|
Recommendations
The following recommendations,
based on identification of key problem areas brought out by Fall
2001 Pascoag water contamination, are aimed at two goals:
- Prevention
of similar water contaminations in the state of Rhode Island
- Preparedness
in the event of a future contamination.
Prevention:
Increased
accountability for gas station operators and owners. Operators
of underground storage tank systems are required to register
their tanks with the Department of Environmental Management
and comply with DEM's standards for system operation. However, no
license is required to operate a gas station in the state of
Rhode Island. The events in Pascoag and in other towns across the
United States clearly indicate that gas station owners and operators
are engaged in a business with a high level of potential risk for
surrounding communities. This high level of risk must be matched
by a high level of accountability for operators and owners of underground
storage tank facilities. The Department of Environmental Management's
Underground Storage Tank Program would oversee the following requirements,
which place primary responsibility on the tank operators:
- Training and licensing
of UST operators. Tank owners would be required to obtain
training and certification from a DEM-approved independent licensor.
- Reconciliation
of product balance sheets.
Station operators would be required to maintain careful records
of the amount of product delivered to their tanks and the amount
of product sold. Regular reconciliation of these figures would
serve to alert tank operators of lost product if discrepancies
exist beyond an established margin of error. DEM would establish
a cycle for submission of balance reconciliations and conduct
random audits.
Increased Resources for the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management.
Currently, the DEM is on a seven-year cycle for the inspection
of underground storage tank facilities. According to Terry Gray,
Chief of the DEM Office of Waste Management, this is "completely
unacceptable." However, DEM has been subject to recent
budget cuts that curtail the agency's ability to adequately carry
out its regulatory duties and follow up on known violations. The
general assembly passed a bill in 2002 requiring tank inspection
by a licensed inspector every 24 months. Measures such as
this to increase accountability of UST owners and operators must
come in conjunction with a commitment of additional funds to DEM
for regulatory oversight.
Public notification of non-compliant facilities
Residents have a right to know when facilities in their area
pose a threat to the safety and well-being of their community. Therefore,
non-compliant tank owners and operators should be required to
notify the surrounding communities when they are cited for violations
by the Department of Environmental management. The recipient of
the violation would be responsible for placing notice in a local
newspaper that includes an explanation of the violation and
steps being taken to remedy the situation.
Incentives
for the merging of small water districts
The state of Rhode Island, whenever possible, should encourage
the consolidation of small water suppliers. Economies of
scale allow larger water supply systems to save money, providing
for increased resources in the event of an emergency. Consolidation
of suppliers also reduces the inherent risk in depending on just
one well source to supply a community. Incentives in the form of
state grants and low-interest loans for water suppliers who agree
to consolidate would represent a prudent investment in insuring
the water security of Rhode Island.
Preparedness
Coordinated
Response Plan
Many officials interviewed expressed that they often found themselves
improvising their response to the Pascoag situation due to
the unprecedented nature of the event. It is therefore essential
that the state of Rhode Island develop a comprehensive plan
to be followed when a situation requires multi-agency response.
Each unexpected event is sure to present its own unique set of problems.
A response plan detailing agency coordination and designating
responsibilities in the event of a water contamination is the
most effective way to ensure that these problems are addressed in
a timely and appropriate manner. Such a plan will prove useful for
water contamination events and may also provide guidance and structure
in other situations that require coordination of various parties
at the state and local levels.
The
Incident Command System (ICS) Approach
The ICS approach was developed in California in the 1970s in response
to the challenges of managing fast-moving, unpredictable wildfires.
This approach is specifically designed to facilitate coordination
among multiple agencies, with clear delineation of the roles and
interactions of each department and office .
A key facet of the Incident
Command System is the establishment of a clear chain of communication.
One official will be designated the "Information Officer."
This individual will be responsible for unifying information
from the various agencies and coordinating the sharing of information
among involved parties. The Information Officer will be responsible
for determining and implementing the most effective ways to communicate
information to the residents of the affected town or municipality.
This may include holding frequent press conferences, posting daily
updates in a designated central location in town, sending
out mailings, or maintaining a frequently-updated website.
