Drinking Water Regulatory Development Activities

Drinking Water Regulatory Development Activities
US EPA Drinking Water Regulatory Development Activities Nichole M. Foster, EIT February 2015

Presentation Overview
EPA Regional Updates and Activities EPA HQ Regulatory Development Activities Contaminant Candidate List Regulatory Determinations Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rules Under Development/Revision Six Year Review of Regulations

EPA Regional Update Reorganization: Final approval stage
Minor changes to the Source Protection Branch New Branch name-Safe Drinking Water Branch Jim Brown, Associate Director Minimal changes for the Drinking Water Section 2 staff vacancies Potential new hires

General Flow of Safe Drinking Water Act
Regulatory Processes At each stage, need increased specificity and confidence in the type of supporting data used (e.g. health, occurrence, treatment). Draft CCL Final CCL Final Rule (NPDWR) Six Year Review of Existing NPDWRs No further action if make decision to not to regulate (may develop health advisory). Preliminary Regulatory Determinations Final Regulatory Determinations Proposed Rule (NPDWR) Public review and comment Draft UCMR Final UCMR UCMR Monitoring Results CCL = Contaminant Candidate List UCMR = Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule NPDWR = National Primary Drinking Water Rule

Contaminant Candidate List (CCL)
Published Third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 3) in October 2009, which listed 116 contaminants: 12 microbes (e.g., viruses, bacteria) 104 chemicals (pesticides, industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, inorganics) Draft CCL 4 published on February 4, 2015 100 chemicals (pesticides, industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, inorganics) Comment deadline April 6, 2015

Regulatory Determinations
SDWA requires EPA to make regulatory determinations for at least 5 CCL contaminants every 5 years. EPA must regulate if: 2) The contaminant is known to occur or there is substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and 1) The contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons; 3) In the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems *SDWA Section 1412(b)(1)

Regulatory Determination Outcomes
No Regulatory Determination Insufficient data to assess contaminant on three criteria Positive Determination Affirmative determination for all three criteria Begin process to develop a drinking water regulation Not considered a final agency action Negative Determination Negative determination for any one of the three criteria Considered a final agency action Drinking water regulation is not developed Health Advisory is a non-regulatory option

Regulatory Determination – Strontium
Note: Currently collecting surface and ground water occurrence data as part of UCMR 3 ( ). The first 18 months of data (half) will be available for making the final determination. All of the UCMR 3 data will be available for the proposed and final rulemakings.

Regulatory Determination – 1,3-Dinitrobenzene, Dimethoate, Terbufos & Terbufos Sulfone

Status and Next Steps for Regulatory Determinations 3 (RD3)
Preliminary RD3 Federal Register Notice - published October 20, 2014 60 day public comment period Hold stakeholder meeting and solicit public input during the 60- day comment period. Publish final regulatory determination ~December 2015. If the agency makes a final determination to regulate strontium, then: Proposed regulation 24 months after final regulatory determination notice. Promulgate final regulation 18 months after proposal.

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (“UCMR 3”)
Final rule published May 2, 2012 Monitoring taking place January 2013 – December 2015; reporting through ~mid-2016 28 chemicals and 2 viruses Chemical contaminants include hormones, perfluorinated compounds (e.g., PFOS/PFOA), VOCs, metals (including Cr-6 and total Cr), 1,4-dioxane, chlorate

UCMR 3 Preliminary Results
Results updated and posted quarterly Currently reflects reported data as of January 1, 2015 UCMR 3 minimum reporting levels (MRLs) are based on analytical method quantitation limits comparably lower than UCMR 1 and UCMR 2 MRLs; more frequent detection of UCMR 3 contaminants expected

UCMR 4 Regulatory Development
Development of rule for the next cycle of monitoring initiated early 2014 Public meeting/webinar held May 2014 to discuss potential UCMR 4 contaminants Anticipate publishing proposed rule mid-2015 and inviting public comment Anticipate publishing final rule late 2016 Implementation preparation by EPA, States, PWSs, and labs would take place through 2017 Anticipate starting monitoring January 2018

Other Rules Under Development: Perchlorate
EPA is developing a proposed perchlorate standard: Continue to evaluate available data on perchlorate occurrence Evaluating the feasibility of treatment technologies to remove perchlorate and examine the costs and benefits of potential standards Science Advisory Board Recommendations for methodologies to derive a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) May 29, 2013 Develop a perchlorate MCLG using Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (or “PBPK”) modeling rather than the traditional approach of using the reference dose and exposure factors. EPA is working with FDA scientists to evaluate options for PBPK modeling to derive a perchlorate MCLG

Other Rules Under Development: Carcinogenic VOCs Group
EPA is developing a proposed group cVOC standard Considering regulated (TCE, PCE and others) and unregulated carcinogenic VOCs (cVOCs) Assess potential cVOCs for the group based upon similar health effect endpoints; common analytical method(s); common treatment or control processes; and occurrence/co-occurrence in drinking water Occurrence data is being collected for 3 unregulated cVOCs currently under UCMR 3 Consulting today on options for group MCLs

Six Year Review EPA must review and, if appropriate, revise existing NPDWR every six years In 2003, EPA completed the 1st Six Year Review of 69 NPDWRs; made decision to revise 1989 Total Coliform Rule In 2010, EPA completed the 2nd Six Year Review of 71 NPDWRs and identified tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), acrylamide and epichlorohydrin as candidates for revision. Expect to complete 3rd Six Year Review by 2016 46 states and 8 drinking water agencies have supplied EPA with their compliance monitoring data We are continuing our review of the data and are working directly with the states and primacy agencies to resolve any data questions

Six-Year Review Protocol
Key Elements Rules with revisions underway or recently promulgated Health effects evaluation MCLs and treatment techniques Analytical methods Treatment evaluation Occurrence analysis Implementation issues

Six Year Review – Current Activities
This is the first time EPA is reviewing the entire suite of Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts (MDBP) Rules Chemical and radiological rules also are currently undergoing review We plan to retain the same key elements as were used for SYR1 and SYR2 Minor clarifications are being made to the protocol where necessary to better reflect the third Six Year Review (SYR3) review process for MDBP Rules.

