Regulatory Update 2018 Daniel B. Horne, PE VDH Office of Drinking - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

Regulatory Update 2018

Daniel B. Horne, PE VDH – Office of Drinking Water Southeast Virginia Field Office VA AWWA Plant Operations Conference 4 May 2018

2

It’s Time for all Geeks to Celebrate!!

3

Goals

• Provide an update on Rules or Regulatory

Activities already in process

• Provide some insight into what’s coming down

the pipe (pun intended)

4

• 1. SDWA Regulatory Process

From Steve Via, “Regulatory Update”, AWWA Webinar, Dec 2016

5

Setting a Regulation

Under SDWA Section 1412 (b) (1), the Administrator of EPA is required to establish a national drinking water regulation if:

• The contaminant may have an adverse effect
• n the health of persons;
• The contaminant is known (or suspected) to
• ccur with a frequency and in amounts of public

health concern; and

• There is a meaningful opportunity for health risk

reduction.

6

Formal vs. Informal (Regulation vs. Guidance)

EPA establishes “standards” in two ways:

• Formal regulations
• Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
• Treatment Technique Requirements
• “Informal” Guidance
• Health Advisories
• Other Guidance Documents

7

• 2. Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Rule 4

• Final Rule published 20 Dec 2016
• Participating waterworks will monitor for:
• 10 cyanotoxins (surface water systems only)
• 2 metals
• 3 brominated HAA groups
• 8 pesticides and 1 byproduct
• 3 alcohols
• 3 SVOCs
• 2 indicator chemicals

8

UCMR 4 Monitoring

Some changes to the monitoring framework:

• Monitoring is year-round, except for cyanotoxins

(those are July – October)

• Cyanotoxins – sampled at same time, but only

analyzed sequentially (based on results) – no source water monitoring

• Only do DBP monitoring if you monitor DBPs

under existing rules.

• Monitoring has already started

9

UCMR 4 Timeline

From EPA , “UCMR 4 Stakeholders Meeting & Webinar”, Apr 2017

10

• 3. Cyanotoxins

(the stuff that made Toledo famous)

11

Why Are We Concerned?

• Neurotoxins (nerves)
• Anatoxin, saxitoxin
• Hepatoxins (liver, maybe kidney)
• Microcystin, cylindrospermopsin
• Dermatoxins (skin)
• Reaction to many algal types
• Adverse health effects can be through ingestion,

inhalation, or skin contact

12

Current Status

• No federal regulations covering drinking water
• EPA issued Health Advisories for 2 toxins on

17 June 2015

• EPA also issued a Guidance Document
• Several states have set threshold levels for

toxins, several are moving to formally adopt a standard

• These states and some others have formal

HABs monitoring programs

• ODW is developing HABs guidance

13

EPA’s Health Advisories

• Issued on 17 June 2015
• 10-Day Health Advisory Values:
• Microcystins and cylindrospermopsin
• Exposure Pathway: oral ingestion of drinking water
• Take necessary actions within that 10-day period

chemical 10-day advisory Bottle-fed infants and young children of pre-school age School-age children and adults microcystins 0.3 µg/L 1.6 µg/L cylindrospermopsin 0.7 µg/L 3 µg/L

14

Potential Cyanotoxin Management Steps

15

Treatment for Cyanotoxins

Intracellular Toxins and Extracellular Toxins Require different treatment processes

16

In-Plant Cyanotoxin Treatment Strategies

• 1. Remove intact cells first
• 2. Minimize pre-oxidation
• 3. Add (or increase) powdered activated carbon
• 4. Increase post-chlorination
• 5. Install permanent treatment upgrades

17

Some Things to Remember

• Multiple species can produce the same toxin
• Same species can produce multiple toxins
• Brown water and Taste & Odor does not

automatically mean toxins

• Intracellular vs. extracellular

18

Suggested Resources

• AWWA – Cyanotoxins Resource Community

http://www.awwa.org/resources-tools/water- knowledge/cyanotoxins.aspx

• Utility Managers Guide
• Calculators
• EPA – CyanoHABs page

http://www2.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/cyanohabs

• Health Affects documents
• Guidance document

19

• 4. Perfluorinated (and

Polyfluorinated) Alkyl Substances (PFAS) Potentially the next “Big Thing” in drinking water issues