A plan based on the ICS approach will not only facilitate effective
communication and coordination among involved agencies, it will
also communicate to the individuals affected by the contamination
that officials have a plan of action and are working to address
their concerns.
Communicating
Effectively
The need for frequent resident updates, even when no new
information is available, cannot be overstated. It is important
for residents to be made aware on a daily basis through press
conferences or posted information that their concerns are being
addressed. By channeling all information to a single designated
Information Officer, residents and media outlets will know
where to turn for information, eliminating the confusion due
to differing statements from the various involved agencies.
When residents need to call the press offices of several different
agencies and read something different in the paper the next day
anyway, they will perceive that the groups are in conflict and that
this is preventing them from cleaning up the community. Establishing
a press office, holding regular briefings, having a hotline number,
and calling people back all help to foster good community relations.
The community needs to know that action is taking place, even if
they cannot see it at the contaminated sites.
In addition, a community
facing a contamination issue needs to hear from official sources
right away. They need to feel like officials are falling over
themselves to let them know and keep them safe; having residents
find out that they shouldn't drink their water because someone at
the coffee shop told them not to sets up a bad relationship from
the beginning. The news needs to come out through several different
media. If possible, notices should be delivered to water customers.
An informational meeting should be held right away to establish
a point of contact on the issue and disseminate information. Waiting
to see if the problem is too minor, or easy to deal with, or if
it takes care of itself is not appropriate.
Empathy is an
essential component of effective communication. Community members
could be feeling any number of emotions: worry, fear, anger,
uncertainty, or something else entirely. If their concerns are
not addressed, they will feel that officials are not listening to
them or not caring. It is essential to share information honestly
with them and show empathy for their position. This is difficult;
it is especially difficult when scientific uncertainty is a factor.
However, establishing a good relationship from the beginning with
the community will help them to trust and believe what they
are hearing from official sources. Part of establishing a good relationship
is ensuring that the community knows that officials are working
on the problem. Visiting the community and seeing the specific
characteristics are important to making community members understand
this.
Restructuring of the USTFRFRB
The Underground Storage Tank Financial Responsibility Fund Review
Board is the quasi-public agency responsible for the administration
of the Underground Storage Tank Financial Responsibility Fund (see
above section "The Money Factor.") Owners of leaking tanks
who are in compliance with DEM requirements and can put forth a
$20,000 deductible are eligible for reimbursement from the fund.
However, the current policy allows tank owners who are non-compliant
to bring their facilities into compliance in order to access the
UST Fund. In this way, the UST Fund in its current configuration
provides equal assurance for compliant and non-compliant tank owners
without providing any incentive for responsible operation.
It is therefore imperative for the USTFRFRB to set a deadline
after which tank owners not in compliance with DEM regulations cannot
access the UST Fund.
Beyond this interim measure,
the UST Fund and the state should aggressively pursue transitioning
to a tank insurance system that takes into account the compliance
record of the tank owner. Ideally, a restructured UST insurance
system will aid in preparedness as well as serve a preventative
role by encouraging compliance and penalizing bad actors.
Defining
a Water Emergency
Section 46-15-14 of the General Laws of Rhode Island states (emphasis
added) that "The division of planning, subject to the approval
of the governor, shall promulgate an adequate plan for the
provision of safe drinking water for the inhabitants of the state
when a water emergency has been declared by the governor."
The Governor opted not to declare a water emergency in response
to the Pascoag contamination. (Note that "water emergency"
is a separate and distinct designation from "state of emergency.")
Declaration of a water emergency in Pascoag would have brought the
Division of Planning into a supervisory role in the response
to the contamination. However, the planning division, despite having
drafted the 1993 "Water Emergency Response Plan," was
not involved in the Pascoag response.
Communities affected
by water contamination events in the future would benefit from the
establishment of specific criteria to guide the declaration
of a water emergency. For example, section 46-15-14 might be amended
to define a water emergency as a contamination or other event that
seriously impairs the public drinking water supply of more than
500 residents.
Standardizing and
implementing the designation of "water emergency"
would contribute to the coordination of efforts and resources at
the sate level through the involvement of the division of planning.
Further, using the designation of "water emergency" when
appropriate would communicate to affected residents that their situation
is being treated with appropriate seriousness.
|
