Waste Water treatment Sources: Wiki, EPA, Lenntech, CASTion 7/17/2018 1 Traditional Industrial Wastewater Treatment • Historically, water and wastewater treatment plants have used a a variety of strategies to remove contamination from their influent and effluent waters so that it can be either used as process water or discharged to the sanitary sewer. • Among the technologies that could be used for water and waste water treatment are ion exchange, reverse osmosis, filtration, flocculation, oilwater separators or biological treatments. • Most industrial plants that require high quality water have separate water and wastewater treatment systems with the influent water used in the plant and then sent as used process water to wastewater treatment plants. • The plant must then make a significant investment in separate water and wastewater treatment systems. 7/17/2018 2 Waste Water Treatment Process Source: http://www.vicchiengineering.com/product_iv5.html 7/17/2018 3 • • • • • • WW treatment process Process Description Local water authorities require industrial wastewater discharge neutralization to protect the ecological systems in the surrounding lakes, rivers, and oceans or to protect the local sewer networks and treatment plant. The use of acidic and caustic chemicals to neutralize the discharge is widely used because they are effective and inexpensive. The neutralization process can be complex and is different for each industrial location. A good understanding of the wastewater chemical make up, buffering capacity (alkalinity), flow rate, and sewer discharge requirements (pH, suspended solids, dissolved solids etc.) is critical in selecting the proper chemical neutralization treatment program. It is most effective to perform the neutralization process in a tank rather than in a pipe to the final process or discharge. The neutralization tank construction should include a pH sensor, mounted in a position that will allow the easy removal of the sensor for periodic maintenance and calibration, a mixing motor, and chemical injection pumps located opposite of the pH sensor. Sensors that measure pH are crucial in the neutralization process, however, all pH sensors are not the same. Many neutralization processes contain materials or chemicals that can cause premature senor failure by contamination of the internal reference solution (or “coating” on the sensor). 7/17/2018 4 Simplified WW Treatment Process is presented below Source: http://www.lenntech.com/aplications/waste/waste-water.htm 7/17/2018 5 Primary Treatment - Clarification • Clarification consists in removing of particles, sediments, oil, natural organic matter and color from the water to make it clearer. A clarification step is the first part of conventional treatment for waste and surface water treatment. It usually consist of:- Screening - Physical chemical treatment is a generic term for Coagulation-Flocculation - Sedimentation or Flotation, upon particles properties and water type - Fine filtration For detailed information check the links above. • For industrial effluents, Centrifugation is applied for heavy particles removal • Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/library/clarification/physchem.htm#ixzz0hQwYnQBh Source: http://www.lenntech.com/library/clarification/physchem.htm 7/17/2018 6 Secondary - Biological Treatment • Biological treatment of waste water and (domestic) sewage water is used to lower the organic load of soluted organic compounds. There are two main categories: ✓ Aerobic treatment ✓ Anaerobic treatment The organic load is defined by the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). In aerobic systems the water is aerated with compressed air (in some cases oxygen). Anaerobic systems run under oxygen free conditions. Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/applications/waste/biological/biological.htm#ixzz0hQyPHT1q 7/17/2018 7 Tertiary WW treatment – Fine filtration • Water filtration for industrial wastewater and water recycling processes. • • Sediments, fins and particles can be removed by sediment filters: - Cartridge filters - Bag filters - Y-Strainers - Drum filter - Disc filter - Woven Wire - Precoat Filter Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/systems/sediment/filtration.htm#ixzz0hR04Cdne 7/17/2018 8 Sludge Treatment • Biological/chemical waste water treatment reduces the solved and unresolved pollutants existing in the waste water. These are to be regained in the sewage sludge at the end of the water treatment. • The sludge treatment is necessary to reduce and to amliorate the sludges, which are produced within the biological wastewater treatment. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Stabilization Thickening Dewatering Sludge drying Also check additional information links about copious growth of filamentous organisms - problems and solutions and biological excess sludge reduction. Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/library/sludge/sludgetreatment-general.htm#ixzz0hR4QStAE 7/17/2018 9 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • How does our wastewater treatment plant work? • The 16 million gallons per day (average) entering the facility is conveyed by over 635 miles of interceptor sewers, varying in size from 8 inches to 72 inches in diameter. The Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Section is responsible for the maintenance and repair of all public sewer mains and manholes. • The type of wastewater treatment used in the Columbia Regional Wastewater Treatment Plantis called the complete-mix activated sludge process. This is a biological process in which naturally occurring living microorganisms (bacteria, protozoa, tiny plants and animals) are maintained at a very high population level. They quickly consume the dissolved and suspended organic material carried over from the primary treatment of the incoming wastewater as a source of food. This process promotes the formation of biological masses that clump together by adhesion and settle to the bottom forming "sludge." • http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/PublicWorks/Sewer/wwtppg_4.php 7/17/2018 10 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • Wastewater treatment basically takes place in three stages: • Preliminary & Primary treatment, which removes 40-60% of the solids. • Secondary treatment, which removes about 90% of the pollutants and completes the process for the liquid portion of the separated wastewater. • Sludge (biosolids) treatment and disposal. 7/17/2018 11 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • Preliminary & Primary Treatment • STEP 1 Sanitary sewers carry wastewater from homes and businesses to the raw wastewater pumping station at the treatment plant. The wastewater flows by gravity, rather than pressurized pipe flow, in the sanitary sewer pipes. Routine cleaning and closed circuit television inspection of Columbia's sanitary sewer lines helps keep the sewer collection system in good shape. Each year new construction in the City of Columbia adds about 10 miles of new sanitary sewer lines and 250 manholes to the sanitary sewer collection system. 7/17/2018 12 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • Preliminary & Primary Treatment • STEP 2 Bar Screens let water pass, but not trash (such as rags, diapers, etc.). There are two bar screens located inside the Raw Wastewater Pump Building. The trash is collected and properly disposed of. The screened wastewater is pumped to the Primary Settling Basins. 7/17/2018 13 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • Preliminary & Primary Treatment • STEP 3 Two Primary Settling Basins allow smaller particles to settle from wastewater by gravity. This primary wastewater flows out to the next stage of treatment. Scrapers collect the solid matter that remains (called "primary sludge"). A surface skimmer collects scum or grease floating on top of the basins. 7/17/2018 14 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • Secondary Treatment • STEP 1 Two Aeration Basins supply large amounts of air to the mixture of primary wastewater and helpful bacteria and the other microorganisms that consume the harmful organic matter. The growth of the helpful microorganisms is sped up by vigorous mixing of air (aeration) with the concentrated microorganisms (activated sludge) and the wastewater. Adequate oxygen is supplied to support the biological process at a very active level. The ratio of food (organic matter) to organisms to oxygen is continually monitored and adjusted to meet daily variations in the wastewater. 7/17/2018 15 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • Secondary Treatment • STEP 2 Two Final Settling Basins allow the clumps of biological mass (the microorganisms) to settle from the water by gravity. 90-95 % of this mixture, called "activated sludge," is returned to the aeration basins to help maintain the needed amount of microorganisms. The remaining 5-10 % is pumped to the anaerobic digester (described later). 7/17/2018 16 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • Secondary treatment • STEP 3 The final effluent (liquid portion from Step 2) travels through a 2.25 mile long, 72 inch diameter pipeline to WTU-4, the first of the City's four constructed wetland treatment units, in the McBaine Bottoms for further treatment. Cattails planted in theseconstructed wetland cells (ponds) consume some of the remaining nutrients in the effluent. The wastewater passes through three more WTU's before treatment is completed. This "polished" effluent leaves the City of Columbia's constructed wetlands at the wetlands pump station where it is pumped into the Missouri Department of Conservation'sEagle Bluffs Conservation Area(EBCA), a restored riverine wetland. This "polished" effluent is used as a source of water for the EBCA. For more information about the City of Columbia's constructed wetlands treatment system, click on the image of cattails on the right. 7/17/2018 17 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • Sludge (Biosolids) Treatment • STEP 1 The "primary sludge" from the Primary Settling Basins is pumped to the Hydrocyclone Grit Separator where it is spun, thereby separating the inorganic solids (grit) from the lighter weight organic solids. The grit is disposed of in the City landfill. 7/17/2018 18 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • Sludge (Biosolids) Treatment • STEP 2 The primary sludge continues on to the gravitySludge Thickener where the solids are concentrated and pumped to the anaerobic digesters. The liquid overflow is returned to the pump station. Waste Activated Sludge from the Final Settling Basins is pumped to a Centrifuge (image at right) for further solids processing, then pumped to the anaerobic digesters. 7/17/2018 19 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • Sludge (Biosolids) Treatment • STEP 3 Primary and activated sludges are anaerobically digested(decomposed by bacteria without the presence of air) in the two-stage digesters. Stabilized sludge has little odor and conforms to the EPA requirements to further reduce harmful microorganisms. 7/17/2018 20 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • Sludge (Biosolids) Treatment • Step 3 • Methane gas is produced by this anaerobic digestion and is used as fuel for an engine-generator providing 240 kW of electrical power used in the treatment process. Waste heat from the engine is recovered for heating the treatment plant buildings and to provide heating to improve the sludge digestion process and produce more gas. 7/17/2018 21 Columbia, MO Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Example • Sludge (Biosolids) Treatment • STEP 4 Step 4 is the application of the stabilized sludge (biosolids) onto both Cityowned and private farmland by subsurface injection(plowing). The biosolids are utilized in an environmentally acceptable manner as a beneficial and valuable fertilizer and soil conditioner. The biosolids applied to all sites are monitored for nutrients, metals, other compounds and fecal coliform bacteria. Soil testing is performed at all sites prior to biosolids application. 