MDBP Rules Undergoing Six Year Review
Surface Water Treatment Rules (SWTR, IESWTR, LT1, LT2) – addresses microbial contaminants in SW systems; includes NPDWRs for Giardia, Viruses, Legionella, Coliforms, Cryptosporidium, Heterotrophic Plate Count, and Turbidity Ground Water Rule – addresses microbial contaminants in GW systems; includes NPDWR for Viruses Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rules – addresses disinfectants and disinfection byproducts; includes NPDWRs for TTHM, HAA5, Bromate, Chlorite, and Disinfectants (Chlorine, Chloramine, and Chlorine Dioxide) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule

THANK YOU Nichole M. Foster, EIT EPA Region 6
Oklahoma State Program Manager

Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR)
February 2015 EPA promulgated the 1989 TCR to decrease the risk of waterborne illness. Among all SDWA rules promulgated for preventing waterborne illness, only the TCR applies to all PWSs, making the rule an essential component of the multi-barrier approach in public health protection against endemic and epidemic disease. The RTCR will better address the TCR’s original objectives and enhance the multi-barrier approach to protecting public health. The RTCR aims for greater public health protection than the TCR in a cost-effective manner by: Maintaining the objectives of the TCR to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment, to determine the integrity of the distribution system, and to signal the possible presence of fecal contamination reducing the potential pathways of contamination into the distribution system using the optimal indicator for the intended objectives (i.e., using total coliforms as an indicator of system operation and condition rather than an immediate public health concern and using E. coli as a fecal indicator) requiring more stringent standards than the TCR for systems to qualify for reduced monitoring requiring systems that may be vulnerable to contamination, as indicated by their monitoring results and by the nature of their operation (e.g., seasonal systems), to monitor more frequently and have in place procedures that will minimize the incidence of contamination (e.g., requiring start-up procedures for seasonal systems)

Why a Revision of the Original Total Coliform Rule?
Congress requires EPA to evaluate existing drinking water rules every 6 years EPA determined the original rule could be revised to make monitoring more efficient and to provide greater public health protection

How did EPA identify the changes to the 1989 TCR?
EPA established an advisory committee called the Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Advisory Committee in 2007 The advisory committee was comprised of a panel of 15 key stakeholder organizations, including EPA, states and tribal representatives, utility associations, and advocacy groups for environment, public health, epidemiology, and consumers. The advisory committee signed an Agreement in Principle (AIP) outlining its recommendations in 2008. In July 2010, EPA proposed a rule that was consistent with the AIP and gave the public an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed rule. June 2007 EPA established the Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Advisory Committee (TCRDSAC) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the TCRDSAC is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Agency on revisions to the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). The committee will also consider what information about distribution systems is needed to better understand the public health impact from the degradation of drinking water quality in distribution systems. Published in Federal Registrar June 2007 Members from: National Rural Water Association Native American Water Association US Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Council of the States National Association of Water Companies Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Rural Community Assistance Partnership Clean Water Action Association of State Drinking Water Administrators Representing: Natural Resources Defense Council National League of Cities Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies National Environmental Health Association RTCR will have same substance and effect as the agreement in principle Met 8 times

RTCR Purpose Improve public health protection by reducing the pathways through which fecal contamination and pathogens can enter the distribution system TCR & RTCR objectives: Evaluate effectiveness of treatment Determine integrity of distribution system Signal possible presence of microbial contamination The RTCR maintains the objectives of the 1989 TCR, but it uses total coliform as an indicator of system operation and condition rather than an immediate public health concern, and uses E. coli as a fecal indicator. The objectives of the Rule are to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment, to determine the integrity of the distribution system, and to signal the possible presence of microbial contamination. The RTCR addresses these objectives by requiring water systems that may be vulnerable to microbial contamination (as indicated by their monitoring results) to do an assessment, to identify whether any sanitary defects are present, and to correct the defects.

