Regulatory Update

Virginia AWWA Plant Operation Committee

Operators ConferenceFriday, May 8, 2015

Doug Noffsinger, PE

2

Raise your glass to National Drinking Water Week!• Every day, millions of Virginians turn on the tap to find

unlimited access to safe clean drinking water.

• You provide safe, reliable water supply critical to our overall quality of life –public health, fire suppression, vibrant economy.

• Thanks!

Regulations Are a Constant Driver for Water Systems

• Drinking water regulations shape what you need:

– in your watersheds

– at the water treatment plant

– in the distribution system

• Much of the rest of the world looks to the U.S. regulations as the benchmark

• The best water systems strive to protect public health, not just meet regulations

History of Regulations – Protect Public Health

• First Sanitation Law in Virginia

– Jamestown

– May 1610 –405 years ago!

– First attempt at maintaining a clean water supply

History of Regulations – Protect Public Health

• 1900: Typhoid fever killed 36 out of 100,000 people

• In 1908, New Jersey began to use Chlorine as a primary disinfectant

• Chlorination helped to decrease deaths caused from drinking water

Water Quality from a Historical Perspective

History of Regulations – Protect Public Health

History of Regulations – Protect Public Health

• VDH Timeline– 1908 - Virginia Department of Health created– What else happened in 1908?– 1972 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

formed– 1974 - Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) issued– 1977 - Virginia received primacy for SDWA

History of Regulations – Protect Public Health

• VDH Timeline– 1908 - Virginia Department of Health created

– What else happened in 1908? Chlorination in NJ

– 1972 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formed

– 1974 - Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) issued

– 1977 - Virginia received primacy for SDWA

History of Regulations – Protect Public Health

• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

– Passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health

– Amended in 1996

– Authorized the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to set national health-based standards for drinking water

– States apply to US EPA for “primacy”, the authority to implement SDWA within their jurisdictions

– Virginia received primacy in ____?

History of Regulations – Protect Public Health

• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

– Passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health

– Amended in 1996

– Authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to set national health-based standards for drinking water

– States apply to US EPA for “primacy”, the authority to implement SDWA within their jurisdictions

– Virginia received primacy in 1977

SDWA Components

• Consumer Confidence Reports

• Cost-Benefit Analysis of each proposed regulation

• Drinking Water Revolving Fund for States

• Microbial Contaminants and Disinfection Byproducts

• Operator Certification Guidelines

• Public Information & Consultation

• Small Water Systems

• Source Water Assessment Programs

How can Regulatory Knowledge be used positively?

• Confirm production of a healthy food-grade product

• Assess performance vulnerability

• Evaluate the performance of a process unit

• Planning to support upgrades, expansion, or new water supplies

• Optimization (cost, chemicals, energy) while maintaining compliance

Current Regulations for Drinking Water

• Federal drinking water rules adopted by Virginia:

– Arsenic Monitoring Rule

– Consumer Confidence Reports

– Disinfectant & Disinfection Byproducts Rules

– Groundwater Rule

– Lead and Copper Rule

– Public Notification Rule

– Revised Total Coliform Rule

– Surface Water Treatment Rules

• Regulations can be found at:

– http://www.vdh.state.va.us/odw/laws_regs.htm

• Overview– Improves public health by reducing exposure to arsenic

in drinking water.

– Reduced the arsenic MCL to 10 μg/L

– Set the arsenic MCLG at 0

– Required monitoring for new systems and new drinking water sources

• Public Health Benefit– Avoidance of 21 to 30 fatal bladder and lung cancers

per year.

– Avoidance of 16 to 26 non-fatal bladder and lung cancers per year.

– Reduction in the frequency of non-carcinogenic diseases.

Arsenic Rule, 2001

• Overview

– Provide educational material to allow consumers to make decisions regarding any potential health risks pertaining to their drinking water supply.

– Provide an annual water quality report summarizing information regarding source water, detected contaminants, and compliance.

• Public Health Benefit– Increased consumer knowledge of drinking water sources,

treatment, and supply.

– Increased awareness of consumers to potential health risks.

– Increased dialogue between drinking water utilities and consumers.

Consumer Confidence Report Rule, 1998

D/DBP Rule, 1998 (Stage 1), 2006 (Stage 2)

• Overview

– Established maximum contaminant levels for DBPs

– Established residual disinfectant level limits

– Required an Initial Distribution System Evaluation.

– Conventional filtration plants required to remove specific

percentages of organic material that may react to form

DBPs.

• Public Health Benefit

– Reduced exposure to disinfection byproducts.

– Ensured adequate disinfectant levels.

D/DBP Rule Requirements – Stage 1

• Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for DBPs

– THMs/HAAs 80/60 µg/L based on running annual average

– Bromate 10 µg/L

– Chlorite 1 mg/L

• Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL):

– 4 mg/L for free and combined chlorine

– 0.8 mg/l for chlorine dioxide

• Profiling and

benchmarking to ensure

that current disinfection is

not compromised

Enhanced

Coagulation and

Softening

TOC Removal

TOC 0 – <60 mg/L >60 – <120 mg/L >120 mg/L

Alkalinity Alkalinity Alkalinity

2.0 – 4.0 mg/L 35% 25% 15%

4.0 – 8.0 mg/L 45% 35% 25%

> 8.0 mg/L 50% 40% 30%

D/DBP Rule Requirements – Stage 1

D/DBP Rule Requirements – Stage 2

• Compliance based on samples using compliance locations

from the IDSE

• Location specific:

– Location Running Annual Average (LRAA) at each sample

site

– Different from Stage 1 running annual average (RAA)

method for the system as a whole

DBP Regulated Level (ppb)

Total Trihalomethanes ?

Haloacetic Acids (5) ?

D/DBP Rule Requirements – Stage 2

• Compliance based on samples using compliance locations

from the IDSE

• Location specific:

– Location Running Annual Average (LRAA) at each sample

site

– Different from Stage 1 running annual average (RAA)

method for the system as a whole

DBP Regulated Level (ppb)

Total Trihalomethanes 80

Haloacetic Acids (5) 60

The Future of DBP Regulations

• DBP violations will continue to increase

– Stage 2 LRAA may increase violation numbers

– Make sure you’re paying attention to your LRAA

numbers

• There are many unanswered questions on other

DBPs that are not regulated and may have

reproductive and developmental effects…Future

Regulations?

Groundwater Rule, 2006

• Overview– Reduce the risk of illness caused by microbial

contamination in public ground water systems.

• Regular sanitary surveys

• Triggered source water monitoring for at risk systems (i.e., systems not providing 4-log virus inactivation)

• Implementation of corrective actions

• 4-log virus disinfection requirement when deficiencies cannot be corrected

• Compliance monitoring for systems that disinfect

• Public Health Benefit– Targeted protection for over 70 million people served by

ground water sources that are either not disinfected or receive less than 4-log treatment.

– Avoidance of 42,000 viral illnesses and 1 related death annually.

Lead and Copper Rule, 1991

• Overview– Protect public health by minimizing lead (Pb) and copper (Cu) levels

in drinking water, primarily by reducing water corrosivity.

– Pb and Cu enter drinking water mainly from corrosion of plumbing materials.

– Minor Revisions were promulgated in 2000; Short Term Revisions and Clarifications were promulgated in 2007. Long Term Revision is underway

– Establishes action level (AL) of 0.015 mg/L for Pb and 1.3 mg/L for Cu based on 90th percentile level of tap water samples.

– An AL exceedance is not a violation but can trigger other requirements that include water quality parameter monitoring, corrosion control treatment, source water monitoring/treatment, public education, and lead service line replacement.

• Public Health Benefit– Reduction in risk of exposure to Pb that can cause damage to brain,

red blood cells, and kidneys, especially for young children and pregnant women.

– Reduction in risk of exposure to Cu that can cause stomach and intestinal distress, liver or kidney damage, and complications of Wilson’s disease in genetically predisposed people.

Public Notification Rule, 2000

• Overview

– To notify the public of drinking water violations

or situations that may pose a risk to public

health.

• Public Health Benefit

– The PN Rule requires all public water systems

(PWSs) to notify their consumers any time a

PWS violates a national primary drinking water

regulation or has a situation posing a risk to

public health. Notices must be provided to

persons served (not just billing customers).

• Total Coliform Rule (TCR) applies to all systems and is

an important barrier for microbial protection

• RTCR shifts from lots of public notifications based on

total coliforms to a “find and fix” framework

– Tier 1 and Tier 2 assessments to find problems and fix them, if a

problem is found

• Violations for not conducting the required assessments

• Should reduce the number of violations

– E. coli regulatory framework remains the same

Revised Total Coliform Rule, 2013

• Reduce potential for pathogens in drinking water

• Applies to surface water and GWUDI public water

systems

• Fixed treatment requirements for filtration and

disinfection:– 3 log removal/inactivation of Giardia (CT tables)

– 4 log removal/inactivation of viruses (CT tables)

– Turbidity 0.5 NTU for partial credit through filtration

– Residual disinfectant concentration throughout distribution system

• Filtration avoidance criteria for unfiltered systems

Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), 1989

• IESWTR, 1998 – 2-log Cryptosporidium removal credit for

filtered water turbidity of 0.3 NTU, monitor individual filters

• LT1ESWTR, 2002 – Applies IESWTR to small systems

(<10,000 population)

• LT2ESWTR, 2006 – Focused on Cryptosporidium

sampling, bin assignment, treatment to match risk

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules

Disinfection Profiling

And Benchmarking

Ensure proposed changes in

disinfection do not compromise

current inactivation of pathogens

Source Water Microbial

Monitoring

Monitor to determine

Cryptosporidium levels

(more on this later)

Uncovered Finished Water

Reservoirs

Systems with uncovered

reservoirs must either cover

or treat to provide

removal/inactivation of virus,

Giardia, and Crypto

Treatment Bins and the Microbial

Toolbox

Assignment to “bins” based on

monitoring results. Implement

treatment based on the requirements

for each bin, choosing from a set of

treatment options.

Key LT2ESWTR Requirements

Bin

Number

Mean Cryptosporidium

Concentration

Additional Treatment

Requirements for

Conventional Filtration WTPs*

1 Crypto < 0.075/L None

2 0.075/L Crypto < 1.0/L 1.0 log

3 1.0/L Crypto < 3.0/L2.0 logs (with 1.0 log by upper

bin technology)

4 Crypto 3.0/L2.5 logs (with 1.0 log by upper

bin technology)

LT2ESWTR Requirements Depend on Source Water Cryptosporidium

*Add 0.5-log treatment requirement for Direct Filtration systems

Demonstration of

performance

UV

LT2ESWTR Microbial Toolbox

Watershed

Control ProgramInactivation

Additional

FiltrationTreatment

Performance

Alternative Source/

Intake Management

Chlorine

dioxide

Ozone

Individual filter

performance

2nd-stage

filtration

Membranes

Bag and

cartridge

filters

Slow sand

filters

Bank filtration

2-stage lime

softening

Pre-sedimentation

basin with coagulationCombined filter

performance

Pre-filtration

Contaminant Candidate List, 2015 (AWWA)

• CCL is a list developed by the EPA that identifies priority contaminants for regulatory decision making and information collection

• Contaminants on the list are known or anticipated to occur in PWSs and may impact public health

• EPA has issued recommendations from the CCL1, CCL2, and CCL3

• The Draft CCL4 was issued in February:

– Lists 100 chemicals or groups and 12 microbial contaminants, including cyanotoxins

– One of the nominated chemicals that ended up on the Draft CCL4 is manganese.

– Note that EPA made a negative regulatory determination for manganese in 2003, but added it due to new health effects data that showed some potential neurological effects.

– Comments were due to EPA by April 6th.

Regulatory Actions Expected in 2015 (AWWA)

• Water systems should be prepared for the following

regulatory/non-regulatory actions:

– Proposed Fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 4

– Final recommended fluoride level for drinking water (from the

Department of Health and Human Services)

– The start of the second round of monitoring under the Long

Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

– Health Advisories for cyanotoxins

– Final Third Regulatory Determination

– Report from National Drinking Water Advisory Council

(NDWAC) Lead and Copper Rule Working Group

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) (AWWA)

• EPA program to evaluate and prioritize contaminants on the CCL and ensure that future decisions are based on sound science

• Monitoring of no more than 30 contaminants will be conducted during a 5-year cycle; there are four lists to date

• The proposed UCMR4 will be another iteration of the rulemakings to fill the occurrence data gaps in CCLs.

• EPA held a UCMR4 stakeholder meeting in June 2014 to provide stakeholders with some details on contaminants being considered for UCMR4.

• Some cyanotoxins are likely to be included in UCMR 4, and the monitoring for the selected cyanotoxins will likely be for four months in the summer.

• The final UCMR4 is scheduled to be published in 2016, and UCMR4 monitoring is anticipated to start in January 2018.

Fluoride Level Final Recommendation

• Reduction of Fluoridation Levels in Drinking Water

– The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed an optimal fluoride level in drinking water of 0.7 mg/L in 2011

– VDH is adopting the new HHS recommendation of 0.7 mg/L for optimum fluoride concentration in drinking water

– HHS final recommendation due this year.

• Community water fluoridation has led to dramatic declines in both the prevalence and severity of tooth decay; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has named it one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

Source Water

Microbial

MonitoringMonitor to

determine

Cryptosporidium

and/or indicator

levels

2015 Monitoring• The second round of monitoring has started

for some systems

• Surface water systems serving >100,000

people had to start monitoring by April 1.

• Two issues to note with the second round:• The lack of a central USEPA database for the

monitoring as the state primacy agencies are

now collecting the monitoring data

• EPA’s recommendation (but not requirement)

that Method 1623.1 should be used for this

monitoring.

LT2ESWTR Second Round Monitoring

• Cyanotoxins jumped to a higher priority in the regulatory arena, given the water quality problems in Toledo, Ohio, in August 2014.

• Cyanotoxins (as a group) were listed in the recently published ____

• A handful of cyanotoxins will almost certainly be included in the _____

• EPA is going to release health advisories for a handful of cyanotoxins in spring or summer of 2015, and these advisories will likely include both chronic and semi-acute numbers.

• AWWA, in conjunction with the Water Research Foundation, developed a communications guide for water system managers on cyanotoxins that was released in spring 2015.

Health Advisories for Cyanotoxins (AWWA)

• Cyanotoxins jumped to a higher priority in the regulatory arena, given the water quality problems in Toledo, Ohio, in August 2014.

• Cyanotoxins (as a group) were listed in the recently published CCL4

• A handful of cyanotoxins will almost certainly be included in the UCMR4

• EPA is going to release health advisories for a handful of cyanotoxins in spring or summer of 2015, and these advisories will likely include both chronic and semi-acute numbers.

• AWWA, in conjunction with the Water Research Foundation, developed a communications guide for water system managers on cyanotoxins that was released in spring 2015.

Health Advisories for Cyanotoxins (AWWA)

Key Definitions

• Phytoplankton = Algae + Cyanobacteria

• Algal bloom rapid growth of one or a few species

• Depending on species:

– Inhabit various locations in

aquatic environment

• e.g., near surface, bottom,

shore

– Grow in various forms

• e.g., attached, free-floating,

mats

– May have ability to produce

various metabolites

Figure: AWWA M57 (2010)

Health Advisories for Cyanotoxins

Algal Metabolites

• Toxins: Microcystin-LR is most abundant and toxic

• T&O: Geosmin and MIB are most problematic for WTPs

• Produced during growth, within algal cell “intracellular”

• Metabolites can be released from algal cells “extracellular”

– Death

– Grazing by zooplankton

– Signaling in response to environmental factors

– Cell rupture (lysis) during water treatment

• Harmful algal bloom (HAB) toxins produced during

a bloom

– When dominated by cyanobacteria, called “CHAB”

Figures: AWWA M57 (2010)

Health Advisories for Cyanotoxins

Potential Impacts from Algae and Cyanobacteria

GroupPotential Impacts

Health & Aesthetics WTP Performance

Cyanobacteria

(blue-green algae)

• T&O

• Toxins

• Filter clogging

Chlorophytes

(green algae)

• T&O • Filter clogging

• Increased organic load

• Nuisance mats

Bacillariophyta

(diatoms)

• T&O

• Toxins

• Filter clogging

• Thick biofilms

Chrysophytes

(golden algae)

• T&O

• Toxins (suspected)

Cryptophytes • T&O (only one

species)

• Toxins (suspected)

Dinoflagellates • T&O

• Toxins (only one

species)

• Filter clogging

Health Advisories for Cyanotoxins

Best Management Practices – Monitoring

• Harmful Algae Blooms (HABs) monitoring should be designed to

identify if a bloom is occurring and if the associated bloom is toxic.

• Identify if there is an existing entity monitoring the lake or water body

for HABs.

• Local communication and coordination between lake and/or

reservoir owners in addition to other water providers within the

system is highly encouraged.

• Water providers may choose to

monitor lake/reservoir for HABs

themselves.

• Consider semi-annual surveys.

Health Advisories for Cyanotoxins

• EPA is required to make regulatory determinations on at least 5 contaminants every 5 years, putting some pressure on EPA to regulate “something”

• Preliminary Third Regulatory Determinations:

– one positive preliminary determination for strontium

– four preliminary negative determinations for 1,3-dinitrobenzene, dimethoate, terbufos, and terbufossulfone

• The final Third Regulatory Determinations should be published at the end of 2015.

• Strontium has some significant health effects issues that need to be resolved before the Agency moves forward with a proposed and/or final strontium regulation.

Third Regulatory Determination (AWWA), 2014

• Third Six-Year Review (SY3) will be in 2016

– Microbial/Disinfection By-Products Rule (M/BPR)

• Nitrosamines and chlorate are both DBPs, creating

another level of complexity for the Third Six-Year

Review.

– Hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI) will likely be discussed

in the context of the review of the current total

chromium regulation – it is not clear whether EPA is

going to regulate Cr-VI separately or not.

– Interim, Long-Term 1,

and Long-Term 2

Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rules

Third Six-Year Review (AWWA)

Lead and Copper Rule Working Group (AWWA)

• A Lead and Copper Working Group met throughout 2014 to develop recommendations for the long-term LCR revisions.

• The report from the Working Group should be completed later this year and then the report will be sent to the under the National Drinking Water Advisory Council.

• The process has been slow due to breadth and depth of the issues being discussed, such as:

– Developing inventories of lead service lines

– Lead service line replacement

– Optimized corrosion control

– How in-home sampling might be revised

– Corrosivity of water for new/replaced copper plumbing, etc.

• Proposed revisions are not likely to be published by EPA until late 2016 or early 2017.

Drinking Water Regulations

Virginia AWWA Plant Operation Committee

Operators ConferenceFriday, May 8, 2015

Doug Noffsinger, PE