7/17/2018 22 The Changing Economics of Process Water Use and Disposal • Today, the economics for industrial wastewater treatment and water treatment are changing because of water shortages, rising commodity prices and a higher degree of water and waste water treatment. • Current average national prices are increasing more than the rate of inflation for water purchase and wastewater disposal. Nationwide average wastewater disposal rates have increased by 12.1% from 2002-2004. • However, among industrial and commercial groups there are widely different wastewater discharge rates based on surcharges for carbon oxygen demand, solids content, flow of their wastewater and degree of effluent treatment. • Among the industry groups with the highest wastewater discharge rates are specialty food manufacturing, drum and barrel manufacturing, inorganic chemicals manufacturing, and paint manufacturing and others that use metals or solvents in their process. 7/17/2018 23 The Changing Economics of Process Water Use and Disposal • Rising costs for water, wastewater disposal and rising commodity prices have many corporations rethinking their water and waste water treatment strategies looking to reduce costs. Instead of only considering environmental regulations in their decision making, companies are now looking at other factors in their waste water treatment capital investment models including: ✓ Economic value of the commodities discharged in wastewater ✓ Permit costs ✓ Purchase costs for process water ✓ Disposal Costs for wastewater ✓ Waste Disposal costs ✓ Costs of wastewater treatment systems 7/17/2018 24 Advanced Industrial Wastewater Treatment • Recovery and reuse of process water in industrial treatment systems requires a new technological strategy based on the separation of process water from the process chemistry. • These advanced industrial wastewater treatment system combine traditional commercial off-theshelf technologies such as membranes, reverse osmosis, micro- and ultrafiltration with newer systems that allow recovery of water and process chemistries at a standard of quality that can be reused or recycled back into your process. Source: http://www.castion.com/IndustrialSolutions/effluent-water-treatment.aspx 7/17/2018 25 Advanced Industrial Wastewater Treatment 7/17/2018 26 Water and Liquid Waste Treatment Plant and System Operators • BLS - Occupational Outlook Handbook • Check significant points for Water and Liquid Waste Treatment Plant and System Operators • http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos229.htm • Also check Mass IWTP description: http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/approvals/draft/w202815_iwtp_description.pdf 7/17/2018 27 August 2002 Source Water Protection Best Management Practices and Other Measures for Protecting Drinking Water Supplies 1-1 August 2002 Acknowledgements The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency would like to acknowledge the contributions of the members of the Source Water Protection Best Management Practices Advisory Group, under the leadership of Steven Ainsworth of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. • • • • • • • • • • • Rita Bair James Bourne Ross Brennan Hamilton Brown Richard Cobb James Crawford Anthony Dulka Jack Falk MaryJo Feuerbach Nancy Fitz Claire Gesalman • • • • • • • • • • • Robert Goo Richard Gullick Denise Hawkins Joyce Hudson Elizabeth Hunt Paul Jehn Joseph Lee Marty Link Ryan McReynolds Karen Metchis Douglas Minter • • • • • • • • • • • • Beatriz Oliveira Bruce Olsen Roberta Parry Kenneth Pelletier Art Persons Shari Ring Andrea Ryon Chi Ho Sham Paul Shriner Stephanie Vap-Morrow Hal White Pamla Wood The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency would like to acknowle dge the contributions of the members of the Source Water Protection Best Management Practices Advisory Group, under the leadership of Steven Ainsworth of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. The members are Rita Bair, U.S. EPA, Region 5; James Bourne, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; Ross Brennan, U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Management; Hamilton Brown, State Services Organization; Richard Cobb, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; James Crawford, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality; Anthony Dulka, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; Jay Evans, U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks; Jack Falk, U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Management; MaryJo Feuerbach, U.S. EPA, Region 1; Nancy Fitz, U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs; Claire Gesalman, U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs; Robert Goo, U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; Richard Gullick, American Water Works Company, Inc.; Denise Hawkins, The Cadmus Group, Inc.; Joyce Hudson, U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Management; Elizabeth Hunt, Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation; Paul Jehn, Ground Water Protection Council; Joseph Lee, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Marty Link, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality; Ryan McReynolds, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; Karen Metchis, U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Management; Douglas Minter, U.S. EPA, Region 8; Beatriz Oliveira, U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Bruce Olsen, Minnesota Department of Health; Roberta Parry, U.S. EPA, Office of Policy; Kenneth Pelletier, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; Art Persons, Minnesota Department of Health; Shari Ring, The Cadmus Group, Inc.; Andrea Ryon, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments; Chi Ho Sham, The Cadmus Group, Inc.; Paul Shriner, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; Stephanie Vap-Morrow, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality; Hal White U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks; and Pamla Wood, Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection. 1-2 August 2002 Drinking Water Academy • The mission of the Drinking Water Academy (DWA) is to enhance the capabilities of State, Tribal and EPA staff to implement Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements. Through classroom instruction, Web-based training, and the availability of training modules and other information, the DWA works to bring new personnel up to speed and enhance the skills of current drinking water staff. • The DWA provides training in SDWA’s three major program areas: o Public water system supervision; o Underground injection control; and o Source water protection. • The DWA provides an introductory course in each of these three areas, as well as an introductory overview of SDWA. It also provides regulatory training and technical training on specific topics such as sanitary surveys. • This course builds on the introductory source water protection course. The purpose of this course is to provide information on source water contamination prevention measures to technical assistance providers who, in turn, will assist local level water suppliers and communities who are responsible for implementing such measures. 1-3 August 2002 Objectives • Define source water and explain its importance • Describe potential threats to source water • Discuss SDWA’s major source water protection programs • Define source water protection measures • This training will cover a number of topics. By the end of the session, you should be able to: o Define source water and explain its importance; o Describe potential threats to source water; o Discuss SDWA’s major source water protection programs; and o Define source water protection measures. 1-4 August 2002 Objectives • Discuss types of prevention measures • Describe measures for specific sources • Discuss what individuals and organizations can do to foster source water protection • In addition, you should be able to: o Discuss types of prevention measures; o Describe measures for specific sources; and o Discuss what individuals and organizations can do to foster source water protection. 1-5 August 2002 Introduction to Source Water Protection 1-6 August 2002 Definition and Importance of Source Water Protection • Source water protection is defined as efforts to protect drinking water sources – Surface water – Ground water • Why protect source water? – – – – Public health protection Economic benefits Environmental benefits Public confidence • Whether a public water system relies on surface water, ground water, or a combination of the two, protection of a water system’s source is important. o If source water becomes contaminated, threats to public health are increased. o In addition, expensive treatment or replacement or relocation of the water supply may be required. Treatment or relocation costs are passed on to every user served by the public water system and local property values may be reduced. o Water is a limited resource. If a source becomes contaminated, there may not be another source available that can be developed. • Protection of existing sources of water is a prudent way to protect public health and keep treatment costs to a minimum. • Existing Federal laws have tended to focus on specific sources, pollutants, or land uses that may affect water quality, and have not addressed the need for an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach to environmental management. Historically, successes in controlling water pollution have been most widespread in surface water through control of point sources and in ground water by preventing contamination from hazardous waste sites. 1-7 August 2002 Benefits of Source Water Protection • "An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure." • Many communities are implementing protection efforts to prevent contamination of their drinking water supplies. These communities, counties, and locally financed water districts have found that the less polluted water is before it reaches the treatment plant, the less extensive and expensive the efforts needed to safeguard the public's health. • Studies have shown that the cost of dealing with contaminated ground water supplies for the communities studied was, on average, 30 to 40 times more (and up to 200 times greater) than preventing their contamination. • Further, clean water and healthy ecosystems offer other unquantifiable benefits, in terms of the quality of our lives. • This section describes the benefits of preventing drinking water contamination. It describes and compares the costs of contamination and the benefits or costs-avoided due to preventive measures. 1-8 August 2002 Avoid Costs of Contamination • Quantifiable costs – treatment and remediation; finding and replacing water supplies; public information campaigns; regulatory compliance; loss of property value and tax revenue • Less quantifiable costs – health costs; lost productivity; lost economic development opportunities; lost consumer confidence • The benefits to communities of protecting their drinking water supplies might best be understood by describing the costs of failing to protect them. These costs include those that are relatively easy to capture in monetary or economic terms and those that are not. Easily quantifiable costs of drinking water supply contamination include: o treatment and/or remediation, o finding and developing new supplies and/or providing emergency replacement water, o abandoning a drinking water supply due to contamination, o paying for consulting services and staff time, o litigating against responsible parties, o conducting public information campaigns when incidents arouse public and media interest in source water pollution, o meeting the regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, such as the Disinfection Byproduct and monitoring requirements, o loss of property value or tax revenue, and o loss of revenue from boating or fishing when a lake or reservoir is used as a drinking water supply. • Costs that are not easily quantified include: o health related costs from exposure to contaminated water, o lost production of individuals and businesses, interruption of fire protection, loss of economic development opportunities, and o lack of community acceptance of treated drinking water. 