In Brief: What are the RTCR Requirements PWSs Need to Comply with?
1. Contaminant Levels (MCL) 2. Monitoring 3. * Find And Fix (Level 1 & Level 2 Assessments and corrective actions) * Seasonal System Start-up Procedures (applicable to some PWS) 4. Reporting and Recordkeeping 5. Violations, Public Notification, and Consumer Confidence Reports At a glance, this slide presents the category of requirements PWSs must comply with under the RTCR. Everything on this slide should be familiar except for ITEM #3 (i.e., Level 1 and Level 2 assessments)… more later in presentation and Workshop session 2 and session 3. Contaminant levels (MCLG and MCL) are based on the presence or absence of E.coli The MCLG for E. coli is set at zero. Same as under TCR The MCL for E. coli is based on the occurrence of a condition. So the system is not in compliance with the MCL if: PWS has an EC+ repeat sample following a TC+ routine sample. Or PWS has a TC+ repeat sample following an EC+ routine sample. PWS fails to take all required repeat samples following an E. coli-positive routine sample. PWS fails to test for E. coli when any repeat sample tests positive for total coliforms. Monitoring: Compliance sampling components: sampling siting plans, routine & repeat sampling with some revisions NEW: For PWSs sampling less than monthly, reduced and increased routine monitoring, collecting “3 additional routine” samples the month following a TC+, and clean compliance history; seasonal systems defined and required to conduct start-up procedures before serving to public; Dual purpose sampling (GWR & RTCR interaction); Find and Fix PWSs are required to conduct a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment when certain conditions occur in their system. If any “sanitary defects” are found PWS must correct within a required timeframe. Reporting and RecordKeeping: essentially the same as under TCR with addition of Level 1 and Level 2 requirements. Violations, PN and CCR: essentially with few changes I’ll discuss in a moment

PWSs must comply NO LATER THAN
RTCR Timeline and Applicability RTCR Final Rule 2013 2014 2015 2016 Applies to all PWSs CWS & NCWS (transients & Non-transients) GW & SW systems Any size population served 40 CFR (b) PWSs must comply NO LATER THAN April 1, 2016 February 13, 2013: RTCR published April 1, 2016: All PWSs must begin complying with the federal requirements of the Rule [(40 CFR (c))]. As the name implies the RTCR is a revision of the 1989 Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and maintains the purpose of the TCR to protect public health by ensuring the integrity of the drinking water distribution system and monitoring for the presence of microbial contamination. The RTCR is the only microbial drinking water regulation that applies to all PWSs. That is, both community water systems (CWSs) and non-community water systems (NCWSs), regardless of the source or population served. It is one of the few rules that applies to transient non-community water systems (TNCWSs). (40 CFR (b)). The RTCR applies to approximately 155,000 PWSs that serve approximately 310 million individuals. EPA anticipates greater public health protection under the RTCR, as PWSs that are vulnerable to microbial contamination to identify and fix problems (a.k.a. the “find and fix” model), and it establishes criteria for systems to qualify for and stay on reduced monitoring, thereby providing incentives for improved water system operation.

E. coli MCL Violation Description
E. coli MCL Violations E. coli MCL Violation Description Routine sample Repeat sample (1) TC+ EC+ (2) EC+ TC+ (3) EC+ routine Fails to take all required repeat samples (4) TC+ TC+ (but not analyzed for E. coli) AND 40 CFR & (a)

Repeat samples within 24 hours Find and Fix within 1 month
PWS has a Total Coliform bacteria positive sample… Repeat samples within 24 hours TCR Mandatory Sample and Re-sample ! TC+ Repeat 1 Repeat 2 Repeat 3 Find and Fix within 1 month RTCR Mandatory Sample and Re-sample PLUS Mandatory to Find and Fix Defects

Sample Siting Plan Sampling locations Routine & repeat monitoring locations must be shown Must show all applicable GWR monitoring sites, especially GWR triggered source samples that are also dual RTCR repeat samples Sample collection schedule Monitoring frequency and estimated sampling days (day, week of the month for sampling) Important Speaker’s NOTEs: Highlight that there are no increased, reduced, or additional monitoring requirements for GW systems serving >1,000. As with the 1989 TCR, PWSs will continue to monitor for total coliform and E. coli according to a sample siting plan and schedule specific to the system. Under the RTCR, systems' sample siting plans must include routine and repeat sample sites. As with the 1989 TCR, the sample siting plan is subject to state review and revision. The sites specified in the sample siting plan must be located at a customer’s premise, dedicated sampling station, or other designated compliance sampling location. GW systems serving >4,900 people must collect samples at regular time intervals throughout the month. GW systems serving ≤ 4,900 may collect all samples on a single day if taken from different sites. The non-community seasonal system must have an approved sample siting plan that designates the time period for monitoring based on site-specific considerations. It is likely that the population served by a non-community seasonal system would be different throughout the year. Therefore, the sampling siting plan should reflect at an appropriate number of sites for the population served during the various times of operation. Under the RTCR, systems have the flexibility to propose repeat sample locations that best verify and determine the extent of potential contamination of the distribution system rather than having to sample within five connections upstream and downstream of the total coliform-positive sample location. Instead of proposing new repeat sample locations, the systems may choose to stay with the locations used under the TCR of within-five-connections-upstream-and-downstream of the total coliform-positive sample location. Systems that want to establish repeat sampling locations other than locations within five service connections upstream and downstream of the total coliform-positive sample must submit their sample siting plan for review and the state may modify the sampling locations as needed, but state approval is not required by the RTCR. 40 CFR (a) A complete and updated sample siting plan can help improve monitoring compliance 40 CFR (a)

Monitoring Samples must be collected based on a written sample siting plan, including ALL routine and repeat sample locations Routine samples All PWSs must collect total coliform samples routinely Frequency based on system type Number based on population served

