National Drinking Water Regulatory Update J. Alan Roberson, P.E. Director of Policy

Transcription

1 National Drinking Water Regulatory Update J. Alan Roberson, P.E. Director of Policy VA-AWWA Drinking Water Aesthetics: Perception is Reality March 23, 2016

2 Presentation Outline Short SDWA & regulatory history Nine regulatory actions from 2015 Five regulatory actions in 2016 Two in Jan./Feb. and three more anticipated one final & one proposed regulation anticipated Whatever happened to? Other contaminants keep popping up Looking to the future Observations and predictions 2

3 Three Iterations of the SDWA 1. Initial 1974 SDWA set up the federal standard-setting process Not enough regulations were developed SDWA prescriptive regulatory schedule SDWA refined contaminant identification and risk management New state programs for DWSRF, capacity development, operator certification, and source water assessments

4 Regulatory History 19 regulations for 91 contaminants from Nine prior to 1996 SDWA Amendments Primarily numerical MCLs based on annual average of quarterly samples Ten after 1996 SDWA Amendments Harder to treat contaminants and/or more complex regulations

5 Regulatory History (cont.) Number of Regulated Contaminants Radionuclides, PNR Phase II ICR ST-LCR RTCR NIPDWR Phase II, LCR Phase I CCRR, Stage 1 DBPR, IESWTR Arsenic, SFBR GWR, LT2ESWTR, Stage 2 DBPR 0 TTHMR SWTR, TCR

6 Two SDWA Regulatory Processes 1. Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) is the starting point for new contaminants of concern New CCL every five years proposed CCL4 in Feb Next step Regulatory Determinations EPA must make decisions on at least five contaminants every five years final Third Reg. Det. in late 2015 Decisions aren t necessarily a yes/no to regulate More research is needed, guidance, etc. If EPA decides to regulate, a proposed regulation in 24 months and a final regulation 18 months thereafter 2. EPA must review all existing drinking water regulations every 6 years Take into account new research and information 6

7 SDWA Standard Setting Processes Proposed CCL Final CCL Draft UCMR Preliminary Regulatory Determinations Final Regulatory Determinations No Regulatory Action Final UCMR Proposed Rule (NPDWR) UCMR Observations Final Rule (NPDWR) Six Year Review of Existing NPDWRs Source: Adapted from EPA presentation

8 9 Regulatory Actions from Draft Fourth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL4) 2. Final fluoride recommendations from HHS 3. Final Waters of the U.S. Rule 4. Health Advisories & Recommendations for Cyanotoxins 5. Final Clean Power Plan 6. Draft Treatment Technologies for Legionella control 7. Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines Bromide 8. Proposed Fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR4) 9. NDWAC letter & report-lcr recommendations 8

9 1 st in 2015-Draft Fourth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL4) February 4, Draft CCL4 Remainders from CCL3 Minus prior regulatory determinations Positives for perchlorate (2011) and strontium (prelim. in 2014) Four negative preliminary regulatory determinations in chemicals or groups Two worth mentioning - Cyanotoxins and manganese 12 microbial contaminants AWWA submitted comments on an alternative approach Smaller number of contaminants should be on Final CCL4 Divided Draft CCL4 in groups Weighted toxicity & occurrence data based on data quality Paper in October, 2015 issue of Journal-AWWA 9

10 Final Fluoride Recommendations April 27, 2015 Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) releases final recommendation for fluoride level in drinking water Recommended level of 0.7 mg/l Replaces range ( mg/l) from 1962 Still lots of controversy surrounding fluoride Schedule for review of MCL/SMCL uncertain and not likely to move forward any time soon given EPA s resource limitations 10

11 3 rd - Water of the U.S. Rule May 27 th Waters of the U.S. Rule Continues to be very controversial Litigation ongoing and legislation has been introduced Possible positive impacts to water systems Improved(?) source water quality Possible negative impacts to water systems operations Inclusion of man-made waterways and impoundments 11

12 4 th - Cyanotoxins June 15 th EPA releases health advisories (HAs) for cyanotoxins Microcystin 0.3 µg/l for children under school age and 1.6 µg/l for other ages Cylindrospermopsin 0.7 µg/l for children under school age and 3.0 µg/l for other ages Health effects potential gastroenteritis and liver and kidney damage EPA also released recommendations for systems Green/yellow/red traffic light approach Concerns with reliability & accuracy of ELISA analytical method

13 More 2015 Regulatory Actions #5 October 23 rd Clean Power Plan Potential energy efficiency funding #6 October Technologies for Legionella Control: Scientific Literature Review #7 Nov. 11 th Effluent Limit Guidelines for Steam Power Plants Potentially significant impacts to water plants downstream of steam power plants Rule might minimize bromide impacts (might not) depends on NPDES permit writers at the state level Brominated DBPs are on EPA s radar screen for potential revisions under the 3 rd Six-Year Review

14 8 th in Proposed UCMR4 Published in Dec. 11 th Federal Register Major issues with the proposal Sampling for HAA9 (brominated DBPs) Collect compliance samples (including TTHMs) and UCMR4 (HAA9) at the same time TOC and ph sampling not enough to characterize formation for any potential discussions on Stage 3 DBPR Sampling for cyanotoxins Tiered and paired sampling approach no source water! Continued concerns with ELISA analytical method Maintain traditional quarterly sampling do not skip winter quarter for UCMR4 sampling