20

PFAS

• Perfluorinated (or polyfluorinated) chemicals are

a family of fluorinated organic chemicals – two main types – PFCAs and PFSAs

• Extensively produced and used in many

applications – a few examples:

• Firefighting foam (AFFF)
• Clothing, carpet protection
• Food wrap and microwave popcorn bags
• Teflon (and similar coatings)
• The best known examples are PFOA and PFOS
• But…there are new compounds coming

21

Family Tree of PFAS

There are hundreds of chemicals in the PFAS family, with various chain lengths and differing “add-ins”

• Carboxylic acids
• Sulfonic acids
• “New shorter chain

models” – “Gen X” versions

22

Why the Concern?

• The carbon-fluorine bond is shortest & strongest

chemical bond in nature

• PFAS are persistent – don’t break down

naturally and are hard to remove from water – can easily move into the food chain

• Possible health effects currently indicated:
• Developmental effects to fetuses or breast-fed

infants

• Thyroid, prostate, kidney, liver, and testicular

effects (including cancer)

• Immune effects (antibody production)

23

EPA’s Health Advisories

• Lifetime Health Advisories issued 16 May 2016:
• Covers PFOA , PFOS, and PFOA+PFOS – doesn’t

address any of the other PFAS

• Exposure Pathway: oral ingestion of drinking water by

pregnant or lactating women

• Protects the most sensitive populations
• “Non-enforceable, non-regulatory”

Chemical Advisory Level PFOA 70 ng/L (ppt) PFOS 70 ng/L (ppt) PFOA + PFOS 70 ng/L (ppt)

24

Exposure Routes

25

Are PFAS REALLY a Problem?

• Harvard University study (published in Aug 2016) – 66

water systems – 6 million people – samples > 70 ng/L

• June 2016 – Colorado – 3 cities – 80,000 people with

PFCs > 70 ng/L (SW and GW)

• May 2016 – New Hampshire – 50 public wells, 11 private

wells – PFCs > 70 ng/L

• May 2016 – Alabama – 8 cities (SW) – PFCs > 70 ng/L
• Jan 2016 – Naval Landing Field Fentress (Chesapeake

VA) – GW contamination > 70 ng/L

• May 2017 – NASA Wallops Flight Facility (Accomack

County VA) – GW contamination > 70 ng/L

• 2005 – Ohio River Valley – OH & WV – numerous SW &

GW sources (C8 – early name for PFOA)

26

PFCs Occurrence (early 2016)

From Andrew Eaton, “PFAS Monitoring in a Post-Advisory World”, AWWA WQTC, Nov 2016

27

What Should Waterworks Do?

• Take steps to assess potential for contamination
• Begin preparing to inform (develop messages

and delivery methods)

• VDH – both the Office of Drinking Water and

the Local Health Department

• Consumers
• Look at possible steps to limit exposure
• Change water sources (or the blend)
• Treatment (GAC, IX, RO or NF)
• Bottled water/home treatment

28

Suggested Resources

• AWWA – Health Effects Community page

http://www.awwa.org/resources-tools/water- knowledge/health-effects.aspx

• PFCs Fact Sheets
• Water Research Foundation
• Research project reports, webinars, etc. (#4322, etc.)
• EPA – PFAS page

https://www.epa.gov/pfas

• Basic information with links to additional pages for

Health Advisories and other documents

29

• 5. Long Term 2 (LT2)

Surface Water Treatment Rule

The focus is on Cryptosporidium

• Round 1 Source Water Monitoring

is complete (ended mid-2012)

• 174 sources monitored and evaluated
• Only 8 were deemed in other than Bin 1
• All of these were Bin 2
• Seven are meeting Bin 2 via filtration performance
• 2 UV units have been installed
• 1 additional UV project under consideration