TOTAL COLIFORM MONITORING FREQUENCY
Routine Sample Table TOTAL COLIFORM MONITORING FREQUENCY Population served Min # of Samples/Mo up to 1000 1* 1,001 to 2,500 2 2,501 to 3,300 3 3,301 to 4,100 4 4,101 to 4,900 5 4,901 to 5,800 6 5,801 to 6,700 7 6,701 to 7,600 8 7,601 to 8,500 9 8,501 to 12,900 10 * If PWS frequency is quarterly then 3 routine samples required in next month when if there is a TC+ Important Speaker’s and Customization NOTE: States, regions and water systems may consider printing this table and using it as a resource to determine system monitoring requirements. The monitoring frequency is monthly. 40 CFR (c)(1); (c)(1) & (b)

Monitoring: Additional Routine
Applicable to small only GW PWSs that are NOT monitoring monthly Collect 3 “additional routine” samples in the next month, for PWSs monitoring quarterly: In the month following any TC+ samples, collect 3 = 3 + 1 Samples must be: Collected at regular time intervals throughout the month or on a single day if taken from different sites

Monitoring (cont.) Repeat samples
Collect 3 repeat samples for each routine TC+ Location – original site, within 5 connections upstream, within 5 connections downstream, or alternative sites Collect additional set of repeats for each repeat TC+

Monitoring (cont.) E. coli testing
Any sample that is TC+ must be further tested for E. coli **Results of all routine and repeat sampling must be included in the determination of whether an assessment has been triggered.

Seasonal System Start-up Requirements
NCWS that start-up and shutdown during the operating season must: Complete all State-required seasonal system start-up procedures prior to serving water to customers Submit certification form about completion of start-up procedures BEFORE water is served to the public (Note: seasonal = NCWS) For seasonal systems there is NO exemption from total coliform sampling

Examples of Start-up Procedures
Disinfection and Flushing Sampling for total coliform/E. coli Inspection of the PWS components including sources, treatment, distribution lines and storage Verification that any current or historical sanitary defects from previous operational period have been corrected Which of the following is your state considering as requirements for seasonal systems’ start-up procedures? (Select all that apply) Disinfection Flushing Sampling for total coliform/E. coli Minimum disinfectant residual in distribution system Site visit by state or state-approved third party Verification that any current or historical sanitary defects from previous operational period have been corrected ANSWER: The State may consider any combination of these procedures or additional procedures not listed here.

Level 1 and Level 2 Assessments
Treatment Technique (TT) Triggers Level 1 and Level 2 Assessments A little on TT (treatment technique triggers) that lead to conducting a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment. Keep in mind: There is a difference between TT triggers vs. TT violations. Hopefully by the end of my presentation you’ll recognize the difference.

Purpose of Assessments
RTCR requires PWSs to investigate the system when monitoring results show the system may be vulnerable to contamination and correct any “sanitary defects” identified Systems must conduct a basic assessment (Level 1) or a more detailed assessment by a qualified party (Level 2) depending on the severity and frequency of contamination Failure to assess and/or correct is a Treatment Technique (TT) violation SOURCE: Assessment Guide section 3 The purpose of performing assessments is to enhance public health protection by identifying the presence of "sanitary defects”. The rule defines “sanitary defects” as “defects that could provide a pathway of entry for microbial contamination into the distribution system or that are indicative of a failure or imminent failure in a barrier that is already in place.” [40 CFR 141.2]. NOTE: While sanitary defects under the RTCR are not directly linked to significant deficiencies under the GWR, they may overlap. Systems should consult with the state regarding how to coordinate actions under the GWR and RTCR, as necessary. Sanitary defects deal with pathways of microbial contamination. Significant deficiencies deal with more than microbial contamination and include operational issues. While some sanitary defects are also significant deficiencies, (e.g., missing well cap), some sanitary defects are not significant deficiencies (e.g., torn well screen), There are overlaps between the two but sanitary defects are not just an subset of significant deficiencies. In general, the non-acute MCL violation for TC under the TCR is replaced under the RTCR by a coliform Treatment Technique (TT) that involves monitoring for total coliform, an assessment, and corrective action when triggered. The assessment process in the RTCR is intended to strengthen public health protection. 40 CFR (a) & (b)

Elements of Assessments
At a minimum, assessment must include review and identification of: Events that happened that could create impaired water quality Changes in distribution system O&M that may affect distributed water quality, including water storage Source and treatment considerations that bear on distributed water quality Existing water quality monitoring data Inadequacies in sample sites, sampling protocol, and sample processing Level 1 and Level 2 assessments consider the same five minimum elements, but the depth of consideration of those elements differs because of the differences in severity among the types of assessment triggers. In conducting a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment, the assessor must evaluate minimum elements as outlined in the Rule. These elements are the following: Atypical events that may affect distributed water quality or indicate that distributed water quality was impaired. Changes in distribution system maintenance and operation that may affect distributed water quality, including water storage. Source and treatment considerations that bear on distributed water quality, where appropriate. Existing water quality monitoring data. Inadequacies in sample sites, sampling protocol, and sample processing. 40 CFR (b)(2) 40 CFR (b)(2)

Example: State Level 1 Assessment Form
Complete assessment form within 30 days of learning of trigger exceedance PWSs must submit a completed assessment form to the state within 30 days of learning that it has exceeded a TT trigger. Check with your State, because each State will have its own assessment form. In general, the assessment form must 1) describe sanitary defects detected, 2) corrective actions completed, and 3) a proposed timetable for any corrective actions not already completed. This slide provides an example of a Level 1 assessment form used by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. As you can see they categorized based on functional areas. For example, Operational Changes and Sampling sites… RTCR Implementation Guidance: Section 7.5.4 40 CFR (q)(2)(iii)(C)