15 NDWAC LCR Recommendations LCR Workgroup met from March 2014-August 2015 Broad representation of perspectives on workgroup Individuals represented themselves (not organizations) Workgroup report released in August 2015 NDWAC Dec. 15 th letter to EPA Administrator with some minor revisions to Workgroup report Recommendations will form the basis of EPA s proposed revisions Lots of work left to do to translate recommendations into regulatory language and Federal Register preamble 15

16 Context For Revision of LCR Observations Less Than Value (%) th percentile Pb data from Facilities Serving Population >50,000 that exceeded AL in th percentile Pb Concentration (µg/l) Observations Less Than Value (%) th percentile Pb data from Facilities Serving Population >50,000 that exceeded AL in th percentile Pb Concentration (µg/l) Round 1 ( ) Round 2 ( ) recent ( ) 15 µg/l Action Level Round 1 ( ) Round 2 ( ) recent ( ) 15 µg/l Action Level Source: Brown, et al (2013 Journal-AWWA)

17 Context For Revision of LCR An Example Metropolitan Area - 90 th Percentile Drinking Water LCR Sampling Results in Communities in Boston Metropolitan Area ( ) Source: Stephen Estes-Smargiassi (2014)

18 Long-Term LCR Revisions Complicated package of revisions Shift out of in-home sampling Tradeoff is to get the lead out thru removal of all lead service lines all the way to the building wall Over 6 million lead service lines (LSLs) and goosenecks How to finance portion of LSL on private property? Creative financing is the name of the game What will happen when property owners don t want to replace their portion of the LSL? Customer requested sampling-samples above household action level are reported to health dept. Tighter control of optimized corrosion control Copper education 18

19 5 Regulatory Actions in Final Third Regulatory Determinations Jan. 4 th 2. Recommendations on lead sampling Letter released in late February addressing aerators, pre-flushing, and opening width for sample bottles 3. Final CCL4 4. Final Treatment Technologies for control of Legionella in premise plumbing 5. Third Six-Year Review Could be released between election & inauguration Could potentially address some very complex issues 19

20 Third Six-Year Review EPA reviews all existing regulations every 6 years Take into account new health effects, analytical methods, occurrence, and treatment data A revision would have to provide a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction Stage1/Stage 2 DBPR is on the agenda Brominated DBPs (remember bromide), nitrosamines, chlorate, disinfectant residual, and optimized corrosion control make it very complicated (see next slide) Hexavalent chromium could be addressed? Others?? 20

21 Avoiding Unintended Consequences Optimal range for chloramination (ph ) Optimal range for PO 4 (ph ) Historical iron corrosion control Optimal range for Alkalinity/pH Adjustment (ph >9.0) ph Source - Steve Via, AWWA HAA formation increases THM formation increases Difficulty reaching CT increases

22 Final & 1Proposed Rule Final UCMR4 in early 2017 (could be late 2016?) Monitoring in Final Fourth Regulatory Determinations in early 2021(?) Cyanotoxins are likely positive determinations Proposed Long-Term Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) EPA proposal will be in 2017 When will final rule be? 2019(?) Any more regulatory actions between now and 2019?? Utilities should be developing accurate inventories of lead services lines and think about removal strategies 22

23 Whatever Happened To? Perchlorate cvocs and/or revisions to TCE/PCE MCLs from second Six-Year Review Polymers also identified in second Six-Year Review Radon Fluoride Hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI) 23

24 Others Keep Popping Up 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) Charleston, WV spill What is going to be the next contaminant in a spill? 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) 1,4-dioxane Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) Some actions in a couple of EPA Regions 24

25 Looking to the Future This year is 20 years after 1996 SDWA How effective has the 1996 SDWA been? Lots of new programs, but how effective? How would we measure effectiveness? EPA $ are going to continue to decrease Limited, if any, health effects research State resources are also decreasing Does the SDWA need revision or is optimized implementation a better way to go? Retrospective paper in March issue of Journal-AWWA 25

26 Looking to the Future (cont.) No new contaminants have been regulated since the 1996 SDWA Final positive regulatory determination for perchlorate in 2011 Preliminary positive regulatory determination for strontium in 2014 UCMR3 is showing more detections due to lower detection limits What is the health relevance? Strontium is one example lower Health Reference Level led to more detections in UCMR3, but no plans to conduct additional health effects research Naturally occurring no industry to fund the research

27 Looking to the Future (cont.) Health advisories are clearly not the way to go Cyanotoxins are a mess How might we want to amend the SDWA? Do we need to?? What data and information would we need to make informed decisions about potential future amendments? Or do we need optimized implementation? Increased resources Improved compliance Moratorium on new contaminants to be regulated?? 27

28 Regulatory & Resiliency Challenges Uncertainties with timing and scope and the future numbers with future regulations Drinking water community will have to continue to work with EPA on several critical SDWA issues New issues are going to continue to pop up Uncertainties with other potential threats for water systems Need to develop a better understanding of which threats are greater than others from a national level Systems needs to look at a system-specific level

29 Thanks & Questions? My contact information: Cell phone (703)