1-9 August 2002 Contamination Is Expensive • A community may spend millions of dollars responding to contamination • One basic truth is that dealing with contamination is expensive. Consider the following communities’ experiences. o In Perryton, TX, carbon tetrachloride was detected in the ground water supply. Remediation cost this small community an estimated $250,000. o Pesticides and solvents in Mililani, HI’s ground water required the system to build and operate a new treatment plant. The plant cost $2.5 million, and annual operation costs are $154,000. o The towns of Coeur d'Alene, ID and Atlanta, MI have experienced contamination of their ground water supplies. Each had to replace its water supply, at costs of approximately $500,000. o Solvents and Freon in the ground water serving Montgomery County, MD are requiring the county to install water lines and provide free water to its customers. This has cost the County over $3 million, plus $45,000 per year for 50 years. o Cryptosporidium in Milwaukee’s river water sickened hundreds of people and required the city to upgrade its water system. The cost of the system improvements, along with costs to the water utility, city, and Health Department associated with the disease outbreak were $89 million. • Preventing drinking water contamination can save communities similar response costs. 1-10 August 2002 Saving Money Through Prevention • Cost savings via complying with standards • Monitoring waivers • Water as a commodity or raw material -- quality matters • Prevention can save communities money in other ways. • Communities with effective drinking water contamination prevention programs may enjoy substantial savings in the costs of complying with SDWA or similar state regulations. For example, water purveyors that minimize algae growth by implementing programs that prevent nutrients from entering water supply reservoirs will likely minimize the cost for treating the water to remove total organic carbon in compliance with the Disinfection Byproducts Rule. • Water suppliers with programs in place to prevent contamination of drinking water also may be eligible for waivers from some monitoring requirements, thereby reducing monitoring costs. Such waivers have already saved Massachusetts water systems approximately $22 million over the three- year compliance cycle, while Texas water systems saved $49 million over two and one- half years. • In addition, water can be thought of as a commodity that water systems sell and farmers use as a raw material. Once it becomes contaminated, it loses value because it cannot be sold to customers, or it must be treated prior to being sold or used. Uncontaminated water has value to the PWS, determined by the price of water its customers are willing to pay. 1-11 August 2002 Other Economic Benefits • Real estate values • Business development – Tax revenues – Jobs • Recreation and tourism revenue • Preventing contamination of drinking water can also help to maintain real estate values in areas served by protected water supplies. In regions affected by water supply contamination, declines in real estate values ha ve been clearly documented, such as in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. • Protecting water supplies may also prevent the loss of existing or potential tax revenues and jobs when businesses refuse to locate or remain near places with known or suspected problems. For example, a survey by the Freshwater Foundation found that five Minnesota cities collectively lost over $8 million in tax revenues because of real estate devaluation as a result of ground water pollution. • Preventing contamination of a water supply that serves as a major scenic or tourist attraction can safeguard local tourism and recreation revenues. For example, the annual value of tourism and recreation in the Keuka Lake watershed in upstate New York was conservatively estimated at $15 million in 1996. Keuka Lake provides drinking water for the villages of Penn Yan, Hammondsport, Keuka Park, and Dresden. “The integrity of a town's water reflects upon the integrity of the companies within that town.” Sam Rowse, President of Veryfine Products in Westford, MA, on businesses’ preference for communities with protected water supplies. 1-12 August 2002 Still More Economic Benefits Detention pond • BMPs are standard operating procedures that can reduce the threats that activities at homes, businesses, agriculture, and industry can pose to water supplies • BMPs can increase the aesthetic beauty and value of residential and commercial properties • Some best management practices, such as aesthetically designed runoff controls offer financial benefits in addition to their environmental benefits. When designed and sited correctly and safely, artificial lakes or wetlands can increase the value of surrounding property (and the tax revenue they generate). • Developers often realize higher (and quicker) sales from homes adjacent to a wet pond; walking paths and fitness equipment can add to the aesthetics of the area and provide recreational uses, further increasing property value s. In general, the proximity to water raises the value of a home, by up to 28 percent, according to a 1993 study conducted by the National Association of Home Builders. • A few cases illustrate this point: o In the Sale Lake subdivision of Boulder, CO, lots surrounding a constructed wetland drew a 30 percent price premium over those with no water view. o In the Hybernia community of Highland Park, IL, waterfront lots surrounding a constructed detention pond/stream system draw a 10 percent premium above those with no water view. o BMPs can increase rental values as well. At the Lynne Lake Arms in St. Petersburg, FL, apartments or townhouses facing detention ponds on the property return rents of $15 to $35 more per month than those that do not. Similar trends are seen in rental fees for commercial property, such as office space in Fairfax County, VA. 1-13 August 2002 Non-Monetary Benefits • In addition to the monetary benefits of preventing contamination of drinking water supplies, there are benefits that are difficult (or controversial) to assign a dollar value. While difficult to quantify monetarily, they ha ve a direct link to quality of life. Their importance may rival or exceed that of monetary benefits. For example, protection of human health is the driving force behind the Nation's water supply protection programs. • Other quality of life benefits include safeguarding resources for future generations, building confidence in the water supply, and maintaining healthy ecosystems and opportunities for recreation. 1-14 August 2002 Health Benefits • Reduce risk to human health – illnesses and death – productivity and wages – medical expenses • Preventing contamination of drinking water supplies should result in reduced risk to human health from both acute and chronic ailments. Overall, the U.S. is doing a good job delivering safe drinking water to the public, but challenges remain and may increase as new waterborne disease age nts and chemicals are found in water supplies. Although most people experience only mild illnesses from waterborne microbes, pathogenic organisms such as Cryptosporidium and some strains of E. coli can be transmitted to people through drinking water and cause serious illness or even death. • In addition to threats posed by microbial contaminants, other substances can contaminate water supplies. Metals, volatile organic carbons, synthetic organic chemicals, and pesticides can cause serious health problems for persons exposed to them over long periods of time at levels exceeding health-based drinking water standards. Potential health effects of long-term exposure to these pollutants include cancer, birth defects, and organ, nervous system, and blood damage. • The health-related costs of contamination can include lost wages, hospital and doctor bills, and in extreme cases, death. 1-15 August 2002 Quality of Life Benefits • Safeguarding resources for future generations • Building confidence in the water supply • Healthy ecosystems and recreational benefits • Stewardship of water resources is an important goal for people in a community who care about the fate of their children and grand children. Protecting water supplies for future generations brings with it a sense of accomplishment and legacy, and generates an attitude of pride in the community. • Effective communities often exhibit a prevailing attitude of trust toward the local government structure. If residents have a high level of confidence in the ability and commitment of the people on whom they depend for clean water, they are much more likely to be supportive of these departments on a day-to-day basis, as well as at town or city council meetings when programs and budgets are presented. This attitude is critical to continued success in providing high quality water. • By ensuring clean water resources, a community helps to support the biological systems on which life depends. Plant and wildlife ecosystems benefit from clean water as much as people do. In addition to providing drinking water, clean water resources often enhance recreational activities, such as swimming, fishing, and boating. These and other activities, in addition to enhancing the quality of life for people who engage in them, may provide enormous tourism or other economic benefits to local economies. 1-16 August 2002 The Costs of Prevention • Vary based on the prevention measure(s) selected • Differ from community to community • Of course, there are costs associated with preventing contamination of drinking water supplies. • The cost to an individual supplier or community greatly depends on the types of preventive measures it chooses to implement. Protective measures can be relatively simple and inexpensive (such as public education programs) to expensive (such as purchasing land or easements). Program costs include staffing; program planning, development, and administration; land or easement purchases; and structural management measures. o Constructed management devices such as wetlands and retention basins, can cost approximately $100,000 for a 50-acre site, plus the value of the land they occupy. o Housekeeping measures such as street sweeping cost public works departments depending on the frequency at which they are performed. • These costs may vary greatly from community to community and place to place, and will depend on such factors as the value of real estate in a particular area and the measures the community selects to protect its water supplies. 1-17 August 2002 Comparing Costs and Benefits • Responding to contamination can be as much as 200 times as costly as prevention • EPA studied the contamination and prevention costs to six small- and medium-sized communities that experienced contamination of their ground water supplies and subsequently developed a wellhead protection program. o Costs of contamination included costs of remediation activities, replacing water supplies, and providing water. o Prevention costs include basic program costs for delineating a protection area, identifying potential sources of contamination, developing an initial management plan, and planning for alternative water supplies and other responses in case of an emergency. o The ratio of the benefits of avoiding contamination to the costs of the wellhead programs ranged from 5 to 1 to 200 to 1. 1-18 August 2002 SWP Is Worth It • Comparing the costs of contamination to the costs to prevention reveals that prevention programs are generally well worth the cost and effort as an effective “insurance” against contamination and its associated costs. • If you add the considerable quality of life benefits that are potentially provided by a source water protection program, the program may prove to be a bargain. 