30

LT2 Source Water Monitoring

Round 2 Crypto monitoring is now well underway

31

Impact of LT2 Rounds 2 Results

• If results show stay in same Bin – OK
• If results show move up a Bin – have to meet the

requirements of the new Bin - VDH sets timeline EPA “Anti-Backsliding” Policy

• This affects sources that were not Bin 1

following Round 1 monitoring

• If sampling in Round 2 shows Bin 1 results, the

source may NOT be reclassified from a higher bin into Bin 1, UNLESS something has changed in the watershed to improve water quality

32

• 6. Lead and Copper Rule

(Life After Flint)

33

EPA’s Number 1 Priority

34

Quick Review of LCR

• The LCR (original 1991 and revisions)

substantially lowered levels through corrosion control

• The Action Level for lead was not set to protect

public health – it was set to demonstrate that corrosion control was working (along with meeting Water Quality Parameters)

• EPA has determined a need to revise and

update the LCR again – the Long Term Revisions

35

Sources of Lead

36

LCR Sampling Procedures - 1

EPA guidance (29 Feb 2016) – addressed tap sampling

• EPA guidance (20 Oct 2006) – faucet aerators
• Recommends homeowners routinely clean

aerators, but…

• DO NOT remove aerators prior to LCR

sample collection

• Pre-stagnation flushing
• LCR requires a minimum 6-hour period of no

use

• DO NOT flush tap prior to that period

37

LCR Sampling Procedures - 2

• Sample bottle configuration
• EPA recommends a wide-mouth sample

bottle for LCR sampling

• This allows a higher flow rate during sample

collection VDH has issued revised LCR sample collection guidance incorporating EPA’s guidance

38

Water Quality Parameters

• VDH has re-visited WQPs and monitoring for all

LARGE waterworks (> 50,000 population)

• Ensuring that established ranges of values or

minimum values are appropriate

• Standardize WQP reporting
• Ensure WQP compliance determinations are

consistent and timely

• Change in policy to eliminate any allowance of

reduced monitoring for WQPs

39

Greater Transparency (Public Access to Information)

EPA letter sent to all States (29 Feb 2016)

• States to confirm procedures are fully

consistent with LCR and EPA guidance

• States ensure that waterworks are using EPA

guidance regarding LCR sampling procedure

• States post the new procedures on website

(ODW did that)

• Requested States AND large waterworks
• Post LCR sample results on public websites
• Post info on LSLs & premise plumbing

40

Additional VDH Actions

• Created a special Lead Information web page
• Created a Lead FAQs web page

http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/drinking-water/drinking-water-and-lead/

41

Lead Service Line Replacement

VDH has established a LSLR Rebate program, funded through our DWSRF

• Provides grant funding to waterworks that do

FULL LSL replacement (from connection to main all the way to building)

• Done as a “reimbursement of expenses”
• Stakeholders group provided guidance to VDH
• n program guidelines
• 3 projects funded in first year (FY 18) – more

projects submitted for FY 19

42

LCR Long-Term Revisions

We know it’s coming – it’s been in process for some time – NDWAC submitted their final report to EPA in Dec 2015 Expected Timeline:

• Proposed Rule has been delayed – EPA held a

“federalism consultation” with States and other partners earlier this year

• May be published in the Federal Register later

this year ?? (2018? 2019?)

• Final Rule published (?)
• Effective date (?)

43

What Might the LTR Contain?

