California Regulatory Update SFPUC Water Quality Workshop November 9, 2016

Transcription

1 California Regulatory Update SFPUC Water Quality Workshop November 9, 2016 Stefan Cajina, P.E., Chief North Coastal Section Division of Drinking Water State Water Resources Control Board

2 1. Overview/Background 2. Priority Regulations Division of Drinking Water 3. Lead and Copper Rule Recent Developments 4. Revised Total Coliform Rule 5. Potable Reuse of Recycled Water Status of Regulations 6. Point of Use / Point of Entry (POU/POE) Regulations 7. 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) 8. Harmful Algal Blooms 9. Questions? Presentation Outline 2

3 California s Division of Drinking Water Northern California Field Operations Branch Southern California Field Operations Branch Program Management Branch Technical Operations Section Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) Data Unit/Toxicology Unit District Offices and LPAs: Water Systems 5 Regions 24 State District Offices 30 County Local Primacy Agencies 3

4 Human Right to Water AB 685 (effective January 1, 2013) Every human being has right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption All relevant state agencies shall consider this when revising, adopting or establishing policies, regulations, and grant criteria February 2016 Board adopted the Human Right to Water as core value and top priority - does not change it s authority under the law We will develop/use measures to track progress and report annually regarding implementation We will work with stakeholders to identify and track communities that do not have safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water, including schools and day care centers, and that are potential candidates for AB 552 January 1, AB 552 will become law - will provide mechanism for State Water Board to require administrative and managerial service be provided by a 3 rd party under contract to State Water Board 4

5 Priority Regulations - Drinking Water 1,2,3-TCP MCL (Winter 2017) Annual MCL Review Surface Water Augmentation 12/31/16 Drinking Water Program Fees Revised Total Coliform Rule 4/1/16 POU/POE Emergency Regulation Adopted March 2016 POU/POE Permanent Regulation 1/1/2018 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program 5

6 Lead and Copper Rule DDW Recommendations March 7, 2016 letter to all community and nontransient noncommunity Water Systems Recommendations on improving public access to Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) information Reminder to provide sample results to those participating in LCR tap sampling: w/in 30 days of receiving the results from lab, and; w/in 1-2 working days if lead and/or copper levels over the respective action levels are found 6

7 Why a Lead and Copper Rule? Leaded plumbing materials Corrosive water Time Lead can enter drinking water through combination of leaded plumbing material, corrosive water, and stagnant conditions Lead and Copper Rule - developed to sample residences with high-risk plumbing materials and direct water systems to implement public education and corrosion control if high lead levels are found Lead service lines not believed to be an issue in CA State Water Board has no regulatory authority after service connection and cannot mandate plumbing changes Schools and child care facilities are not routinely sampled

8 Lead in Drinking Water U.S. EPA working quickly to issue Revised Federal Lead & Copper Rule in 2017 Lead Service Line Bill U.S. EPA Resources on its website Basic information about lead in drinking water Lead in drinking water at schools & child care facilities 3Ts for reducing lead in drinking water in schools Lead in Schools California Sampling Program? 8

9 Revised Total Coliform Rule Federal RTCR effective April 1, 2016 Interim Period before state adoption California adoption - late 2017 Draft regulation will be available early in 2017 Overall approach of rtcr: find and fix problems /rtcr.shtml 9

10 rtcr Interim Period Systems must comply with Federal rtcr and continue to comply with California TCR until the rtcr is adopted (target late 2017) California will be implementing the Federal rtcr and notify U.S. EPA Region 9 of violations Water systems will conduct and complete Level 1 Assessments Division of Drinking Water will conduct Level 2 Assessments and water systems will complete Level 2 Assessments 10

11 Interim Compliance Period Information Bacteriological Sample Siting Plans Routine Sample Frequency Repeat Sampling Requirements Total Coliform MCL Exceedances Acute Total Coliform MCL Exceedances E.coli MCL Exceedances and More! 11

12 Potable Reuse of Recycled Water Status of Regulations Statutory Requirements Public Health Protection Indirect potable reuse by groundwater recharge Indirect potable reuse by surface water augmentation Direct potable reuse 12