Assessments and Corrective Actions
Treatment Technique: Assessments and Corrective Actions Conduct a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment of the system when certain conditions occur Any sanitary defect found must be corrected within required timeframe Completed assessment form must be submitted to the State within 30 days of learning the trigger

Failure to take every required repeat sample after any TC+
Treatment Technique Trigger: Level 1 Assessment Must consider all compliance samples (total number of routine & repeat samples) to determine Level 1 assessment trigger PWS Collects Results Failure to take every required repeat sample after any TC+ Level 1 assessment ≥ 40 Samples > 5.0% TC+ Within 1 month < 40 Samples ≥ 2 or more TC+ 40 CFR (a)(1)

Treatment Technique Level 1 Assessments & Corrective Action
Conducted by the PWS or State approved entity A basic examination of the source water, treatment, distribution system and relevant operational practices Required when PWS fails to take all repeat samples, or when TC+ results exceed a certain level/number PWS must fix all sanitary defects found

Treatment Technique Trigger: Level 2 Assessments
E. coli MCL violation Level 2 Assessment 2nd Level 1 12 rolling months PWS has: Second Level 1 trigger within a rolling 12-month period E. coli MCL violation 40 CFR (a)(2)

Treatment Technique Level 2 Assessments & Corrective Action
Generally conducted by State or State approved entity A more in-depth examination of the source water, treatment, distribution system and relevant operational practices Required when PWS has an E. coli MCL violation and/or when another Level 1 assessment is triggered after PWS already has previous Level 1 assessment within a certain timeframe PWS must fix all sanitary defects found and do any expedited actions required by State

Other RTCR Requirements

Reporting PWSs are required to report the following within a required timeframe: Monitoring results EC+ routine sample: end of day (within 24 hours) EC MCL violation: end of day (within 24 hours) Treatment technique violation Completed assessment form: 30 days from trigger Completed corrective action: 30 days or State determined Certification of completion of state-approved start-up procedures for seasonal systems: before customers receive water Certification of compliance with PN requirements Failure to comply with any of the RTCR requirements

Recordkeeping PWSs are required to keep records of the following within a required timeframe: Monitoring results Sample siting plans Assessment forms and documentation of corrective actions completed Repeat samples taken that meets State criteria for extension of 24-hour period for collection Copies of PN issued Certifications

Violations Requiring Public Notice
Public Notification Requirements Violations Requiring Public Notice E. coli MCL Violation Treatment Technique Violation Monitoring Violation Reporting Violation

Health Effects Language
E. coli MCL Violation Tier 1 “E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Human pathogens in these wastes can cause short-term effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They may pose a greater health risk for infants, young children, the elderly, and people with severely compromised immune systems.” In the case of an E. coli MCL violation, systems are required to issue Tier 1 PN that includes the standard health effects presented on the slide. Changes from the current TCR language to this revised RTCR language include: Dropping “fecal coliforms” which are no longer an accepted indicator under RTCR; and, Changing “microbes” to “human pathogens.” 40 CFR 141, Appendix B to Subpart Q –1g 40 CFR 141, Appendix B to Subpart Q –1g

Health Effects Language (cont.)
TT Violations (Assessment Triggered By Presence of E. coli) Tier 2 “Coliforms are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Human pathogens in these wastes can cause short-term effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They may pose a greater health risk for infants, young children, the elderly, and people with severely compromised immune systems. We violated the standard for E. coli, indicating the need to look for potential problems in water treatment or distribution. When this occurs, we are required to conduct a detailed assessment to identify problems and to correct any problems that are found.” System must also include the following applicable sentences: “We failed to conduct the required assessment.” “We failed to correct all identified sanitary defects that were found during the assessment that we conducted.” The standard health effects language presented on the slide must be used in the Tier 2 PN after a PWS fails to conduct an assessment or fails to take corrective action after a violation of the E. coli MCL. 40 CFR 141, Appendix B to Subpart Q –1f 40 CFR 141, Appendix B to Subpart Q –1f

TT Violations (Assessment Triggered By Presence Of Total Coliform) Tier 2 “Coliforms are bacteria that are naturally present in the environment and are used as an indicator that other, potentially harmful, waterborne pathogens may be present or that a potential pathway exists through which contamination may enter the drinking water distribution system. We found coliforms indicating the need to look for potential problems in water treatment or distribution. When this occurs, we are required to conduct assessments to identify problems and to correct any problems that are found.” System must also include the following sentences: “We failed to conduct the required assessment.” “We failed to correct all identified sanitary defects that were found during the assessment that we conducted.” The standard health effects language included on the slide must be included in the Tier 2 PN after a PWS fails to conduct an assessment or fails to take corrective action after triggering a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment when there has not been an accompanying E. coli MCL violation. 40 CFR 141, Appendix B to Subpart Q –1e 40 CFR 141, Appendix B to Subpart Q –1e