1-19 August 2002 Contamination Pathways ••• • • Surface water is vulnerable to contamination from direct discharges, runoff and ground water inflow. Chemical and microbiological contaminants (represented by the red diamonds) may enter surface water through runoff, or through direct disposal into rivers or streams; acid rain may affect surface water sources; and contaminated ground water may interact with surface water and spread contamination. Surface water is vulnerable to both chemical and microbiological contamination and in most cases requires treatment, filtration and/or disinfection before it is safe to drink. Runoff from surface areas in a watershed, either near a drinking water supply intake or in upstream tributaries, may contain contaminants, including human or animal wastes (represented by the yellow circles). In addition, contaminated ground water may recharge streams or lakes spreading the contamination to a surface water source. • Ground water, which is protected by layers of soils and other subsurface materials, sometimes does not require treatment prior to use. However, ground water can become contaminated through infiltration from the surface, injection of contaminants through improperly constructed or defective injection wells (including septic systems), or by naturally occurring substances in the soil or rock through which it flows. Depending on the hydrogeologic setting, contaminants in ground water may migrate from the source and pollute water supplies far away. The properties of the aquifer (i.e.,ground water within the subsurface zone of saturation in sufficient quantities to support a well or spring) and overlying soils affect contaminant movement. For example, highly permeable aquifers conduct ground water flow quickly, allowing little time to detect a contamination plume before it reaches a drinking water supply. • Ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) faces the same risks as surface water and the same treatment should be used before us ing GWUDI as a source of drinking water. 1-20 August 2002 What Health Effects Can Contaminated Source Water Cause? • Acute health effects • Chronic health effects • There are two major types of health effects—acute and chronic. o Acute health effects are immediate (appearing within hours or days) effects that may result from exposure to certain contaminants such as pathogens (disease causing organisms) or nitrate that may be in drinking water. – Pathogens are usually associated with gastrointestinal illness and, in extreme cases, death, especially among immuno-compromised individuals, such as AIDS patients. – Nitrate in drinking water also poses an acute health threat to infants. High levels can interfere with the ability of an infant’s blood to carry oxygen. This potentially fatal condition is called methemoglobinemia or “blue baby syndrome.” Nitrates may also indicate the possible presence of other more serious residential or agricultural contaminants such as bacteria. o Chronic health effects are the possible result of exposure over many years to a drinking water contaminant, especially at levels above its maximum level established by EPA. Chronic health effects include birth defects, cancer, and other long-term health effects. Contaminants causing chronic health effects are mostly chemical contaminants and include, among others, byproducts of disinfection, lead and other metals, pesticides, and solvents. For example, some disinfection byproducts are toxic and some are probably carcinogens. Exposure to lead can impair the mental development of children. However, there is usually little risk from short-term exposure to these contaminants at levels typically found in drinking water. 1-21 August 2002 What Contaminants Cause Acute Health Effects? • Viruses (e.g., Norwalk virus) • Parasites, protozoa or cysts • Nitrate • Bacteria (e.g., Shigella, E.Coli) Parasite Giardia lamblia Parasite Cryptosporidium Warning Sign About Dangers of Nitrate • Pathogens , which can cause acute health effects, are microorganisms that can cause disease in humans, animals and plants. They may be bacteria, viruses, or parasites and are found in sewage, in runoff from animal farms or rural areas populated with domestic and/or wild animals, and in water used for swimming. Fish and shellfish contaminated by pathogens, or the contaminated water itself, can cause serious illnesses. o A virus is the smallest form of microorganism capable of causing disease. A virus of fecal origin is called an enterovirus and is infectious to humans by waterborne transmission. These viruses, such as the Norwalk virus and a group of Norwalk-like viruses, are of special concern for drinking water regulators. Many waterborne viruses can cause gastroenteritis, with symptoms that include diarrhea, nausea, and/or stomach cramps. Gastroenteritis can be fatal for people with compromised immune systems. The World Health Organization counts waterborne viruses as second only to malaria in lost work time and dollars in the global economy. o Bacteria are microscopic living organisms usually consisting of a single cell. Waterborne disease-causing bacteria include E. coli and Shigella . o Protozoa or parasites are also single cell organisms. Examples include Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium. Giardia lamblia was only recognized as being a human pathogen capable of causing waterborne disease outbreaks in the late 1970s. During the past 15 years, Giardia lamblia has become recognized as one of the most common causes of waterborne disease in humans in the United States. The protozoa Cryptosporidium (often called “crypto”) is commonly found in lakes and rivers and is highly resistant to disinfection used in chlorine. Cryptosporidium has caused several large outbreaks of gastrointestinal illness. o Nitrate in drinking water at levels above 10 ppm is a health risk for infants less than six months old. High nitrate levels in drinking water can cause blue baby syndrome. Nitrate levels may rise quickly for short periods of time because of rainfall or agricultural activity. 1-22 August 2002 What Contaminants Cause Chronic Health Effects? • Volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) • Inorganic chemicals (IOCs) • Synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) • Contaminants that can cause chronic health effects include byproducts of disinfection, lead and other metals, pesticides, and solvents. Sources of these contaminants include: o Commercial activities such as automotive repair facilities, laundromats and dry cleaners, airports, gas stations, photographic processors, and construction sites often use materials that are toxic. o Industrial activities such as chemical manufacturing and storage, machine or metalworking shops, and mining operations often use substances that can contaminate drinking water supplies. o Petroleum product storage in underground tanks is one of the greatest threats to ground water quality. o Agricultural activities such as use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers applied to crops on farmland may be highly toxic and can remain in soil and water for many months or years. These same substances are used by millions of homeowners as well. o Urban activities such as improper disposal or leaks of household hazardous wastes, can seep into the ground or run into storm drains and contaminate ground water. o Other sources of water contamination include chemicals used for road de-icing and maintenance, landfills, and surface impoundments. • Volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) vaporize at relatively low temperatures. They include mostly industrial and chemical solvents such as benzene and toluene. Benzene has the potential to cause chromosome aberrations and cancer from a lifetime exposure at le vels above the maximum contaminant level. Toluene has the potential to cause pronounced nervous disorders such as spasms, tremors, impairment of speech, hearing, vision, memory, and coordination; and liver and kidney damage from a lifetime exposure, especially at levels above the MCL. • Inorganic chemicals (IOCs) include metals and minerals. Some of these have the potential to cause chronic health effects. For example, lead has the potential to cause stroke, kidney disease, and cancer from a lifetime exposure, especially at levels above the MCL. • Synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) are man-made and include pesticides such as atrazine and alachlor. Atrazine has the potential to cause weight loss; cardiovascular damage; retinal and some muscle degeneration; and cancer from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL. Alachlor can cause eye, liver, kidney, or spleen problems; anemia; and an increased risk of cancer from life-time exposure, especially at levels above the MCL. 1-23 August 2002 SDWA’s Major Source Water Protection Programs 1-24 August 2002 Historical Basis Early State Approach • Multiple barrier approach used by States since early 1900s included source selection and protection • Sanitary surveys to check system from source to tap • In the 19th century, State public health agencies began to protect sources of drinking water in response to widespread epidemics attributed to drinking water contamination from pathogens. By the mid-1900s, State public health departments were well-established regulatory agencies. • The predominant philosophy in these State programs was a multiple barrier approach to prevent or treat drinking water contamination. The first barrier was selection and protection of an appropriate source. For surface sources, this meant locating and constructing water intakes to ensure little or no contamination from fecal bacteria. For ground water sources, this meant constructing wells in appropriate locations, at appropriate depths, and with approved construction methods (e.g., casing and grouting). • Other barriers included treatment (selected to be appropriate to the quality of the source water) and distribution (to promote full circulation and avoid stagnant water conditions that might facilitate microbial contamination). The integrity of distribution systems was periodically checked to avoid any type of cross-connection whereby untreated or contaminated water might enter the system. • One method to implement the multiple barrier approach was to conduct routine sanitary surveys where State sanitarians or engineers inspected water systems and checked all components of the system from source to tap. Sanitary surveys identified problems and potential problems thereby preventing contamination of water supplies. 1-25 August 2002 SDWA Source Water Protection Programs • 1974 SDWA – Sole Source Aquifer program – Underground Injection Control program • 1986 SDWA Amendments: Wellhead Protection program • 1996 SDWA Amendments – Source Water Petition program – Source Water Assessment program • The Federal government began a limited role in protecting drinking water with the creation of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) in 1912 and the PHS’s subsequent regulation of drinking water in interstate commerce (e.g., on interstate carriers). Prior to 1974, States were responsible for protecting drinking water and ground and surface water sources. • SDWA, first enacted in 1974, included provisions for a program to protect ground water sources -- the Sole Source Aquifer program. This program prohibits Federal financial assistance for projects that might contaminate an aquifer that has been designated by EPA as a sole or principal source of drinking water for an area. • The 1974 SDWA also included provisions for the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. This program protects Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs) from contamination through injection wells. • The 1986 SDWA Amendments established the Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program in Section 1428. This non-regulatory program includes provisions to protect the surface and subsurface areas around public drinking water wells and offers communities a cost-effective means of protecting vulnerable ground water supplies. • The 1996 Amendments established the Source Water Assessment Program (discussed later) and the Source Water Petition Program.This program, authorized by SDWA Section 1454, is voluntary for States, and is intended to support locally-driven efforts designed to address a limited number of contaminants identified in the statute. See the State Source Water Protection Programs Guidance (August 1997) at www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/swp.pdf for additional information. • Except for the UIC program, EPA’s ground water and source water programs are not regulatory. There are no enforceable national ground water standards. These programs typically educate, facilitate, coordinate, and assist with protection of ground water. 