13 Definitions (Water Code 13561) Groundwater Recharge is the planned use of recycled water for replenishment of a groundwater basin or an aquifer that has been designated as a source of water supply for a public water system Surface Water Augmentation is the planned placement of recycled water into a surface water reservoir used as a source of domestic drinking water supply Direct Potable Reuse is the planned introduction of recycled water either directly into a public water system, as defined in Section of the Health and Safety Code, or into a raw water supply immediately upstream of a water treatment plant 13

14 Potable Reuse - Statutory Requirements Task Deadline Status Adopt Groundwater Recharge Regulations Dec 31, 2013 Prepare Draft Report on Expert Panel Recommendations & Research Status Release Public Review Draft Report on Feasibility of Developing Direct Potable Reuse Criteria June 30, 2016 Sept 1, 2016 Submit Final Report to the Legislature Dec 31, 2016 On track Adopt Surface Water Augmentation Regulations Dec 31, 2016 Moving quickly

15 Expert Panel review of draft final regulation text Peer review per Health and Safety (H&S) Code Division of Drinking Water is working on: Remaining regulatory package documents (Initial Statement of Reasons, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), etc.) Board briefings Finding from Expert Panel Next steps: Public notification and comment period ( 45 days) Administrative Procedure Act (APA) public hearing Board adoption 15

16 GW recharge regulations built over 38 years experience Key components Pathogen reduction requirements reclamation plant + Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) Reservoir criteria, meaningful environmental buffer Wastewater source control Technical, Managerial, Financial (TMF) Capacity Full advanced treatment Monitoring for regulated & unregulated chemicals Treatment alternatives 0 approved SWA projects in CA; 2 SWA projects in planning 16

17 Direct Potable Reuse - Feasibility Public health is most important Expert Panel & Advisory Group Research needs & knowledge gaps Lessons learned from other projects Crafting effective criteria Deliberate and phased approach

18 Status of Point of Use (POU)/ Point of Entry (POE) Regulations Emergency POU/POE Regulations Effective April 1, will be replaced Exempt from Administrative Procedure Act (APA) California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 64417, 64418, , , , , , , , 64419, 64420, , , , , , , and Permanent ( Standard or Regular ) POU/POE Regulations Under development must be effective by January 1, 2018 Must meet requirements of Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Both emergency and permanent regulations can be used to achieve compliance and will have 3-year permit limit (and other requirements) 18

19 Results February 2016 Survey of Districts and LPAs 19

20 Main Requirements (POU and POE) To be permitted for compliance with an MCL: 1. Public Water System (PWS) must have fewer than 200 service connections. 2. PWS must demonstrate that centralized treatment isn t economically feasible. 3. POUs cannot be used for microbials, volatile organic compounds, or radon. 4. For POUs, the PWS must ensure that each residential unit, dwelling unit, served by the water system has a POU installed pursuant to the regulations. 5. PWS must demonstrate no substantial community opposition and must have a public hearing. 6. Generally, POUs/POEs must be third-party certified to the applicable American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard, if one exists. 7. Pilot testing shall be performed on each proposed type of POU/POE for at least 2 months. 20

21 Summary POU/POE Regulations Permanent regulations not expected to be significantly different from emergency regulations Performance data sheets indicate that POU treatment is viable for hexavalent chromium DDW is preparing templates for all required submittals Funding and technical assistance available: Division of Financial Assistance (DFA)Websites for Funding: tions/index.shtml Division of Drinking Water Website for technical assistance: shtml 21

22 1,2,3-TCP Maximum Contaminant Level 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) Used as industrial solvent and for degreasing Ingredient in soil fumigants widely used for many decades Previous monitoring through State and Federal Unregulated Chemical Monitoring Rule (UCMR) though laboratory reporting limits varied Occurrence Data: 471 wells with confirmed detections above 5 parts per trillion (ppt) Range of Detections: 5 ppt to >10,000 ppt (current laboratory reporting limit is 5 ppt) Vast majority of detections in groundwater 22

23 1,2,3-TCP Advisory/Notification Levels Public Health Goal (PHG) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) established a PHG in 2009 (target for MCL) PHG set at mg/l or 0.7 ppt No Federal MCL Hawaii MCL: 600 ppt State Water Board ELAP-Certified Laboratories Analytical Detection Limit of 5 ppt Notification Level of 5 ppt Response Level of 500 ppt 23