TT Violations (Seasonal Systems) Tier 2 Failure to monitor for total coliforms or E. coli prior to serving water to the public: “We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific contaminants on a regular basis. Results of regular monitoring are an indicator of whether or not your drinking water meets health standards. During [compliance period], we ‘did not monitor or test’ or ‘did not complete all monitoring or testing’ for [contaminant(s)], and therefore cannot be sure of the quality of your drinking water during that time.” Failure to complete other actions: Appropriate standard content elements in 40 CFR (a). This slide includes the health effects language that seasonal systems must use when conducting Tier 2 PN because of a TT violation for failure to monitor for TC or E. coli prior to serving water to the public. The PN is required if the state requires such monitoring as a part of the seasonal start-up procedure (40 CFR (d)(2)). When a seasonal system has a TT violation that includes failure to complete other actions, the PN must include the appropriate standard content elements to describe the violation. These elements, which are required currently and do not change under the RTCR, are found in 40 CFR (a). 40 CFR 141, Appendix B to Subpart Q –1h 40 CFR (d)(2); Appendix B to Subpart Q –1h

Best Practices for PWSs
Prevent assessment triggers by: Take all repeats Be proactive about finding and fixing sanitary defects before samples are TC+ Use disinfection and flushing best practices Contact lab for results Complete assessments and corrective action within 30 days of EC+ or TC+ assessment trigger

RTCR Materials

RTCR Implementation Products: 2013-2014
Quick Reference Guide (QRG) Posted on EPA website Assessments and Corrective Actions Guidance Manual: Interim Final State Implementation Guide--Interim FINAL Small Systems Guide Serving < 1,000 persons Under development RTCR Website:

Questions? US EPA Region 6: Andy Waite, Environmental Engineer
Nancy Ho, Environmental Scientist anytime.

Let’s compare – TCR vs. RTCR “Exploring The Basics”

Plans are subject to state review & revision.
Sampling Plan TCR RTCR Systems must collect samples that are representative of water throughout the distribution system &the monitoring period according to a written sample siting plan. Systems must develop a written sample siting plan that identifies sampling sites & a sample collection schedule that are representative of water throughout the distribution system, no later than March 31, 2016. Sites may include a customer’s premise, dedicated sampling station or other designated compliance sampling station. Routine, repeat & GWR (if the system is subject to the rule) sampling sites must be reflected in the plan. Plans are subject to state review & revision. Under the TCR, PWSs develop a written sample siting plan that reflects locations representative of water throughout the distribution system and must collect samples according to the plan. These plans are subject to review and revision by the state. Under the RTCR, PWSs also develop a written sample siting plan that reflects locations representative of water throughout the distribution system and must collect samples according to the plan. New or updated plans must be completed no later than March 31, 2016, and the PWS can use an existing TCR sample siting plan, if it meets the requirements of the RTCR. The RTCR specifies that sites may include a customer’s premises, dedicated sampling station or other designated compliance sampling station and that all routine, repeat sampling sites must be reflected in the plan. In addition, if a GW system is subject to the GWR requirements, the GWR sampling locations must also be included in the sample siting plan. As with the TCR, the plans are subject to state review and revision. 40 CFR (a)(1) 40 CFR (a)(1)

Seasonal Systems TCR RTCR Seasonal PWS has the same requirements as other systems of the same size & type. All seasonal PWSs must demonstrate (certify) completion of a state-approved start-up procedure. Routine (baseline) monitoring is monthly. For reduced monitoring: Seasonal PWSs must meet the same criteria as other systems of its size and type. Sample site plan must designate the time period for monitoring based on high demand or vulnerability. Under the RTCR, a seasonal system is a defined as a NCWS that is not operated as a PWS on a year-round basis & starts up & shuts down at the beginning & end of each operating season. Seasonal systems must demonstrate (certify) completion of a state-approved start- up procedure. The routine (baseline) monitoring is monthly (the same as the current TCR requirements). Seasonal systems are eligible for reduced monitoring (except Subpart H seasonal systems) if they meet the same criteria as other systems of their size and type, and the sample site plan designates the time period for monitoring based on high demand or vulnerability. The state may exempt seasonal systems from requirements (e.g., start-up procedures) if the entire distribution system remains pressurized for the entire period the system is not operating. 40 CFR (a)(4) & (b); & (a)(4) 40 CFR (a)(4); (a)(4)

Seasonal Systems: Start-up Procedures
Example Factsheet: Maine’s Drinking Water Program Shown on this slide is a one-page factsheet created by the State of Maine’s Drinking Water Program. This factsheet outlines the steps that seasonal water system operators should take before serving water to the public, and to avoid problems. States determine their own start-up procedures. So Start-up procedures for seasonal systems will vary from state-to-state, so check with your state to determine the PWS requirements. EPA based the seasonal system requirements on mitigating the risk associated with dewatering and depressurizing a water system. Because of this, EPA recommends that start-up procedures should include: Inspecting water system components, including source(s), treatment components, distribution lines, and storage tanks. And, addressing any issues. Opening hydrants and/or faucets. Draining storage facilities. Activating source(s) and flushing water through the distribution system. Chlorinating the water system and leaving chlorinated water in the distribution system for at least 24 hours. Then flushing the water system to void any highly chlorinated water.

