Looking Forward After

40 Years of the SDWA

Adam Carpenter

Regulatory Analyst

AWWA – Washington, DC

Presentation Outline

• Where we came from

– Summary of legislative and regulatory history

– Past SDWA and reg. accomplishments

• Regulatory “shapings”

• 25 versus 40

– Young versus middle-aged

– Tough 40th anniversary year

• Future success will be challenging

– Five big issues

Three Iterations of the SDWA

• Initial 1974 SDWA set up the federal

standard-setting process

– Not enough regulations were developed

• 1986 SDWA – prescriptive reg schedule

• 1996 SDWA refined contaminant

identification and risk management

– New state programs for DWSRF, capacity

development, operator certification, and

source water assessments

Regulatory History

• 19 regulations for 91 contaminants

between 1975-2013

• 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

Where We Came From

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

NIPDWR

Phase II, LCR

TTHMR

1980

Phase I

SWTR,TCR

Phase II

19902000

2010

CCRR,Stage 1 DBPR,

IESWTR

Radionuclides, PNR

Arsenic, SFBR

GWR, LT2ESWTR,

Stage 2 DBPR

ST-LCRRTCR

ICR

Number of Regulated Contaminants

Past SDWA Accomplishments

• Translation from USPHS guidelines to

federal standards for state adoption

• Standardized monitoring framework

• Regulating 91 contaminants – many risks

have been addressed

– Microbials (including Cryptosporidium), DBPs,

nitrate, arsenic, and others

SDWA Accomplishments (cont.)

• Several accomplishments from 1996 SDWA

– DWSRF - $14.7 billion appropriated thru 6/12

• $23.6 billion with leveraging – 9,900 projects

– Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs)

• Electronic delivery option in 2013

– Five years cycles for CCLs/UCMRs/RegDets

for identifying new contaminants

– Six-year reviews of existing regulations

– 18 Work Groups under National Drinking Water

Advisory Council

Past Regulatory Accomplishments

• Microbial regulations

– 1989 SWTR and TCR

– 2006 Groundwater Rule

– 2013 Revised TCR

• Chemical regulations

– Arsenic, important industrial and agricultural

chemicals, lead, etc.

• Paired regulations in M/DBP Cluster

Waterborne Disease Outbreaks

Source, CDC MMWR

DBP Reductions

• Two historical comparisons

– 1975-1976 TTHM mean 68-µg/L 90th-150 µg/L

– 1997-1998 ICR mean-28 µg/L 90th-60 µg/L

• 60% reduction

– Pre-Stage 1 DBPR to Post-Stage 1 for SW

• Average TTHM decreased from 42.3 to 35.0 µg/L

• Average HAA5 decreased from 29.1 to 22.5 µg/L

– Comparable reductions for groundwater

Cancer Incidence Rates* for Men, US, 1975-2000

*Age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population.

Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, 1975-2000, Division of Cancer Control and

Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2003.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Prostate

Lung

Colon and rectum

Urinary bladder

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Rate Per 100,000

Regulatory “Shapings”

• No GAC in TTHM Rule

• Lead and Copper Rule

– No lead service line replacement on private

property

– No lead MCL at the tap

• Arsenic at 10 ppb instead of 5 ppb

• Uranium at 30 ppb – SDWA BCA discretion

• No radon rule

More “Shapings”

• Filter backwash recycling rule

– No mandated treatment for filter backwash

• M/DBP Cluster

– Pairing of the regulations

• Stage 2 DBPR

– 80/60 LRAA for TTHM/HAA5 instead of 40/30

– “Hotaling OEL” instead of single 100 ppb

More “Shapings”

• LT2ESWTR toolbox for compliance

• RTCR

– No total coliform MCL

– “Find and fix” regulatory framework

• Electronic delivery of CCRs

25 versus 40

• Young at 25 (1999) vs. middle-aged at 40

• USEPA and primacy agencies in 1999

– DWSRF, op cert, capacity development, SWAP

– Regulations – CCR, Stage 1 DBPR/IESWTR

– First Contaminant Candidate List (CCL1)