24 MCL Development Process Health and Safety Code Section : State Water Board must set the MCL at a level that is as close as feasible to the corresponding public health goal placing primary emphasis on the protection of public health, and that, to the extent technologically and economically feasible 24

25 Preliminary Staff Recommendation for 1,2,3-TCP MCL = 5 ppt 25

26 1,2,3-TCP MCL Schedule Public Workshops Fresno, Bakersfield, Sacramento: July 2016 (completed) Public Comment Period: mid December 2016 to end January 2017 Public Hearing: February 8, 2017 (Sacramento) State Water Board Adoption: March 2017 (Sacramento) Effective Date: July 1, 2017 *** Dates are tentative and may change Resources:

27 Harmful Algal Blooms A Drinking Water Concern Cyanobacterial blooms increasing climate change and nutrient loading are driving factors Recreational/environmental exposure has been the primary focus of regulatory agencies (beach closures, dog deaths, impact on tribes, businesses) Drinking water community has traditionally focused on taste, odor, impact on treatment processes with background awareness of toxicity issues August 2014: Toledo, OH episode focuses national attention on potential drinking water risks US EPA accelerates schedule for addressing HABs 27

28 HABs - Drinking Water Health Advisories 10-day Health Advisory recommended concentrations for total microcystins are: 0.3 μg/l for children younger than school age 1.6 μg/l for all other age groups 10-day Health Advisory recommended concentrations for cylindrospermopsin are: 0.7 μg/l for children younger than school age 3.0 μg/l for all other age groups 28

29 HABs - US EPA s Recommendations Recommendations for Public Water Systems to Manage Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water Issued June 2015, concurrent with release of HAs Discusses: Health Advisories Cyanotoxin Management Plan Development, addressing Monitoring, Treatment, and Communication Models a stepwise process to help water systems reduce the risk of cyanotoxins in finished water 29

30 Cyanotoxin Management Steps Figure taken from USEPA, Recommendations for Public Water Systems to Manage Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water, June

31 Areas in California with Recurrent Toxic Algae Blooms Klamath Basin Clear Lake San Francisco Bay area/delta And CA State Water Project! Pinto Lake/Monterey Bay Revision of Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fact Sheet (2012) Southern California Prymnesium Golden algae

32 HABs and Division of Drinking Water DDW regulates Public Water Systems in CA (PWSs have 15 or more service connections or regularly serve at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year). DDW does not have specific authority to require action from PWSs in response to the Health Advisories but we cannot ignore the potential threat posed by cyanotoxins. DDW Recommends that water systems refer to USEPA s Health Advisories and its Recommendations for Public Water Systems to Manage Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water. DDW offers to collaborate with water systems in developing Cyanotoxin Management Plans, monitoring plans, and communication/public messaging (if needed). Outreach: presentations around the state; blast to PWSs (July 2016); DDW HABs web site. 32

33 HABs - Assessment and Monitoring Considerations Need for: Overall assessment of vulnerability, early warning of events Identification of species Chemical analysis of toxins Speedy response to events! Obstacles Lab availability, capacity, turnaround time Limitations of analytical methods for microcystins Cost! $$$$$$ (especially for smaller water systems) 33

34 HABs - Public Communication Not regulated will water systems choose to notify if Health Advisory levels exceeded in finished water? Is a two-tiered HA realistic? How to communicate that cyanotoxins are a threat, but there is no MCL, no required response from water system? DDW has enlisted help from CDPH/EHIB in developing language for public notice template. 34

35 HABs - Treatment Considerations From what we ve observed: there are no one size fits all solutions. Treatment systems must be fine-tuned based on source water, treatment train, technical ability, analytical ability. That said, general advice to PWSs may be feasible (e.g., optimizing pre- and post-oxidation to destroy dissolved toxins while avoiding cell lysis before filters). Guidance and tools available from USEPA, AWWA/WRF. None of this advice applies to recreational or household treatment systems. Use of camping filters, over-the-counter systems is not advised. Boiling water is not effective! 35

36 Questions? 36