Routine Monitoring Frequency (Baseline)
TCR RTCR NCWS (GW) ≤1,000: 1 sample per quarter. Same as current TCR. CWS ≤1,000: 1 sample per month. PWS >1,000: monthly based on population. Seasonal systems monitor based on the size & type of system as identified above. Seasonal systems ≤1,000: 1 sample per month. Seasonal systems >1,000: monthly based on population. Look at SRMD webinar……for seasonal Routine monitoring remains generally the same for the RTCR as it is under the TCR. However, THE CHANGE, GW systems serving ≤ 1,000 people can go to “reduced” monitoring (i.e., less frequent than monthly) IF allowed by the state. These systems may maintain their TCR frequency when transitioning to RTCR if they meet specified criteria. These criteria are stricter under the RTCR such as Systems must demonstrate clean compliance history and meet other requirements to qualify for reduced monitoring 40 CFR (a)(4) & (b); (a)(4) & (b)

Additional Routine Monitoring
TCR RTCR PWS taking < 5 routine samples per month (PWS serving ≤4,100): Must take at least 5 routine samples in the month after a TC+ sample. No longer a requirement for systems that monitor at least monthly. PWSs taking samples less frequently than once per month (i.e., quarterly): Must take at least 3 routine samples in a month after a TC+ sample. Under the TCR, if a PWS takes fewer than five routine samples per month (usually PWSs serving 4,100 or fewer people), they must take at least five routine samples in the month following a TC+ sample (40 CFR (b)(5)). Under the RTCR, this requirement was eliminated for all systems that monitor at least monthly. Instead, these systems must take their routine number of samples the following month (40 CFR (b) & (b)). THE CHANGE: PWSs sampling less frequently than monthly, such as quarterly, must take at least 3 routine samples in the month after a TC+ sample (40 CFR (j) & (f)). 40 CFR (b)(5); (j); (f) & (b)

Repeat Monitoring – # of Samples
TCR RTCR PWS serving ≤1,000: 4 repeat samples for every TC+ routine sample. All PWSs must take 3 repeat samples for every TC+ routine sample regardless of whether PWS has already triggered an assessment. Must take additional repeats for TC+ repeat samples until trigger an assessment and system notifies the state. PWS serving >1,000: 3 repeat samples for every TC+ routine sample. Must take additional repeats for TC+ repeat samples until trigger an MCL violation and the system notifies the state. RECALL: under TCR, for each TC+ routine sample, a PWS serving < 1000 persons collected 4 repeat samples. Under the RTCR now 3 repeat samples are required for each TC+ routine for ALL PWSs of any size. PWSs are required to take additional repeat samples in the event that repeat samples are TC+. PWSs must continue to take additional repeat samples until the PWS triggers an assessment and notifies the state. 40 CFR (a) We’ll get into a few more details on TT (treatment technique triggers) in a few more slides. 40 CFR (b) & (a)

Repeat Monitoring – Locations
TCR RTCR Repeat samples must be collected from the original TC+ site, at least one at a tap within 5 service connections upstream, & at least one at a tap within 5 service connections downstream. PWS can collect repeat samples using the same procedure as in the TCR; or, PWS can specify in their sample siting plan either fixed alternative locations or criteria for selecting sites on a situational basis via a standard operating procedure. Under the TCR (40 CFR (b)), PWSs must collect one repeat sample from the original TC+ site, at least one sample at a location within five service connections upstream, and at least one sample at a location within five service connections downstream. Under the RTCR, the same sample procedures as the TCR can be used, or the PWS can specify in their sample siting plan the use of either fixed alternative locations or criteria for selecting sites on a situational basis via a standard operating procedure. 40 CFR (a)(5) 40 CFR (a)(5)

Treatment Technique (TT) Triggers and Level 1 & Level 2 Assessments
TCR RTCR Does not exist All systems required to conduct Level 1/Level 2 Assessment when monitoring results show that the system may be vulnerable to contamination Initiated by Treatment Technique (TT) triggers, it is an evaluation to identify sanitary defects Conditions that defined a non-acute MCL violation under TCR are now used to trigger an assessment More proactive approach to public health protection compared to TCR Under the current TCR, there are no Federal requirements for any corrective action for positive coliform results except taking repeat samples. However, some proactive states do require corrective action under these conditions. The RTCR federal requirements are better aligned with these proactive states. The RTCR requires corrective actions in the form of TT triggers that cause a PWS to conduct a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment based on the triggered event. For example, sampling results can trigger an assessment, and the requirement is designed to take a closer look at the system and to identify whether one or more sanitary defects are present. This is a more proactive approach than that of the 1989 TCR because instead of just violations based on occurrence, sampling now leads to identification and correction of problems that may compromise public health. NOTE: there are triggers other than sampling that also lead to assessments that I will present today 40 CFR (a)-(b)

RTCR Violations E. coli MCL violation TT violations
Monitoring violations Reporting violations A system can incur four different categories of violations under the RTCR, including: An E. coli MCL violation (40 CFR (a)). TT violations (40 CFR (b)). Monitoring violations (40 CFR (c)). Reporting violations (40 CFR (d)). 40 CFR

MCL Violations TCR (acute MCL violation) RTCR (E.coli MCL violation)
Routine sample Repeat sample Fecal coliform-positive repeat sample. (1) TC+ EC+ EC+ repeat sample. (2) EC+ TC+ TC+ repeat sample following a fecal coliform-positive or EC+ routine sample. (3) EC+ routine Fails to take all required repeat samples (4) TC+ TC+ (but no E. coli analyzed) AND Under the TCR, there is an MCL for total coliforms, including fecal coliforms and E. coli. An acute violation of the MCL is incurred when any repeat sample is fecal coliform or EC+, or the system has a TC+ repeat sample following a fecal coliform-positive or EC+ routine sample (40 CFR ). Under the RTCR, there is no MCL for total coliforms or fecal coliforms, and there is an MCL for E. coli. The system will incur a MCL violation for E. coli, if the system: Has an EC+ repeat sample following a TC+ routine sample (40 CFR (a)(1)). Has a TC+ repeat sample following an EC+ routine sample (40 CFR (a)(2)). Fails to take all required repeat samples following an EC+ routine sample (40 CFR (a)(3)). Fails to test for E. coli when any repeat sample tests positive for total coliform (40 CFR (a)(4)). 40 CFR & (a)