• Today at 40 – possibly lost a step

– No new contaminants have been regulated

since 1996 SDWA

Tough 40th Anniversary Year

1. January 9th – Tank leak in Charleston, WV

2. Feb. 2nd – Coal ash dam failure adjacent to

Dan River near VA/NC border

3. April 16th – Reservoir issue in Portland, OR

4. April 30th – Train derails in Lynchburg, VA

5. August 9th – Cyanotoxin in Toledo, OH

6. August 18th – Diesel fuel spill on Ohio River

Five Observations from 40th

1. Somebody else’s fault

2. Hindsight is always 20/20

3. Man-made incidents

4. No easy solutions from the SDWA

5. A SDWA regulation to address one of

these would take a decade to develop

Future Success Will Be Challenging

1. Funding

2. The regulatory development process

3. Distribution systems and premise

plumbing

4. Data

5. Preparedness

Funding

• Everyone in the drinking water sector is

grappling with decreased funding

– EPA and states – decreased budgets

– Water systems – recession impacts and

decreasing demand

• Infrastructure replacement costs are 5-10X

the compliance costs of all regulations

Regulatory Development Process

• “Low-hanging fruit” already regulated

• Future regulations are complicated and

will be challenging to finalize and justify

– Perchlorate

– Chlorate and nitrosamines

– cVOCs

– Lead

– Hexavalent chromium

– Fluoride

Observations

• The era of simple drinking water

regulations is long gone

• A decade to develop a new drinking water

regulation is not optimal

– Or is it?

• Should we (AWWA) be taking a more active role in

developing new regulations that make sense?

Regulatory Process (cont.)

• No new contaminants have been

regulated since 1996 SDWA

– Negative determinations a positive result

• Several contaminants with 0-5 detects in UCMRs

• Should CCLs be shorter?

– Should future UCMRs be targeted?

• Should we focus on compliance versus

new regulations?

EPA Drinking Water Data

Community Engineering Corps

www.communityengineeringcorps.org

Opportunities for Members

• Volunteer with project

teams to work with

communities

• Mentor student

project teams

• Volunteer committees

• Fundraising

Distribution Systems

• Is a distribution system rule warranted?

• Storage tanks

– Should water systems be required to have a

tank maintenance and inspection plan?

• Disinfectant residual

– Should residual be a number versus detect?

• Louisiana emergency rule in 2013 of 0.5 mg/L

Waterborne Disease Outbreaks

Source, CDC MMWR

Premise Plumbing

• Legionella

– 22,418 reported cases in 2000-2009

• Actual incidence likely higher

• Premise plumbing is the responsibility of

the building owner

• Water systems needs to work with building

owners/operators to educate them about

water quality & their responsibilities

Data

• The water sector is data/information-poor

– Health effects data

• Solid health effects data is needed to justify the

cost of compliance

– Occurrence data

• Methods can be a hindrance for occurrence data

• Automation and on-line monitoring may

not necessarily solve the problem

Preparedness

• Water systems met the past regulatory

requirements for VAs and ERPs

– But more may be needed

• Charleston, WV and Danville & Lynchburg, VA

– Threats range from weather events, human

error, malevolent, mechanical failures, etc.

• How do water systems prepare for low-

probability, high-consequence events?

Collaborations

• Collaborations are key for the future

• Complicated regulatory issues warrant

collaborations to solve the underlying

technical and policy issues

– For both regulatory & non-regulatory solutions

• Build upon past collaborative solutions

Adam CarpenterRegulatory AnalystEmail: acarpenter@awwa.orgDirect: (202) 326-6126

American Water Works AssociationGovernment Affairs Office 1300 Eye Street, NW, Suite 701WWashington DC 20005Gen. Office: (202) 628-8303

Questions?