• At this point, we’re all guessing, because EPA’s

holding the LTR pretty close to the vest…

• There are some good guesses, based on the

NDWAC recommendations given to EPA in Dec 2015 – these include fundamental changes to the rule construct

44

NDWAC Recommendations (1)

• Proactive approach to actions previously

triggered by AL exceedance

• ALL systems work with customers to remove

ALL LSLs (full replacement – not partial), not just in response to AL exceedance

• Stronger public education requirements for ALL

systems

• Modify CCR language
• Targeted outreach to consumers with LSLs
• Targeted outreach to vulnerable populations

45

NDWAC Recommendations (2)

• Strengthen requirements for CCT
• EPA continually update CCT guidance
• Tailor WQPs to specific CCTs as applied
• Increase WQPs monitoring frequency – CCT

process control tool

• Changes to monitoring requirements
• Include consumer-requested tap samples
• Possible changes to sampling protocol (to

capture “highest lead levels”

46

NDWAC Recommendations (3)

• Changes to monitoring requirements (continued)
• Eliminate the focus on 1983-86 timeframe
• Include pre-schools & daycares (maybe even

elementary schools)

• Establish a health-based “household lead action

level” that triggers various actions, including reports to the consumer & local health agency follow-up

• Totally different construct for copper, focused
• n copper corrosion

47

Some Possible Inclusions

• A new sampling plan and materials survey –

back to basics

• Refining the inventory of LSLs in the

distribution system

• A “bins” approach to actions to be taken, based
• n tap sampling results – as the 90th percentile

goes up, more actions are required

• An effort to “close existing loopholes”

48

Bottom Line – LTR Drivers

• There is NO safe level of lead in drinking water!!
• Plumbing materials which contain lead pose a

risk to public health at ALL times, not just when the Action Level is exceeded

• These materials need to be eliminated from the

water infrastructure A new rule won’t solve the problem – and lots of parties will be involved, not just EPA and waterworks – health departments and customers

49

• 7. Lead in Drinking Water

in Schools

This is a VERY hot topic in Virginia!

• Bills have been introduced to address the

testing of lead in drinking water in schools ever since Flint happened (outgrowth of situations in

• ther states)
• SB 1359 (2017 GA session) passed, signed into

law

50

SB 1359 (2017)

Found at §22.1-135.1 of Code of Virginia

“Each local school board shall develop and implement a plan to test and, if necessary, remediate potable water from sources identified by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency as high priority for testing, including bubbler-style and cooler-style drinking fountains, cafeteria or kitchen taps, classroom combination sinks and drinking fountains, and sinks known to be or visibly used for consumption. The local school board shall give priority in the testing plan to schools whose school building was constructed, in whole or in part, before 1986.”

51

ODW Activities & Recommendations

• ODW partnered with Virginia School Plant Managers

Association to hold a discussion at their 2017 Annual Meeting, so that they could develop a consensus approach to testing

• ODW recommends that the testing plans be developed

by the school districts in concert with the water provider, the local health department, and ODW

• ODW recommends that the testing plans be developed

in accordance with EPA’s “3 T’s” program (Training, Testing, and Telling)

https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-drinking-water-schools-and-childcare-facilities

52

• 8. Revisions to

Waterworks Regulations (12VAC5-590)

• The Regulations have been routinely revised to

incorporate changes in the various Federal regulations under the SDWA – SWTRs (LT1, LT2), RTCR, DBP1 and DBP2, GWR, etc.

• But….general revisions are LONG overdue – the

last general (not driven by Federal regulations changes) revision was in November 1995

53

Process for Revisions

Administrative Process Act (APA) Three Distinct Process Steps

• 1. Notice of Intended Regulatory Action

(NOIRA)

• 2. Proposed Regulation
• 3. Final Regulation

54

Applying the APA Process

• Revisions that incorporate EPA Regulations

changes can be accomplished through an abbreviated APA process

• General (non-Federal) revisions must follow the

full APA process

• Permitting requirements & procedures
• Waterworks design – distribution system,

storage, pumping, treatment

• Waterworks operation requirements

55

Current Status

• Regulatory Advisory Panel (RAP) convened to

do a detailed review and provide input – met several times, ended in 2015

• Waterworks Advisory Committee (WAC) doing a

“final review”

• Intent is present a full package to EPA mid-2018

and to the Board of Health late 2018

• That will be followed by various Executive

Branch reviews, followed by publishing in The Virginia Register for public comment

56

Just Be Careful In Your Celebration!