1-26 August 2002 What Is the Sole Source Aquifer Program? • A sole source aquifer: – Supplies at least 50% of drinking water – Is the only feasible drinking water source that exists • Any person may petition EPA • 70 designated sole source aquifers • The Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program is authorized by Section 1424 of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. The program provides for EPA review of proposed Federal financially-assisted projects, such as highway improvements, wastewater treatment facilities, or agricultural projects that can potentially contaminate a designated sole source aquifer. • A sole source aquifer, or principal source aquifer: o Supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer; and o Is the only physically, legally, and economically feasible water source for all those who depend on the aquifer for drinking water. • Any person or organization may apply to designate an aquifer as a sole source by submitting a petition to EPA. As of February 2000, there are 70 designated sole source aquifers in the U.S. 1-27 August 2002 Significance of the Sole Source Aquifer Program • EPA reviews Federally-funded projects • Information from SSA designation can help delineate SWPAs • SSAs can raise community awareness • SWAPs can help evaluate candidate SSAs • Proposed projects with Federal financial assistance that have the potential to contaminate SSAs are subject to EPA review by a ground water specialist. This review may be coordinated with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews and with relevant Federal, State and local agencies. Examples of projects that might be subject to review include highways, wastewater treatment facilities, construction projects that involve storm water disposal, public water supply wells and transmission lines, agricultural projects that involve the management of animal waste, and projects funded through Community Development Block Grants. Project reviews can result in: o EPA requirements for design improvements, ground water monitorin g programs, maintenance and educational activities that would not otherwise occur; or o Direct technical assistance, by identifying specific activities that may lead to ground water contamination. In addition, technical assistance usually involves site-specific coordination of ground water protection activities among State and local environmental and public health protection agencies. • The hydrogeologic and water usage information required by EPA during the process of designating a sole source aquifer can help define source water protection areas and determine the susceptibility of water supplies. Sole source aquifer project reviews can be a valuable source of information on potential contaminant sources in source water protection areas. • A sole source aquifer designation can also increase community awareness on the use, value, and vulnerability of aquifers and build support for implementing various ground water protection efforts at the local level. • The information from source water assessments can be used to help evaluate whether an area meets SSA designation criteria, and can provide useful information for project reviews, such as the location of delineated source water protection areas, potential or existing sources of contamination, and local variations in aquifer susceptibility. • Some States have chosen to regulate activities in SSAs to provide additional ground water protection. 1-28 August 2002 Underground Source of Drinking Water 10,000 TDS) USDW WATER TABLE BRINE AQUIFER DRY What is the UIC Program and Why is it Significant? • The UIC program mission is to protect underground sources of drinking water from contamination by regulating the construction and operation of in jection wells. • Injection is defined as subsurface emplacement of fluids through a bored, drilled, or dr iven well or through a dug well where the depth of the dug well is greater than the largest surface dimension; or a dug hole whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension; or an improved sinkhole; or a subsurface fluid distribution system. • Protection of ground water from this potential source of contamination is significant since there are estimated to be more than 600,000 injection wells in the U.S. that dispose of a variety of wastes including hazardous waste. (Only a small portion of injection wells inject hazardous waste.) • Underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) are important sources of drinking water. In order to understand the definition of a USDW, there are some basic concepts that must be understood. o Water contains dissolved minerals, especially salt. The salinity of water is expressed as Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), measured as parts per million (ppm) or the equivalent milligrams per liter (mg/L). o Water with between 0 and 500 mg/L TDS is considered to be suitable for human consumption. Water that has a higher salinity than drinking water may be used for many other purposes (e.g., agricultural and industrial uses). In addition, water containing up to 10,000 mg/L TDS can potentially be treated to reduce TDS to drinkable quality levels. Waters containing in excess of 10,000 mg/L TDS are called brine, or simply salt water. • Thus, Underground Sources of Drinking Water are aquifers (geologic formations where water collects in quantities sufficient to support a well or spring) with less than 10,000 mg/L TDS. • The graphic is a simplified picture of this. Whether there is a layer of fresh water with high TDS water underneath depends on the location. • EPA regulates underground injection control wells in order to protect USDWs. 1-29 August 2002 Class III Uranium Solution Mining Class II EOR Well Class V Agricul tural Well Class I Industrial Well Water Table USDWs Mineralized Ore Body Exempt Aquifer Base of the Lowermost USDW Source: GWPC Oil Reservoir • Injection wells may be used to purposefully inject fluid; they may also serve as a conduit for fluids to drain or seep into the subsurface. • Injection wells are used to put fluid into the subsurface versus drinking water wells which are used to take water out of the subsurface. • There are many types of injection wells. In order to regulate the universe of wells, EPA established five classes of injection wells. o Class I wells are technologically sophisticated wells that inject large volumes of hazardous or non- hazardous wastes into deep, isolated rock formations. o Class II wells inject fluids associated with oil and natural gas production. o Class III wells inject super- hot steam, water, or other fluid into mineral formations, which is then pumped to the surface and the minerals are extracted. o Class IV wells inject hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above underground sources of drinking water. These wells are banned. All existing Class IV wells were approved under State and Federal cleanup programs, such as those under RCRA or CERCLA. o Class V wells use injection practices that are not included in the other classes. Class V wells vary widely. Some are technologically advanced wastewater disposal systems used by industry, and others are "low-tech" holes in the ground. 1-30 August 2002 What Is Wellhead Protection? • Protection of ground water sources • Authorized by SDWA Section 1428 of the 1986 Amendments • EPA-approved, State-designed wellhead protection plans can receive Federal funding to protect ground water sources • Requirements for Federal compliance • Section 1428 of the 1986 SDWA Amendments created the Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program, which offered communities a cost-effective means of protecting vulnerable ground water supplies. This program does not address surface water supplies. • The 1986 Amendments required each State to submit a comprehensive State wellhead protection plan to EPA within three years. EPA reviewed the Stateproposed wellhead protection programs; if a program was disapproved, the State could not receive Federal funds to implement its program. Congress believed that this enabled EPA to direct the use of scarce Federal dollars in the most effective way, while letting States continue to pursue their preventative programs. Currently, 49 States and two Territories have EPAapproved WHP programs. • To establish wellhead protection programs, communities delineate vulnerable areas and identify sources of contamination. Through regulatory or non-regulatory controls, local officials and volunteers manage contamination sources and protect their water supply, as well as plan for contamination incidents or other water supply emergencies. 1-31 August 2002 WHP Significance Most CWSs Use Ground Water 100 80 80 60 40 20 20 0 % OF CWS Ground Water Systems Surface Water Systems • Wellhead protection efforts are significant because many water systems use ground water as their primary source of drinking water. • Of all community water systems (i.e., a public water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents), just over 80 percent rely on ground water as their primary source. Most of these systems are small systems. (Of community water systems, 93 percent serve fewer than 10,000 people.) Smaller water systems are more likely to choose ground water sources, which usually require less treatment and usually involve smaller capital expenditures. • Although small systems relying on ground water are numerous, the y serve only a small fraction of the population. For example, systems that serve 3,300 people or fewer make up over 85 percent of CWSs nationwide, yet serve less than 10 percent of the population. • Wellhead protection efforts continue today and make up a significant part of the source water protection program. 1-32 August 2002 Source Water Assessment Program 1-33 August 2002 What is a Source Water Assessment? Public distribution of findings Susceptibility analysis Contamination source inventory Delineation • Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) primacy States (i.e., States approved by EPA to administer a State PWSS program in lieu of the Federal PWSS program) are required by the SDWA Amendments of 1996, Sections 1453 and 1428(b), to complete a source water assessment for each public water system. These assessments can be done for each system or on an “area-wide” basis involving more than one PWS. • A source water assessment provides important information for carrying out protection programs. In fact, Congress intended source water assessments to serve as the basis of local source water protection programs. This “know your resource and system susceptibility” part of protection involves identifying the land that drains to the drinking water source and the most prominent potential contaminant risks associated with it. To be considered complete, a source water assessment must include four components: o Delineation of the source water protection area (SWPA), the portion of a watershed or ground water area that may contribute water (and, therefore, pollutants) to the water supply. o Identification of all significant potential sources of drinking water contamination within the SWPA. The resulting contamination source inventory must describe the sources (or categories of sources) of contamination either by specific location or by area. o Determination of the water supply’s susceptibility to contamination from identified sources. The susceptibility determination can be either an absolute measure of the potential for contamination of the PWS or a relative comparison between sources within the SWPA. o Distribution of the source water assessment results to the public. Assessments are not considered completed until results are communicated to the public. • Several agencies within a State are likely to be involved in the effort to establish a plan to assess source water protection areas. Usually, environmental protection agencies or health departments take the lead; departments of agriculture or agricultural extension programs, and soil and water conservation boards may also be involved. States are also encouraged to initiate interstate or international partnerships to protect source water protection areas that cross borders. • Local governments and water systems will be key partners in assessing source water and implementing local SWP programs. Local partners can provide input on assessments and gather local support for SWP management, especially where regulatory controls will be implemented. 