Treatment Technique (TT) Violations
TCR RTCR Does not exists TT violations: Failure to conduct a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment within 30 days of learning of the trigger. Failure to correct all sanitary defects from a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment within 30 days of learning of the trigger or approved timeframe by the state. Failure of a seasonal system to complete state-approved start-up procedure prior to serving water to public. A TT violation occurs when: A PWS exceeds a TT trigger for a Level 1 or 2 assessment and then fails to conduct the required assessment or corrective action within the specified timeframe (40 CFR (b)(1)). A seasonal system fails to complete state-approved start-up procedure prior to serving water to public (40 CFR (b)(2)). 40 CFR (b)

PN for MCL & TT Violations
TCR RTCR TC MCL violation/acute MCL: FC+ or E.coli + E. coli MCL violations Tier 1 Monthly TC MCL violation Treatment technique (TT) violations Tier 2 M&R (tracked as 1 violation type) Monitoring Tier 3 Reporting Public water systems must notify their customers when they violate EPA or state drinking water regulations (including monitoring requirements) or otherwise provide drinking water that may pose a risk to consumer’s health. EPA specifies three categories, or tiers, of public notification. Depending on what tier a violation or situation falls into, water systems have different amounts of time to distribute the notice and different ways to deliver the notice: Immediate Notice (Tier 1-24 hours): Any time a situation occurs where there is the potential for human health to be immediately impacted, water suppliers have 24 hours to notify people who may drink the water of the situation. Water suppliers must use media outlets such as television, radio, and newspapers, post their notice in public places, or personally deliver a notice to their customers in these situations. Notice as soon as possible (Tier 2-30 days): Any time a water system provides water with levels of a contaminant that exceed EPA or state standards or that hasn't been treated properly, but that doesn't pose an immediate risk to human health, the water system must notify its customers as soon as possible, but within 30 days of the violation. Notice may be provided via the media, posting, or through the mail. Annual Notice (Tier 3): When water systems violate a drinking water standard that does not have a direct impact on human health (for example, failing to take a required sample on time) the water supplier has up to a year to provide a notice of this situation to its customers. The extra time gives water suppliers the opportunity to consolidate these notices and send them with annual water quality reports (consumer confidence reports). Under the TCR, the PWS incurs an acute total coliform MCL violation when fecal coliform or E. coli are present. This MCL violation requires the system to issue a PN that meets the Tier 1 PN requirements. PWSs could also incur a monthly total coliform MCL violation. This MCL violation requires the system to issue a PN that meets the Tier 2 PN requirements (40 CFR (b) & (d)). Under the RTCR, E. coli MCL violation requires the PWS to issue a Tier 1 PN requirements (40 CFR ). TT violations are Tier 2 PN. NOTE: The monthly MCL violation is no longer applicable, and is replaced with TT violations Monitoring violations are Tier 3 PN Reporting violations are Tier 3 PN 40 CFR (b) & (d); ; & (a)-(b)

PN & CCR Rules – Health Effects Language
TCR RTCR Mandatory health effects language for total coliforms & fecal coliforms/E. coli. Total coliforms health effects language changed to reflect nature of total coliforms as an indicator. The health effects language for fecal coliforms/E. coli has been replaced with health effects language for E. coli only. For both PN and CCR: Under the TCR, systems were required to include health effects language for total coliforms and fecal coliforms/E. coli. Under the RCTR, the health effects language was updated to reflect that total coliforms are an indicator of potential contamination. The health effects language for fecal coliforms/E. coli has been replaced with health effects language for E. coli only. 40 CFR 141, Appendix B to Subpart Q RECALL: The Consumer Confidence Report, or CCR, is an annual water quality report that a CWS is required to provide to its customers. The CCR helps people make informed choices about the water they drink. They let people know what contaminants if any, are in their drinking water, and how these contaminants may affect their health. CCRs also give the system a chance to tell customers what it takes to deliver safe drinking water 40 CFR 141, Appendix B to Subpart Q

CCR Language TCR RTCR Information related to highest monthly total coliforms results (number or percentage) & the total number of fecal coliforms/E. coli-positive samples. Information on the total number of E. coli-positive samples. Information about the number of assessments required & corrective actions taken, and, if appropriate, the number of assessments & corrective actions not completed. Under the TCR, the CCR table must include information related to the highest monthly TC+ results (number or percentage) and the total number of fecal coliform/E. coli-positive samples (40 CFR (d)(4)(vii)). Under the RTCR: The CCR table must include information on the total number of E. coli-positive samples (40 CFR (d)(4)(viii) & (x)). The CCR requires language that describes the number of required assessments, the corrective actions taken, and if appropriate, the number of assessments missed and corrective actions not completed (40 CFR (h)(7)). 40 CFR (d)(4) & (h)(7)

Drinking Water Regulatory Development Activities

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Drinking Water Regulatory Development Activities"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Drinking Water Regulatory Development Activities

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Drinking Water Regulatory Development Activities"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback