Water Protection Program - DNR · Water Protection Program Public Drinking Water Branch October 11,...

Water Protection Program

NOTICE OF OPEN MEETING

SAFE DRINKING WATER COMMISSION

AGENDA

October 11, 2017

10:00 a.m.

Missouri Department of Transportation – Southeast District

2675 North Main Street

Sikeston, Missouri

People with disabilities requiring special services or accommodations to participate in this meeting

may make arrangements by contacting the Commission Secretary, several days in advance of the

meeting, at 573-751-0124 or by mail at Public Drinking Water Branch, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City,

MO 65102-0176. Hearing impaired persons may contact the program through Relay Missouri at

1-800-735-2966.

Open Session Agenda 10 a.m.

1. Call to Order

Introduction of Commission members, Department staff and audience members.

2. Approval of the July 19, 2017, open session minutes

Approval of the July 19, 2017, closed session minutes

Approval of the July 27, 2017, closed session minutes

Recommended Action: The Commission will amend, if necessary, and approve minutes of

the previous meetings.

3. Adoption of the final Fiscal Year 2018 Missouri Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

(DWSRF) Intended Use Plan (IUP)

Darleen Groner, P.E., Financial Assistance Center

Recommended Action: The Department recommends the Commission adopt the final

Fiscal Year 2018 Missouri DWSRF IUP as presented today with an effective date of

October 11, 2017.

4. Approval of the Missouri Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Priority Points

Criteria for Fiscal Year 2019

Darleen Groner, P.E., Financial Assistance Center

Recommended Action: The Department recommends the Commission adopt the Missouri

Drinking Water State Revolving Priority Points Criteria for Fiscal Year 2019.

5. Public Comments on the Missouri Red Tape Reduction

David Lamb, Chief, Public Drinking Water Branch

Recommended Action: The Department is currently reviewing its regulations and is

seeking feedback through its board and commission meetings through Dec. 15, 2017.

6. Operator Certification Program Update

Darlene Helmig, Section Chief

Recommended Action: Information Only

7. Backflow Prevention Rule

Brandon Bach, Environmental Engineer, Permits & Engineering Section

Recommended Action: Information Only

8. Annual Compliance Report

Todd Eichholz, Chief, Monitoring Section

Recommended Action: Information only

9. Regulatory Update

Sheri Fry, Public Drinking Water Branch


10. Attorney General Office Legal Update

Jennifer Hernandez, Attorney General’s Office


11. Branch Chief’s Updates

David J. Lamb, Public Drinking Water Branch


12. Other Business—This routine agenda item provides the Commission opportunity to discuss

last minute, minor issues arising after the agenda has been finalized.


13. Public Comment and Correspondence—This routine agenda item provides an opportunity

for the public to comment on any issues pertinent to the Commission’s roles and

responsibilities. The Commission encourages all interested parties to express their comments

and concerns.

14. Future Meetings—Staff will update the Commission on tentative 2018 meeting dates.

2018 meeting dates and locations:

January 16, 2018 – Lewis and Clark State Office Building

April 18, 2018 – Lewis and Clark State Office Building

July 18, 2018 – Lewis and Clark State Office Building

Adjournment of Meeting—target adjournment 12:00 p.m.

Closed Session

The Commission may go into closed session at any point during this meeting if such action is

approved by a majority vote of the commission members who constitute a quorum, to discuss legal,

confidential, or privileged matters pursuant to section 610.021(1), RSMo; personnel actions

pursuant to section 610.021(3), RSMo; personnel records or applications pursuant to section

610.021(13), RSMo; records which are protected from disclosure by law pursuant to section

610.021(14), RSMo; security systems or structural plans pursuant to section 610.021(18) or (19); or

other specific reasons identified pursuant to sections 610.021 and 610.022, RSMo and announced in

open session.

For more information contact: Ellen Harrel

P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102

Phone: 573-751-1077; Fax: 573-751-3110; Email: [email protected]

Targeted Adjournment 12:00 p.m.

Safe Drinking Water Commission

Department of Natural Resources Division of Environmental Quality

Water Protection Program Public Drinking Water Branch

October 11, 2017 Agenda Item #1

Call to Order





Approval of Minutes

Issue: Commission to review the Open Session minutes from the July 19, 2017, Safe Drinking Water Commission meeting. Commission to review the Closed Session minutes from the July 19, 2017, and July 27, 2017, meetings. Recommended Action: Commission to approve the Open Session minutes from the July 19, 2017, Safe Drinking Water Commission meeting, as well as the Closed Session minutes from the July 19, 2017, and July 27, 2017 meetings.

Attachment: July 19, 2017, Open Session Minutes Closed session minutes to be provided at the meeting.

1

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER COMMISSION


Public Drinking Water Branch Roaring River Conference Room

1730 East Elm Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

July 19, 2017

10:00 a.m.

Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Ms. Elizabeth Grove, Chair Ms. Susan Armstrong Ms. Susan Hazelwood, Vice-Chair Ms. Charli Jo Ledgerwood Mr. Rodger Owens Mr. Curt Skouby Mr. Scott Bockenkamp - via conference call Mr. Bruce Manning – via conference call Legal Counsel: Ms. Jennifer Hernandez, AGO Staff Present: Mr. David Lamb, WPP/PDWB Ms. Kimberly Potter, WPP/PDWB Ms. Sheri Fry, WPP/PDWB Ms. Danielle West, WPP/PDWB Ms. Darleen Groner, WPP/FAC Ms. Aidan Humphrey, WPP/FAC Ms. Tammy Wilson, WPP/FMS Mr. Patrick Vavra, WPP/PDWB Ms. Diane Vitello, WPP/PDWB Mr. Eric Medlock, WPP/PDWB Mr. Todd Eichholz, WPP/PDWB Mr. Jeff Pinson, WPP/PDWB Mr. Chris Fisher, WPP/PDWB Ms. Jennifer Lee, WPP/PDWB Mr. Ken Tomlin, WPP/PDWB Ms. Hannah Humphrey, DNR/DEQ Mr. Ed Galbraith, DNR/DEQ Ms. Carol Comer, DNR/DEQ Ms. Darlene Helmig, WPP/PDWB Guests Present: Mr. Don Summers, American Society of Sanitary Engineers (ASSE) Mr. Phil Walsack, Missouri Public Utility Alliance (MPUA) Ms. Traci Lichtenberg, Missouri American Water (MAW)

2

Mr. Tom Simmons, Missouri American Water Ms. LaDawn Owens, Wappapello, MO Mr. Martin Hummel, Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) Call to Order and Introductions The regular meeting of the Safe Drinking Water Commission was held on July 19, 2017 in Jefferson City, Missouri. A quorum being present, Chair Grove called the meeting to order at 10:28 am. Introductions were made by all in attendance. Director Carol S. Comer introduced herself to the Commission. She announced several staffing changes such as Ed Galbraith being named the new Director of the Division of Environmental Quality, Dru Buntin named as the new Deputy Director for the Department, and Ben Ellis being named as the new Director of State Parks. She also noted that the Division of Administrative Support Director position would be filled in August and that would complete the Department’s management team. Mr. Ed Galbraith, Director of Division of Environmental Quality, introduced himself to the Commission and gave a brief overview of his career. He also announced that Chris Wieberg, Section Chief of the Permit Section of the Water Pollution Control Branch, has accepted the position of Water Protection Program Director. Minutes of the January 17, 2017 Meeting The Chair asked if there were any corrections to the minutes from the January 17, 2017, meeting as circulated. Vice-Chair Hazelwood requested that page numbers be added to the document. Vice-Chair Hazelwood offered a motion to accept the minutes with corrections. Commissioner Owens seconded the motion. Motion carried. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plan (IUP) Fiscal Year 2017 Comprehensive List and Fundable Projects List Revisions Darlene Groner, P.E., Financial Assistance Center Ms. Groner presented the Commission with proposed revisions to the IUP. These revisions included a request to approve moving Buchanan County Public Water Supply District No. 1 to the Very Small Community 20% Reserve Fundable List from the Planning List in the amount requested of $5,000,000 with the full amount allocated as loan funding and 57 priority points, reducing the city of Campbell’s total funding allocation on the Very Small Community 20% Reserve Fundable List in the amount of $500,000 due to the recent funding approval in the same amount from Community Development Block Grant. The revised funding allocation is $523,153 in loan and $1,569,460 in grant funds, and moving Pierce City to the Very Small Community

3

20% Reserve Fundable List from the Planning List as a disadvantaged system in the amount requested of $4,715,363 with the full amount allocated as loan funding and 71 priority points. Ms. Groner recommended the Commission approve the revisions to the 2017 IUP as presented. Commissioner Owens made a motion to approve the recommended changes to the Intended Use Plan as outlined by staff. Vice Chair Hazelwood seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Commissioner Bockenkamp: Yes Commissioner Armstrong Not in attendance Commissioner Ledgerwood Not in attendance Commissioner Manning Yes Commissioner Owens Yes Commissioner Skouby Abstain Vice-Chair Hazelwood Yes Chair Grove Yes Motion carried. Gateway for Community Assistance Hannah Humphrey, Division of Environmental Quality Ms. Humphrey spoke to the Commission and provided a presentation about a new web application released by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources called the Gateway for Community Assistance. This application provides Missouri communities with customized online access to tools and resources that can help address their environmental compliance and infrastructure planning needs. The gateway includes a comprehensive catalog of tools, resources and services available for wastewater, drinking water, stormwater, solid waste, air quality, parks and recreation and more. The Department designed the system to enable local governments to make informed decisions, save staff time and money, and provide improved service to their citizens. Chair Grove asked if the application had been launched as of yet to which Ms. Humphrey replied that it would be in the next week or two after testing and feedback from the testers. Vice Chair Hazelwood asked when the public drinking water wizard portion would be completed. Ms. Humphrey stated that she is very close to finishing that and it should be completed within a month. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR4) Eric Medlock, Public Drinking Water Branch Mr. Medlock presented information to the Commission on the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule number 4 (UCMR4). The UCMR4 collects nationwide occurrence data for suspected contaminants in all water systems with a population that is greater than or equal to 10,000 and a randomly selected subset of 800 smaller systems. This data helps the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determine what contaminants may have health-based standards set under the Safe Drinking Water Act. UCMR4 is scheduled for nationwide sampling between the years of 2018-2020. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources is required to provide testing for large water systems greater

4

than or equal to 10,000 in population while EPA will coordinate testing for the randomly selected smaller systems. Due to the certification needed for specialized EPA testing methods, the Department will contract with a certified lab for testing to be completed in calendar year 2019. Mr. Martin Hummel asked Mr. Medlock about the cost involved for the small systems. Mr. Medlock said that the majority of the costs would be covered by EPA. Mr. Phil Walsack requested a full list of systems. Mr. Medlock stated that the list is still being finalize but would be able to make it available soon. Long Term Two Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) Todd Eichholz, Public Drinking Water Branch Mr. Eichholz provided the Commission with an update to the LT2 Rule. He informed them that a second round of monitoring for the LT2 Rule has ended for large systems greater than 50,000 population and will begin in October of 2017 for small surface water systems less than 10,000 population. He also stressed the importance of implementing this rule which seeks to add more protection for source waters proven to contain cryptosporidium. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Project Jeff Pinson, Public Drinking Water Branch Mr. Pinson made a presentation to the Commission regarding the use of UAVs to inspect elevated water storage facilities. The UAV pilot project was started in the fall of 2016 and is nearing completion. Vice Chair Hazelwood commented that there was an article in the Columbia newspaper about the project and she thought it was done well. Commissioner Skouby asked how much the drone and camera cost. Mr. Pinson stated that the drone was approximately $4,800, the high definition camera was $3,200 and the infrared camera was $5,200. Legislation/Regulatory Update Sheri Fry, Public Drinking Water Branch Ms. Fry gave the Commission an update to the Five Year Rule Review. Findings included three rules that may need to be amended to ensure the Branch meets the statutory requirements on incorporated material by reference. Ms. Fry also spoke about the most recent legislative session. Attorney General’s Office Legal Update Jennifer Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General Ms. Hernandez stated that she did not have any updates for the Commission. Branch Chief’s Update David Lamb, Chief, Public Drinking Water Branch Mr. Lamb discussed recent staff changes within the Branch. He introduced Mr. Chris Fisher and Ms. Jennifer Lee, who are Environmental Specialists in the Compliance and Enforcement

5

Section. He spoke about Ms. Brandy Gelber, the new Research Analyst in the Monitoring Section and Mr. Russell Gerling, the new Water Quality Specialist in the Operator Certification Section. Departures from the Branch were Rabahka Murphy, Senior Office Support Assistant in the Operator Certification Section and Deborah Arant, Office Support Assistant from the Permits and Engineering Section. Mr. Lamb discussed the EPA audit of the Lab Certification Program completed in March 2017 and all it encompassed. He stated that the findings were overall positive with a couple of recommendations that may involve some rulemaking. He touched on the Annual Compliance Report, stating the raw data was submitted to EPA but the final report was still in development. He also discussed the status of any future Fee Stakeholder Meetings noting that there were no intentions to conduct stakeholder meetings at this time. Mr. Lamb mentioned the upcoming solar eclipse occurring on August 21, 2017. He stated that the Department has been communicating with water and wastewater systems to make them aware of the high possibility of a large number of visitors during the “Eclipse Weekend” and that preparedness is key. Mr. Lamb then introduced Mr. Ed Galbraith, Director of Division of Environmental Quality to give a short presentation on Red Tape Reduction. Mr. Galbraith introduced the Commission to an initiative from the Governor’s office which affects all government agencies called Red Tape Reduction. He noted the initiative’s goal is to make Missouri the showcase state for business and entrepreneurial activity as well as economic growth opportunities. The Governor is asking all state agencies to review their regulations and look at every use of words such as shall, must, etc. and determine the necessity of those regulations. He explained that the metrics for this exercise will be the elimination of one-third of Missouri’s regulatory restrictions, having a robust public comment period (goal of 100 comments for the Department), and improving the Department’s compliance assistance and regulatory presence. He noted the Department would like to put this item on the agenda for the next Commission meeting to allow the public to come forward and comment on anything that needs to be reviewed or that should not be changed. Mr. Galbraith discussed the different ways to comment (website set up by Department, email, and forums at Commission meetings). Chair Grove asked Mr. Galbraith about the timeframe for this initiative and he stated the end of the calendar year. Ms. Jennifer Hernandez asked Mr. Galbraith how this initiative differed from the regular rule review that was just completed by the Department. Mr. Galbraith responded that the normal rule review is an ongoing review that is generated by statute whereas the red tape initiative sets goals and was initiated by the Governor. Chair Grove stated that this was looking specifically at regulations not statutory changes and Mr. Galbraith agreed.