1-34 August 2002 Source Water Assessments as the Basis of Protection • Provide important information • May be used to prioritize protection activities • Completed source water assessments provide important information. Typically, information collected during an assessment includes delineated protection areas, locations of wells and intakes, inventories and locations of potential contaminant sources, determinations of relative threats to drinking water sources, and hydrogeological data. • Source water assessment information, in conjunction with other watershed assessment efforts, by identifying relative threats to water qua lity, can help water systems and localities determine protection priorities for addressing these threats. 1-35 August 2002 Elements of State SWAPs • Public participation in developing SWAP • Plan to delineate areas, inventory contaminants, determine susceptibility • Timetable for implementation, agencies involved, plan to update assessments • Plan to make the results of assessments available to the public • According to SDWA Section 1453, each State must develop and submit to EPA a Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) that includes four elements: o Public, technical, and citizen advisory group involvement in the development of the State-wide SWAP. o A plan to complete source water assessments for each public water system (PWS) to identify watersheds and ground water recharge areas that supply public drinking water systems, inventory potential contaminant sources, and determine the water system’s susceptibility to contamination. o A plan to implement its chosen source water assessment approach, i.e., a timetable for completing assessments, roles of various State and other agencies, and plans for updating the assessments. o A plan to provide the public with access to the results of the susceptibility determination. • All States were required to submit their SWAP strategies to EPA by February 6, 1999. EPA has since approved the States’ submittals. Each State has two years, plus a possible extension of up to 18 months, to complete all of its source water assessments after EPA approval of their SWAP. • States must implement source water assessments according to the approved program. 1-36 August 2002 Other Source Water Protection Programs and Initiatives • There are many programs administered by EPA and by other Federal agencies that can be used to protect source water, especially surface water. • EPA-administered programs include those under the Clean Water Act. EPA also uses the hazardous waste and underground storage tank programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); the Superfund program under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); and the pesticides program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to enhance source water protection. • Other Federal agencies that administer relevant programs include the Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, and the Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey. • In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides an important opportunity to point out potential drinking water impacts and recommend alternative sites or mitigative measures. • In addition to these programs, EPA is carrying out or supporting some key source water protection initiatives, including a Source Water Contamination Prevention Strategic Plan and source water protection field projects through grants to the National Rural Water Association and the Environme ntal Finance Center Network. 1-37 August 2002 Source Water Protection Initiatives • Source Water Contamination Prevention Strategy • National Rural Water Association • Environmental Finance Center Network • EPA is working with the States and other partners to develop a Source Water Contamination Prevention Strategic Plan as a national framework for source water protection efforts. The goal of the plan is to protect current and potential drinking water sources and the health of those who rel y on those sources. The proposed long-term vision is that all interested stakeholders using a variety of tools in a coordinated fashion, establish barriers that significantly lower the risk of contamination entering current and potential drinking water resources. • The objectives of the plan will include enhancing coordination with Clean Water Act and other EPA programs and with other Federal agencies to better support local source water prevention priorities. • The National Rural Water Association has hired new field technicians to help water systems and localities in 27 project areas in 11 States to develop and implement source water protection plans through 2001. • The Environmental Finance Center Network is also helping water systems and localities develop and implement source water protection pla ns in eight project areas in eight States. 1-38 August 2002 Source Water Protection under the Clean Water Act CWA SDWA Wastewater Treatment Plants Water Systems Ground Water Ground Water Used as Drinking Water Surface Water Used as Drinking Water Surface Water Used for Industrial Uses, Recreation, Wildlife Habitat, and Fishing Wastewater Discharges • The Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act intersect in protecting surface water used as drinking water. 1-39 August 2002 Source Water Protection under the Clean Water Act Watershed Protection • The Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) is a 1998 Presidential initia tive. Its goal is to protect public health and restore the nation's waterways by emphasizing collaborative strategies built around all activities that affect bodies of water and the communities they sustain. o The CWAP provides for cooperation between State, Federal,Tribal, regional, and local governments, as well as private partners. It provides a forum to collaborate on strategies for protecting and restoring priority watersheds. o A key element of the Action Plan is the integration of public health and aquatic ecosystem goals when identifying priorities for watershed restoration and protection. The Action Plan assigns priority to drinking water source areas needing protection. • Under the CWAP, States, Tribes, local governments, organizations and the public will work together to conduct unified watershed assessments. This process will assess watershed conditions; identify watersheds where aquatic systems do not meet clean water and natural resource goals; identify the highest priority watersheds for restoration and target a subset of that group for restoration action strategies; determine what other issues, such as protection of drinking water, need to be addressed; and ensure that all the appropriate stakeholders are involved in the process. • Completed source water assessments can help Federal agencies direct protection programs to highest priority source waters and help guide agency decisions regarding placement and construction of new facilities. • The signatories to the CWAP agreement include: EPA, the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Interior, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Commerce. 1-40 August 2002 Source Water Protection under the Clean Water Act • “Point” sources or “nonpoint” sources • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) • Water quality standards • Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) • The CWA, SDWA’s partner in water legislation, designates surface water contamination sources as “point sources” or “non-point sources.” Point sources are direct discharges to a single point; examples include discharges from sewage treatment plants, and some industrial sources. Non-point sources are diffused across a broad area and their contamination cannot be traced to a single discharge point. Examples include runoff of excess fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas; oil, grease, and toxic chemicals from urban runoff and energy production; and sediment from improperly managed construction sites, crop and forest lands, and eroding streambanks. • The primary regulatory mechanism provided by the CWA is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. It requires permits for all discharges of pollutants to surface waters from pipes, outlets, or other discrete conveyances (i.e., point sources). Permits are not required, however, for non-point sources. Under the CWA, non-point source pollution is addressed through non-regulatory means. • Water quality standards are set by authorized States and Tribes to restore and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters and to meet the goal of “fishable/swimmable” water. A water quality standard consists of three elements: o The designated beneficial use of a water body; o The water quality criteria (i.e., the quality of the water) necessary to protect that use; and o An antidegradation policy. • Under CWA Section 303(d), States are required to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards after the implementation of nationally required levels of pollution control technology, and to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for those waters. TMDLs are used to determine the maximum allowable amount of pollutants that can be discharged to impaired waters. Based on this determination, pollutant loadings are allocated among pollution sources in a water segment. TMDLs also provide a basis for identifying and establishing controls to reduce both point and non-point source pollutant loadings. State lists that identify waters needing TMDLs, and TMDLs developed for specific water bodies, are a useful source of information for the development of source water assessments. 1-41 August 2002 Other Federal Source Protection Programs • There are many other Federal agencies that have programs that can contribute to source water protection. • USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service obtains advice from State Technical Committees, which may include State water agencies, on source water-related activities under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). State water program officials have opportunities to integrate source water assessment and protection objectives with USDA conservation program concerns. NRCS provides technical advice and some cost-share assistance to farmers on best management practices. • USDA also sponsors the Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst network of 50 State interagency programs that help farmers, ranchers and homeowners identify environmental and health risks on their property, and take voluntary actions to reduce these risks and protect drinking water. USDA has a number of other programs that foster source water protection, including the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, the Forest Service, and the Rural Utilities Service. • USGS provides scientific information on water resources, biological resources, mapping, and geology, to support wise management of our natural resources. USGS will provide water-quality and land-use data that may be useful in drinking water source assessments. In addition, on a costshare basis, USGS can provide technical assistance on source water protection area delineation, including hydrogeological analyses, ground water age-dating and flow modeling, and delineation of ground water contributing areas using flow models. • EPA and the Department of Transportation have a partnership to implement the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which includes provisions to ensure environmentally sound transportation systems. • The Department of Transportation is also in the process of identifying drinking water unusually sensitive areas (USAs). DOT is evaluating Federal and State data sources in order to generate the drinking water USAs. This will allow transportation projects to be reviewed for potential drinking water impacts. 