groundwater sources and which serve fewer than 3,300 people will receive only cursory assessments based on a "conceptual ground water flow model" developed not for a specific watershed but for a physiographic region. "More rigorous delineations and assessments will be completed as staff time is available" [SWAPP pg. 12], which no doubt can be interpreted to mean "never".

E) "The most important objective for conducting the SWAs is to support the development of local, voluntary source water protection programs." [SWAPP pg. 22]. While partnering with stakeholders is laudable, it is the responsibility of PADEP to take the key lead role in the process, not to pass that role off to others. This SWAP Program presents PADEP with an excellent opportunity to provide the necessary coordination and focus to the many watershed groups and organizations throughout the state who are actively engaged in water quality protection efforts. Although the SWAPP acknowledges that PADEP plans to "support and promote" local efforts, no details are provided. The SWAPP must provide more specific information concerning how PADEP intends to support local programs.

F) More information needs to be presented in the SWAPP on the Susceptibility Analysis of Surface Water Sources to Contamination. On page 20 it is stated that "The susceptibility analysis for surface water source [sic] of drinking water would not be substantially different then [sic] for ground water sources except for the limited protection and resulting high sensitivity of surface water sources to contamination" [italics added]. This certainly is a significant difference! Yet no further information is presented except to say that large reservoirs could have less sensitivity [than other surface water sources] due to longer detention time. The SWAPP needs to provide more specific documentation concerning how this crucial aspect will be addressed.

G) The list of potential contaminants to be inventoried should be expanded. The contaminants proposed to be inventoried are those regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, plus giardia and cryptosporidium, turbidity, disinfection by-products, and taste and odor precursors. However, the contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act are not the only ones that can cause health problems if found in drinking water. The list of contaminants should be expanded to include any drinking water contaminant found on the Contaminant Candidate List, any contaminant for which EPA has issued a health advisory level, and any contaminant monitored under the National Water Quality Assessment Program conducted by USGS.

H) Facilities regulated by state programs (e.g., NPDES) should not be assumed to pose a low risk to source water quality. It is a fact that regulated facilities release contaminants. Their impacts, particularly the cumulative impacts of contaminants released by multiple permitted facilities on a water body, are not always fully understood or considered in the permitting process. It is inappropriate to minimize the potential adverse impacts of these regulated facilities.

I) Public participation should be a more prominent part of the overall SWAPP process. As data is collected and developed, particularly to the extent it is provided by local groups and organizations, the public should have an opportunity to review that data and check it for accuracy and completeness. Furthermore, the SWAP Program should clearly state that public participation will be a key element throughout the assessment process, and it should identify specific opportunities that will be offered for public involvement and participation.

Overall, the PADEP proposal appears likely to result in a SWAP Program that provides no specific information, cannot be relied upon to be accurate or up to date, and does not serve the purpose for which it was intended, namely, to identify existing and potential sources of contamination for our water supplies. The PADEP has allowed its stream assessment program to languish for too many years. This SWAPP process presents a unique opportunity to prepare a first-rate inventory and assessment of the quality of Pennsylvania's water resources. To spend the next 3.5 years conducting a halfhearted effort such as the PADEP proposes in this draft SWAPP would be an irresponsible waste of taxpayers money.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If a comment/response document is compiled, kindly send me a copy.

Yours truly,

Stephen P. Kunz Senior Ecologist

Schmid & Company, Inc., Consulting Ecologists
1201 Cedar Grove Road
Media, PA 19063

<<<<END>>>>

return