6

Other Business Vice-Chair Hazelwood asked if the current Governor was planning on reappointing or renaming members to the commission. She stated that currently, all members are serving under expired terms. Mr. Galbraith addressed the inquiry, but could not provide a definitive answer on the Governor’s intentions. Commissioner Bockenkamp stated a concern regarding the red tape reduction and having the opportunity to vote on each individual change from the review. Chair Grove and Mr. Galbraith explained that if there are changes each rule would have to go through the normal rule making process and then brought to the Commission for public comment and approval. No other business to be reported. Public Comment Mr. Don Summers of the American Society of Sanitary Engineers (ASSE) addressed the commission in regards to amending a rule that allows ASSE approved backflow assemblies to be installed in Missouri. ASSE International is a standard developer and product certification body that is accredited by the American National Standards Institute. Currently, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources only accepts devices which appear on the list of approved devices generated by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross Connection Control and Hydraulic Research. Mr. Summers stated that his organization strongly encourages the state to include ASSE’s listing of backflow assembly devices as an alternate pathway for products that have been proven to be of equal quality and reliability. Only products that have been tested in an independent ASSE accredited testing laboratory have been reviewed by the ASSE seal control board, and have been found to be in compliance with the appropriate product standard. ASSE would like to request an agenda item for the next Commission meeting to review wording for a new rule to include ASSE International backflow assembly product certification program. Chair Grove stated that this will be added as an agenda item to the October 18, 2017 meeting. Mr. Lamb noted that the Branch may be able to present a concept for the rule, but clarified that with executive order 17-03 in place that the rulemaking process has not been initiated so no formal action would be taken on the rule at the October meeting. Future Meeting Dates The next meeting of the Safe Drinking Water Commission is scheduled for October 18, 2017 in Jefferson City. The location of the meeting is subject to change. Adjournment Commissioner Skouby made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Owens seconded the motion. Motion carried.

7

Meeting adjourned at 12:15 pm. Respectfully Submitted, David J. Lamb, Staff Director

APPROVED

Minutes taken at the Safe Drinking Water Commission meetings are not verbatim records of the meeting. Consequently, the minutes are not intended to be and are not a word-for-word transcription.



Water Protection Program Financial Assistance Center


Fiscal Year 2018 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plan Issue: Proposed adoption of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Intended Use Plan (IUP). Background: The draft FY 2018 DWSRF IUP was placed on public notice August 30, 2017. A public meeting was held on September 21, 2017 and the comment period closed October 2, 2017. Representatives from two drinking water systems attended the meeting and questions were asked about the DWSRF process. None of the questions were comments to change the draft DWSRF IUP. Changes made by the Department between the draft and the final and include:

• Tri-County Water Authority requested a $1,000,000 increase to its 2016 DWSRF loan in the original maximum principal amount of $33,432,000 due to the actual costs to complete the project. Given the large available balance of DWSRF loan funds, the Department administratively approved the loan increase. As such, Tri-County Water Authority was added to the Sources and Distribution of Funds (page 14) in the amount of $1,000,000 and the numbers throughout the IUP were adjusted accordingly.

• Scotland Co. Consolidated PWSD No. 1’s funding date of September 21, 2017 was added to the Sources and Distribution of Funds (page 14).

• The bullet point stating “Performing studies to determine new technologies for the purpose of safely performing storage tank inspections.” was removed from Appendix Three (page 28) as this activity was completed in FY 2017.

• Formatting and grammatical edits, including updating the cover photo.

A few highlights of the IUP include: • Financial information since the inception of the program and for the prior fiscal year are

included in the charts and narrative on pages 2 and 3. • Two recent projects are featured in the DWSRF success stories on pages 3 and 6 (California

and Tri-County).

• A full page color map of the DWSRF open projects throughout the state is included on page 7. • Appendix One provides instructions for applying for assistance (page 11). • Appendix Two contains the Project Lists and Financial Tables (page 13).

o The Sources and Distribution of Funds Table (page 14) includes: Allocation of federal 2017 capitalization grant in the amount of $16,637,000. Grant funds allocated to FY 18 IUP projects of approximately $7 million. Loan funds available for FY 18 of approximately $80 million. Projects that have been or are anticipated to enter into binding financial

agreements by October 2018. o Projects Lists (pages 15-18). o The available loan fund balance (page 17) is approximately $56 million.

• Appendix Three provides information on DWSRF program administration and the Set-Asides (page 21).

• Appendix Four contains information on other state-funded grant and loan programs such as Engineering Report Services Grants and Small Borrower Loans (page 29).

• Information on a variety of Environmental Protection Agency Requirements and Assurances are contained in Appendix Five (page 30).

Recommended Action: Staff recommends the adoption of the FY 2018 DWSRF IUP. Attachment: FY 2018 DWSRF IUP Presented by: Darleen Groner, P.E., Financial Assistance Center

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

State Revolving FundLoan Program and Set-Aside Programs

Intended Use Plan for Fiscal Year 2018

DRINKING WATER

Cover photo shows Hannibal’s sedimentation basins for the water treatment plant. DNR photo by Phillip AkinTable of Contents photo is foundation for UV treatment building in Poplar Bluff, taken by Toby Gilham, Southeast Regional Office.Photos on page 3 were taken by Kyle Wirts, City of California.Photo on page 6 was taken by John Overstreet, Tri-County Water Authority.

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund helps Missouri communities .....1

Success Story: California .................................................................................3

Success Story: Tri-County Water Authority ....................................................6

Map of Drinking Water SRF Funding Totals by County.............................. 7

Appendix One: SRF Application Process and Requirements ..................... 11

Appendix Two: Project Lists and Financial Tables .......................................13

Appendix Three: SRF program administration and Drinking Water SRF Set-Asides .........................................................21

Appendix Four: Other State-Funded Grant and Loan Programs .................29

Appendix Five: EPA requirements and assurances ......................................30

Table of Contents

Many public water systems, particularly small ones, have difficulty obtaining affordable financing for necessary infrastructure improvements. In response, Congress established the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. Federal appropriations for the program are used primarily to fund low-interest loans to public drinking water systems for high priority infrastructure projects.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources, in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, conducted an assessment of Missouri’s public water systems 20-year capital infrastructure needs. The assessment estimated that $8.5 billion was needed to address Missouri’s drinking water infrastructure needs through 2031.

An estimated $8.5 billion is needed to address Missouri’s drinking water

infrastructure needs through 2031.

Missouri communities and public drinking water supplies have benefited from the federal and state capitalized, low-interest Drinking Water SRF loan program. Projects may be new construction or the improvement or renovation of existing facilities.In addition to providing substantial savings to communities across Missouri, Drinking Water SRF loans help to protect human health and improve the quality and quantity of drinking water. The program also boosts the economic viability of our communities. The projects funded are designed to ensure clean, safe drinking water for our citizens, rehabilitate decaying systems and ensure the long-term sustainability of existing and proposed water systems.

In addition, projects that consolidate or interconnect regional water systems to reduce public health risks or to make more efficient use of source water capacity and treatment processes also score highly on the funding list.

Approximately $439 million has been obligated through the Drinking Water SRF since 1996. Communities and

public water supply districts have benefited from 184 separate loans and grants.

Missouri’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund “revolves” because loan repayments and investment earnings are continually recycled to fund new projects. In addition to the revolving nature of the fund, the ongoing commitment of federal funds and a financing strategy that provides loans at 30 percent of the market interest rate form the foundation of this successful program.

Besides financial savings, loan recipients can realize significant public health benefits, which as a secondary benefit could help to stimulate local economies. Water and drinking water infrastructure are two basic building blocks of community development.

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund helps Missouri communities

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

$400,000,000

$450,000,000

SRF Cumulative Assistance ChartDrinking Water

Missouri Drinking Water SRF Intended Use Plan | Page 1

A portion of the federal funding for the Drinking Water SRF is used for set-aside programs. The department uses the funding in the set-aside programs for activities such as small system technical assistance, capacity development, wellhead protection, operator certification and training, and to provide technical, managerial and financial assistance to public water systems. Additional information on the set-aside programs is provided in Appendix 3.

To date, we have received requests for 16 projects totaling $48 million for fiscal year 2018.

For a complete listing of fiscal year 2018 projects, see the Comprehensive List in Appendix 2.

Missouri’s Drinking Water State Revolving FundThe Department of Natural Resources administers the Drinking Water SRF. As a condition of a federal agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the department must submit an annual plan for the use of federal funds awarded and a strategy for managing the program in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This Drinking Water SRF Intended Use Plan is the annual plan for fiscal year 2018.

This Fiscal Year 2018 Safe Drinking Water SRF Intended Use Plan describes the proposed use of funds

for financial assistance for drinking water infrastructure improvements from

Oct. 1, 2017, to Sept. 30, 2018.

Operation and management of the Drinking Water SRF program is directed by state regulations 10 CSR 60-13.010 through 10 CSR 60-13.030: s1.sos.mo.gov/cmsimages/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c60-13.pdf. SRF applications are valid for two Intended Use Plan cycles. Those projects not meeting program criteria within the allotted two-year cycle will have their allocated funds released and reallocated to other projects. Re-application to the program is possible at the end of the two-year cycle, but a project’s position on a fundable, contingency or planning list may change with each subsequent application.

The department continues to refine and evaluate the program to ensure it provides a stable source of funding for drinking water infrastructure projects well into the future. The department reserves the right to refinance, assign, pledge or leverage any loans originated through the Drinking Water SRF program.

This Intended Use Plan summarizes the development and management of the Drinking Water SRF priority lists and assurances required by federal mandates. It also details the proposed distribution of Missouri’s anticipated Drinking Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants, state match funds, the repayments of previously awarded loans and the interest earnings from the repayment account deposits for fiscal year 2018.

Want to save money and improve the quality of life in your community at the same time? Take advantage of

our financing strategy that provides loans at 30 percent of the market interest rate.

Call 573-751–1192 or email [email protected] today.

Drinking Water SRFAssistance by Category

1996 through June 30, 2016

CWSRF Assistance by Category1989 through June 30, 2016

Secondary Treatment 1,516,400,000 Advanced Treatment 254,700,000 Infiltration/Inflow Correction 73,600,000 Sewer System Rehabilitation 234,600,000 New Collector Sewers 181,200,000 New Interceptor Sewers 372,300,000 CSO Correction 59,700,000 Storm Sewers 10,700,000 Nonpoint Source * 22,342,890 Total 2,725,542,890

DWSRF Assistance by Category1996 through June 30, 2016

Treatment 158,200,000 Transmission & Distribution 165,500,000 Source 31,000,000 Storage 54,600,000 Purchase of Systems 301,000 Restructuring 436,000 Land Acquisition 1,200,000 Planning & Design Only 9,600,000 Other 11,600,000 Total 432,437,000

* 2016 Nonpoint Source UpdateMASBDA 13,201,610 NPS Loans 6,141,280 OWW & MACOG 3,000,000 Total 22,342,890

SRF Binding Commitments Report

K:\Staff Directory\Dixon, Laura\Programs\WPP & WPCP\IUP\FY2018 DDW IUP\SRF_AssistancePieCharts FY18 IUP Information.xlsx Revised 1/29/16


http://s1.sos.mo.gov/cmsimages/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c60-13.pdf


mailto:fac%40dnr.mo.gov?subject=


California expands drinking water infrastructure to adequately serve customers

California Missouri, located in Moniteau County about 20 miles west of Jefferson City, has seen steady growth, which is projected to continue through the coming decades.

The city’s drinking water system currently serves 4,142 customers, and experts predict that by the year 2030 the city will likely have nearly 700 additional residents. The water system lacked the recommended drinking water storage capacity for a city its size. The growing community needed funding to keep up with the demands on its infrastructure and to adequately serve its customers.

The city of California applied to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for a total project cost of $3.2 million and was approved for a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund low-interest loan in the amount of $1,601,000 and they also qualified for $1,601,000 in grant funding. The funding package provided through the department is estimated to save the city’s ratepayers $1,601,000 in principal and approximately $641,000 in interest costs over the 20 year term of the loan.

This funding allowed the city to add additional storage to meet its needs for the next 20 years, expand transmission lines to connect the new tower to the system, rehabilitate the current storage tower, install a new supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system and upgrade well house equipment to provide a more efficient and reliable water service. The State Revolving Fund is enabling the city of California to continue living up to its motto: Small enough to know you, big enough to serve you.

During the period of Oct. 1, 2015 - Dec. 31, 2016, the Missouri Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: • Received one federal capitalization grant totaling almost $17 million • Awarded eight direct loans totaling almost $55 million • Awarded four grants totaling approximately $4.4 million • Saved Missouri communities and citizens an estimated $16.9 million in interest

Types of projects eligible for fundingMissouri’s Drinking Water SRF has helped communities build or improve public drinking water systems. Eligible projects include infrastructure improvements that facilitate compliance with national primary drinking water regulations or otherwise significantly advance the public health protection objectives of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Drinking water projects may include the following:• Treatment plants• Transmission and distribution mains• Supply sources (i.e. wells, interconnections

and surface water intakes)• Storage facilities• Water security projects

Certain water projects are ineligible for assistance including the following:

• Construction or rehabilitation of dams• Construction or rehabilitation of most water

reservoirs• Projects needed primarily for fire protection• Projects needed primarily to serve future

population growth

How much money is available in fiscal year 2018?During fiscal year 2018, Missouri expects to have $87 million available for new Drinking Water SRF projects. This includes carry-over monies from previous years, loan repayments, interest earnings on investments of Drinking Water SRF resources and federal capitalization grants and state match. Project lists are in Appendix 2 and information on the targeted funding is in Appendix 5.

Who is eligible for funding? The application process is open to all community public water systems and not-for-profit, non-community public water systems that are not owned by the federal government. Projects may be new construction or the improvement or renovation of existing facilities.

Loan terms • The Drinking Water SRF offers a fixed-rate loan with a maximum term of 20 years. • Interest rates are generally only 30 percent of the AAA municipal market rate. • Annual fee of 0.5 percent of outstanding loan balance for administration costs. • Short-term loans of one to three years are also available. • Loan proceeds are to be expended within 36 months of the loan closing.

Applying for State Revolving Fund assistance The Missouri Department of Natural Resources solicits applications for the SRF program each year:

• An eligible entity can submit an application at any time to the department. Applications received postmarked by Feb. 15 will receive priority consideration for funding in the next fiscal year’s Intended Use Plan. • The application form is available at dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/ drinkingwater -project-assistance.htm. • A complete facility plan and a voted bond or other debt instrument are required for Drinking Water SRF loan consideration. For more information, see the Readiness-to-Proceed Fact Sheet at dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub2361.htm. (A debt instrument includes general obligation and revenue bonds.) • Potential applicants are encouraged to contact the Financial Assistance Center prior to submitting an application.

Additional information is available in Appendix 1.


http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-project-assistance.htm


http://dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub2361.htm

• Protect source water for drinking water systems. • Promote coordination efforts both within and

outside the Department of Natural Resources for the purpose of expediting the funding of projects.

• Continue to implement and expand the department’s Capacity Development Program, which implements a strategy to improve the technical, managerial and financial capacity of Missouri’s public water systems. Additional information is available at dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/pub/CDstrategy.htm.

Short-term goals • Maximize the use and impact of available loan

funds for eligible projects in accordance with the priorities and procedures described in this plan, using sound financial management.

• Continue to assist water systems in meeting Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.

• Have the Drinking Water SRF priority point criteria and readiness-to-proceed criteria updated and approved by the Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission at least 60 days prior to the initial application receipt deadline (Feb. 15, 2018).

• Secure source of state match for federal capitalization grants.

What are the terms of the financial assistance we provide? The Drinking Water SRF offers a fixed-rate loan with a maximum term of 20 years. Short-term loans of one to three years are also available. Loan proceeds are to be expended within 36 months of the loan closing.

In accordance with state regulation 10 CSR 60-13.020, the interest rate is based on The Bond Buyer 25-Revenue Bond Index, which provides an estimate of the yield on a 30-year revenue bond offered under current market conditions. The rate is comparable to a AAA-rated municipal market rate.

The Department of Natural Resources charges an annual fee of 0.5 percent of the outstanding loan balance. The fee is used to administer the Drinking Water SRF program and to fund other water quality activities in accordance with federal regulations.

Our partnersThe success of Missouri’s Drinking Water SRF program is enhanced by its partnerships formed to deliver the program: • The Environmental Improvement and Energy

Resources Authority issues bonds, manages related tax issues and monitors post-issuance compliance, while the Department of Natural Resources handles program prioritization, project management, permitting, environmental review and EPA compliance. The Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission, the department

and EIERA work together to maximize the amount of construction that can be supported by the Drinking Water SRF.

• The Missouri Water and Wastewater Review Committee (MWWRC) reviews applications for projects requesting state or federal funds to finance water or wastewater system improvements. MWWRC agencies include

the Missouri Department of Economic Development Community Development Block Grant Program, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development.

Missouri’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program goals

Each year, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources evaluates the operations and the financial structures of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to gauge program effectiveness and to improve program services and investment returns. We develop both long-term and short-term goals to continually improve the program:

Long-term goals • Protect public health by ensuring that all Missouri

citizens will have water that is safe to drink. • Provide below-market rate financial assistance

while assuring the perpetual nature of the program. • Encourage systems to choose projects with the

most cost-effective solutions. • Ensure the long-term sustainability of existing and

proposed water systems and encourage projects to consolidate or interconnect in a regional manner that would reduce public health risks or make more efficient use of source water capacity

and treatment processes. Missouri Drinking Water SRF Intended Use Plan | Page 5

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/pub/CDstrategy.htm


Tri-County Water Authority meets water demand with SRF funding

The Tri-County Water Authority provides wholesale water to communities in Jackson, Bates, and Cass counties in western Missouri. With an increasing population and contractual obligations, water demand for the system is expected to double by 2036. The wholesale supplier needed to increase its capacity to keep up with the demand.

In order to increase the raw water capacity and its ability to treat it, the water authority applied to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for funding from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. It was approved for a low-interest loan in the amount of $33.4 million, enough to complete the entire project. The funding package provided through the department is estimated to save the authority’s members approximately $10,555,000 in interest costs over the 20 year term of the loan.

The water authority drilled three new wells and installed the necessary treatment equipment that doubles its previous treatment capacity. In addition to the raw water supply and treatment projects, the water authority plans to construct a spent lime residuals management system.