1-42 August 2002 Other Federal Source Protection Programs • See http://www.epa.gov/ safewater/ protect/feddata.html for a list of Federal data sources related to source water protection • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior (DOI) has a National Wetlands Inventory Project that provides maps and dig ital wetland data with site specific classification and location information. Land management agencies at DOI, including the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Office of Surface Mining, can be important partners in coordinating source water assessments. • EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly administer Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. This program can be used for watershed and special area management planning. • The Council on Environmental Quality implements the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires environmental assessments or environmental impact statements for Federally-funded activities. NEPA ensures that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or mitigated through the assessment process. 1-43 August 2002 Who Ultimately Protects the Source? • States are uniquely positioned and qualified to foster comprehensive source water protection programs because they implement most existing water and natural resource programs. • However, in order to be effective, source water protection ultimately has to be implemented as a community-based program. While Federal and State programs can guide source protection programs, source water protection activities are largely the responsibility of local jurisdictions. • Implementing a source water protection program involves community support, public education, land use planning, and planning for emergencies — all locally-based concepts. It may also involve many localities cooperating with support from regional, State or Federal entities. • The remainder of this course discusses source water contaminatio n prevention measures that can be implemented at the local level. 1-44 August 2002 Introduction to Source Water Contamination Protection Measures 1-45 August 2002 What are Source Water Protection Measures? • Practices to prevent contamination of ground water and surface water that are used or potentially used as sources of drinking water • Protection measures form the first barrier to drinking water protection • Protection of drinking water sources is important to prevent contamination. The cost of cleaning up often exceeds the cost of prevention. • Many types of management measures are available to address threats identified within a watershed. These include land use controls, such as subdivision and zoning regulations; regulations, permits, and inspections; constructed or vegetative systems; and good housekeeping practices for proper use of equip ment and chemical products or wastes; and other tools, such as public education. • Protection measures are part of a multi-barrier approach to drinking water protection, along with treatment, monitoring, operator capacity, and maintenance of the distribution system. • The following slides present measures that communities, businesses, and individuals can take to protect source water. 1-46 August 2002 How Can Protection Measures Fit into a SWPP? • Impose by regulation • Encourage through non-regulatory means • Combine approaches as appropriate given site-specific considerations • Depending on their situation, local government officials can choose from a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory measures to address identified or potential threats to their water supplies. • Regulatory controls include zoning ordinances and subdivision controls, construction and operating standards, health regulations (such as storage tank and septic tank requirements), and permitting or inspections. o Examples of local zoning ordinances to protect ground water and surface water sources of drinking water can be found at http://www.epa.gov/r5water/ordcom/ and http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/. • Non-regulatory controls include purchase of property or development rights, encouraging the use of best management practices, public education, household hazardous waste collection programs, and economic incentives such as agricultural cost-share programs. • A combination of these methods is usually necessary for an effective management plan. In addition, the same end can usually be achieved through different means. For example, setbacks can be achieved through permits or local ordinances. The range of feasible tools will depend on the local authority to regulate la nd uses, and the nature of the contamination threats. • To see how communities are combining protection measures to protect their drinking water supplies, go to EPA’s compilation of local case studies in source water protection at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/casesty/casestudy.html. The local contacts listed at the end of each case study should be able to provide you with some tips on how to put together your own protection plan. 1-47 August 2002 What are BMPs? • Many of the available management measures are known as best mana gement practices (BMPs). BMPs are standard operating procedures that can reduce the threat that normal activities at homes, businesses, agricultural lands or industry can pose to water supplies. BMPs have been developed for many activities and industries that store, handle, or transport hazardous or toxic substances. They can help prevent the release of these substances or control these releases in an environmentally sound manner, and encourage the adoption of voluntary design or procedural standards. 1-48 August 2002 Selecting Management Measures • • • • • • • Land use controls Regulations and permits Structural measures Good housekeeping practices Public education Land management Emergency response planning • Many management measures are available to prevent pollution, control contaminants at the source, or treat wastewater. One alone usua lly is not sufficient, and combinations of measures work best. • In choosing the most appropriate measures, local government officials and water system operators should consider their situations, and may need to prioritize the implementation of specific measures to make the most of the resources available to them. • Local government officials should look creatively at existing ordinances and regulations. They may be able to use rules passed for other reasons to address source water issues. For example, if special permits are allowed when necessary to protect public safety or health, it is possible that they could be used for source water protection. • Selection of management measures will be based on a variety of factors, including the physical properties of the watershed (annual precipitation, soil type and drainage, ground water and surface water hydrology, and space limitations), land uses and potential contaminants, type of contamination problem (e.g., point source or non-point source), public acceptance of measures, cost, maintenance needs, and aesthetics. 1-49 August 2002 Land Use Controls • • • • • Subdivision growth controls Zoning Land purchase Acquisition of development rights Land use prohibitions • Land uses that pose risks to source water can be controlled or moved from sensitive areas. Local government officials can use subdivision and growth controls to reduce population density, or zoning ordinances to prohibit or restrict certain activities in SWPAs. • By acquiring the rights to development on parcels of land through purchase or donation of the land, local government officials have complete control over the activities in critical areas. • The high cost of purchasing property or development rights makes this impractical for many communities. Some States have grants for acquiring environmentally sensitive lands and non-profit organizations such as local or regional land trusts can assist communities by acquiring land within SWPAs. The American Farmland Trust and the Nature Conservancy are examp les of non-profit organizations that focus on protection of water resources through land acquisition. USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program also mana ges a program to obtain easements on environmentally sensitive land. • Often, the greatest consideration in passing regulatory land use controls is the political acceptability of limiting certain activities. However, most people consider passing zoning ordinances to be the right and responsibility of local governments, and public education about the importance of protecting water supplies can increase the acceptance of land use controls. • The next few slides describe land use controls for managing SWPAs. 1-50 August 2002 Subdivision Growth Controls • Primary purpose is to control division of land into lots suitable for building • Can protect drinking water supplies from – Septic system effluent – Storm water runoff • As the nation’s population increases, sprawl and the proliferation of homes, businesses, and associated activities such as pesticide and fertilizer use, and septic systems, can threaten drinking water supplies. • Subdivision regulations govern the process by which individual lots of land are created out of larger tracts. Subdivision regulations are intended to ensure that subdivisions are appropriately related to their surroundings. General site design standards, such as preservation of environme ntally sensitive areas, are one example of subdivision regulations. • Ways in which subdivision requirements can protect water supplies include: o Ensuring that septic systems and storm water infiltration structures do not contaminate ground water; and o Managing drainage (e.g., using erosion controls) to ensure that runoff does not become excessive as the area of paved surfaces increases and to provide recharge to aquifers. 1-51 August 2002 Zoning • Zoning is the division of a municipality or county into districts for the purpose of regulating land use. Communities traditionally use zo ning to separate potentially conflicting land uses from one another. Exa mples of how zoning can be used to protect drinking water sources include requirements that limit impervious surfaces, encourage open space, locate high risk activities away form drinking water sources, or encourage cluster development to reduce runoff. For example, Brunswick, Maine, adopted a threshold that no more than 5 percent of a site to be developed in its Coastal Protection Zone may be impervious area. • Zoning is an effective regulatory tool for preventing threats to water sources from new development, and zoning ordinances are usually well-accepted as the prerogative of local governments. Unfortunately, zoning is of limited use in addressing threats from existing land uses, because they are "grandfathered" (i.e., exempt from new zoning requirements) when zoning laws take effect. Zoning ordinances may be difficult to pass where citizens want to encourage growth and economic development. • Examples of local zoning ordinances to protect ground water and surface water sources of drinking water can be found at http://www.epa.gov/r5water/ordcom/ and http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/. 1-52 August 2002 Land Purchase and Development Rights • Land purchases • Conservation easements • Land trusts and conservancies • The best way to control activities within sensitive areas is to purchase land and/or development rights to that land. Communities may purchase land outright or obtain conservation easements, which are voluntary arrangements preventing a landowner from performing certain activities or prohibiting certain kinds or densities of development. The easements become attached to the deed for the property, and remain in effect when it is sold or transferred. Restrictions in the deed make it clear that the land cannot be developed based on the rights that have been purchased. • The primary disadvantage to purchasing property or development rights is the high cost, so it is impractical for many communities. Land trusts or conservancies can purchase land outright, or be recipients of conservation easements or land donations. Land owners can also gain tax benefits from donating their land for environmental protection. Some States offer grants or loans to communities for acquiring environmentally sensitive lands. Certain non-profit organizations such as local or regional land trusts, can assist communities by acquiring land. 1-53 August 2002 Land Use Prohibitions • Effective way to remove threats from sensitive areas • Source-specific and chemical-specific standards • Hazardous chemicals that are caustic, toxic, or volatile can endanger public health or water supplies. Authorities can opt to prohibit or limit the storage or use of large supplies of dangerous substances in sensitive areas. • Land use prohibitions can be very effective ways to remove potential contamination sources from water supply areas. Because they are very restrictive, local government officials should use hydrologic studies to verify their necessity. If potentially threatening land uses already exist in the area, a phased- in approach may be more acceptable. For example, a ban on underground storage tanks could ban new USTs immediately, and phase out existing tanks as their service lives expire by requiring replacement tanks to be above ground. 1-54 August 2002 Land Use Prohibitions • Land use prohibitions can be aimed at controlling either activities that use dangerous substances (source-specific standards) or the materials themselves (contaminant-specific standards). • Examples of source-specific standards include: o Prohibiting gas stations in sensitive areas, or requiring double-hulled or corrosion-resistant design of underground storage tanks. o Septic system requirements, such as minimum setbacks from surface water or separations from the water table, or mandatory maintena nce and inspections schedules. • Contaminant-specific standards may prohibit the use of heavy metals, petroleum products, solvents, or radioactive materials in source water protection areas. Regulations on the application of pesticides, fertilizer, manure, and sludge are also examples of contaminant-specific standards. 1-55 August 2002 Regulations and Permits • • • • Construction and operating standards Permit requirements Land use prohibitions Public health regulations • Management measures can be imposed by regulation or through permit requirements. Local government officials can require owners of facilities that can endanger drinking water supplies to comply with standards for proper design, operation, or maintenance. • In some communities, local government officials may encounter public resistance to regulations, and the cost to administer permitting or inspection programs can be high. However, regulations can be an effective way to control certain activities in source water protection areas. Most regulatory controls are subject to the provisions of State enabling legisla tion, and require careful drafting to avoid potential legal challenges. • The next few slides describe regulatory options available to local government officials. 1-56 August 2002 Construction and Operating Standards • Construction and operating standards may be imposed to reduce threats to water supplies from some activities. For example: o Storage tanks may be required to have a double-hulled construction and leak detection systems. o Homeowners with septic systems may be required to construct them using approved designs or maintain their systems regularly. • Construction and operating standards may require some of the constructed devices, operating and maintenance practices, or product and waste disposal procedures described later in this section. 1-57 August 2002 Permit Requirements • Local authorities can require permits • Permit fees can help recover program costs • Permits can be site-specific • Inspections enforce permit requirements • Municipalities can require owners or operators of facilities tha t can pose a potential risk to water supplies to obtain permits. Permits allow authorities to maintain an inventory of potential contamination sources, periodically inspect facilities for compliance with ordinances, require minimum construction or operating standards (see previous slide), and periodically reexamine the appropriateness of the source or activity to determine if revisions (or discontinuance) are necessary. • Permitting fees can help recover the costs associated with tracking and maintaining source-specific information. • Existing Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells are an example of a use for which a permit may be required. • One provision of a permit may be periodic inspections. Inspectio ns can identify people who are not complying with standards, and can also provide an opportunity to educate them about proper procedures and make sure they are following them. • Permits can also be site-specific, and permit requirements can be tailored to the specific location or activity. 1-58 August 2002 Public Health Regulations • Underground storage tanks – Construction standards – Leak testing • Septic systems – Number and size in a given area – Siting, setback distances and construction – Maintenance standards • Floor drains • Regulation by a local health department can help protect source waters. Examples of areas that health departments typically regulate are underground storage tanks, septic systems and floor drains. o Prohibition or registration of residential underground storage tanks, leak testing, ground water monitoring, and construction standards can help to reduce the risk from these tanks. o Regulations addressing the number and size of septic systems allowed in an area, construction and siting standards, bans on certain solvent cleaners, maintenance standards, and setback distances can help to ensure that septic systems do not contaminate source water. o Towns may implement controls prohibiting any floor drain that discharges to ground water when the drain is located in an area where pollutants may enter the drain. • Health departments may regulate numerous other activities that could contribute to contamination of source waters. Coordination at the local level to ensure that the appropriate departments are involved in source water protection efforts is important. • Health regulations are usually an accepted regulatory option for local governments. Although implementing a new program of inspections and enforcement may require significant resources, this infrastructure often already exists within local government. Local officials can direct or coordinate these resources to work on source water priorities. 1-59 August 2002 Structural Measures • Constructed systems or devices • Vegetative measures • Structural BMPs refer to man-made systems or devices designed to prevent contamination. They may work by preventing leaks or contamination, or stopping them at the source; collecting or diverting hazardous or toxic components of a waste stream; or encouraging filtration or infiltration of wastewater to allow natural processes to remove contaminants. • Where they are not imposed by local regulations or ordinances (see above), land owners should be encouraged to adopt these BMPs. • The next few slides describe and give examples of constructed and vegetative BMPs. 1-60 August 2002 Constructed Systems or Devices • Automatic shut-off and leak detection devices on USTS • Secondary containment • Drainage diversion • Segregated floor drains • Waste collection devices • Constructed devices or retrofits to existing machinery or operations can detect equipment failures or leaks, contain contaminants at the source, or catch spilled chemicals. Examples include: o Secondary containment structures, such as oil- retaining catch basins, containment berms for above ground storage tanks, or impervious surfaces for tank placement. o At animal feeding operations, earthen ridges or diversion terraces to direct surface flow away from animal waste. o Leak detection devices on storage tanks, including automatic tank gauges, vapor monitoring, interstitial monitoring, and ground water monitoring. o Segregating floor drains from wastewater carrying hazardous or toxic wastes, such as photography development fluids. o Devices to collect and store wastewater for proper disposal. 1-61 August 2002 Vegetative Measures Photo: Texas Chapter, APWA Swales • Natural vegetation is remarkably effective at filtering contaminants before they reach water bodies or seep into the ground water. It can also slow the speed of runoff to prevent erosion. • Vegetative measures capitalize on these abilities to promote filtering or infiltration of waste water. They are often used to mitigate the damage caused by runoff over farm land, roads, or in urban areas. • Examples include constructed wetlands, vegetated buffer strips along shore lines, or grassed swales or depressions that collect runoff, encourage infiltration, or reduce erosion. • They often require little maintenance, other than proper management of runoff they collect, and can improve land values. For example, in residential areas real estate values may be higher for properties surrounding a constructed wetland. However, these vegetative measures also require proper management of runoff. 1-62 August 2002 Good Housekeeping Practices • Equipment operation and maintenance • Product storage, use and handling • Waste storage and disposal • May be required by local ordinances or health regulations • Homeowners and business owners should be made aware that careful handling of potentially dangerous substances and proper use of the equipment and chemicals they use every day can go a long way to protecting their water supply. These “good housekeeping” practices typically do not require significant expenditures or drastic changes to customary activities, and can often save money by eliminating waste of the products they buy. • People should be encouraged to limit fertilizer applications to lawns and gardens, and properly store chemicals to prevent contamination of storm water runoff. Chemicals and oil should not be poured into sewers. Pet wastes, a significant source of nutrient contamination, should be disposed of properly. • Employees should be trained in the use of BMP devices and safe use and storage of chemicals at the workplace. • Some of these practices may be imposed by local ordinances or he alth regulations (such as maintenance requirements for septic systems ). If not, their use should be encouraged through public education. 1-63 August 2002 Equipment Operation and Maintenance • Proper maintenance of vehicles and household, farm, construction, and industrial equipment prevents accidents, leaks, and breakdown of pollution preventing design. It also extends their service lives, saving owners money. o Septic system maintenance reduces the threat of leakage of the tank and possible contamination of ground water by pathogens. It can also save home and business owners money by avoiding costly repairs. o Vehicle maintenance increases the life span of cars and trucks, construction vehicles, and farm equipment. Properly maintained equipment reduces the likelihood of spills and accidents, and offers other environmental benefits, such as reducing air pollution. o Washing vehicles before they leave a construction site keeps sediment on the site and out of roadway storm sewers. o Inspecting storage tanks for potential leaks helps to ensure that chemicals do not spill on the ground or seep into the ground water. Avoiding leaks saves the tank owner money on the purchase of the substance stored. o Keeping equipment properly calibrated (e.g., for fertilizer and pesticide application) is also important. 1-64 August 2002 Product Storage, Use and Handling • Properly used, most chemical products available to homeowners are safe for the environment. One of the most basic aspects of proper product storage and use is following the manufacturer’s directions. Land and busine ss owners should understand that reading and following the directions on the label of pesticides, fertilizers, and automotive products can protect the ir drinking water supply. Other safe product use and handling practices include the following: o Pesticide and fertilizer application equipment should be loaded over impervious surfaces, so that any spills can be cleaned without seeping into ground water. Farmers and homeowners should purchase only what they need, and store and apply excess product to plants or crops during subsequent applications, or give leftovers to a neighbor instead of throwing them out. o Selecting appropriate low sudsing, low phosphate, biodegradable detergents at vehicle washing operations maximizes the effectiveness of oil/water separation and retention in control devices. 1-65 August 2002 Proper Waste Storage and Disposal Photos: Texas Chapter, APWA • Relatively small amounts of waste from lea...
Purchase answer to see full attachment