The expanded capacity of the new wells and treatment plant, made possible through the Missouri Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, will enable the system to meet additional demand from wholesale customers, allowing the area to continue to prosper with an economical water supply.

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

Texas

Dent

Pike

Bates

Barry

Polk

Linn

Ray

Iron

Howell

Cass

Ozark

Saline

Henry

Pettis

Macon

Butler

Holt

Vernon

Franklin

Wayne

Miller

Shannon

Taney

Adair

Boone

Carroll

Wright

Benton

Oregon Ripley

Knox

Douglas

Phelps

Johnson

Clark

Laclede

Ralls

St Clair

Jasper

Dade

Nodaway

Callaway

Osage

Stoddard

Clay

Greene

Perry

Chariton

Barton

Lincoln

Audrain

Lewis

Monroe

Dallas

Reynolds

Stone

Cole

Harrison

Camden

Scott

Sullivan

Newton

Crawford

Carter

Cedar

Morgan

Maries

Cooper

Pulaski

Jackson

Platte

Dunklin

Shelby

Gentry

Webster

Daviess

Lafayette

PutnamMercer

Marion

St Louis

Atchison

Christian

Lawrence

Dekalb

Howard

Clinton

Warren

Grundy

Madison

Andrew

St Charles

Hickory

McDonald

Caldwell

ScotlandWorth

Jefferson

Bollinger

Washington

New Madrid

Pemiscot

Livingston

Randolph

Gasconade

Moniteau

Montgomery

Buchanan

St Francois

Mississippi

Cape Girardeau

Schuyler

Ste Genevieve

St Louis City

Funding Totalby County

< $1 Million

$1-5 Million

$5-10 Million

$10-20 Million

$20-30 Million

$30-40 Million

> $40 Million

Funding Type!( Loan!( Grant

Funding TotalsDrinking Water Loans $397 Million Drinking Water Grants $42 Million Total $439 Million

Estimated Total Savings - $165 Million

Drinking Water SRF helps Missouri Communities

Specifically, what pieces of my project can be funded?Eligible expenses and allowable construction costs are described in state regulations that direct operation and management of Missouri’s Drinking Water SRF program. Examples include engineering costs for planning, design and construction as well as costs to construct or rehabilitate collection and treatment structures and systems. A detailed list is available in 10 CSR 60-13.020 (Classification of Costs) at s1.sos.mo.gov/cmsimages/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c60-13.pdf.

How do we distribute Drinking Water State Revolving Funds?Missouri law requires the funds be allocated as shown below: • 20 percent to very small community systems

serving fewer than 3,300 people • 15 percent to small systems serving 3,301 to

9,999 people • 65 percent to general communities (not restricted

by population served)

Any uncommitted funds from a specific group may be distributed to fund projects in other groups that are ready to proceed. Additional information is described in Appendix 2.

The maximum amount for a loan from any single Intended Use Plan will not exceed 30 percent of available loan funds or $10 million, whichever is less, unless approved by the Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission.

Additional Subsidization The department may provide additional subsidization to recipients in the form of grant funds. The maximum grant amount per project is $2 million. Grant funds are allocated first to recipients meeting the definition of a disadvantaged community. Any grant funds remaining after consideration of disadvantaged communities are allocated as described in Appendix 3. Additional subsidization funding is limited each year and must comply with congressional appropriations. The amount of grant funds available is described in Appendix 5.

Project Priority List: Ranking drinking water projects Proposed drinking water projects receive points based on how they protect public health, comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act and household affordability. The most serious problems are given the highest priority. A complete list and points awarded for each criterion are located in the Priority Points Criteria Fact Sheet at dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub2362.htm.

Projects being funded in fiscal year 2018The list of projects being funded in fiscal year 2018 is ranked by priority in Appendix 2 and at dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-assistance.htm.

Funding processThe department will review the proposed project based on Drinking Water SRF eligibility requirements. Each project undergoes an application and technical review. If the proposed project is an eligible project, it will be added to the Drinking Water SRF Project Priority List, which includes the following: • Fundable projects have a complete facility

plan and a voted bond or other debt instrument in place. (A debt instrument includes general obligation and revenue bonds.) These projects are scheduled for financial assistance during the current fiscal year, and funds are available to be allocated to the project.

• Fundable Contingency projects meet the readiness-to-proceed criteria and have a

complete facility plan with acceptable debt instrument bonds in place, but sufficient SRF funding is unavailable. These projects may receive assistance if funds become available during the fiscal year.

• Planning projects have submitted an application but may not have submitted a facility plan or do not have a voted bond or authorization to incur debt. The department anticipates these projects may be eligible to receive financial assistance and works with these communities to advance the projects to meet the readiness-to-proceed criteria.





http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-assistance.htm

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources monitors project compliance and administers financial assistance for funded projects. This includes quarterly construction inspections, processing pay requests and reviewing change orders for funding eligibility.

Modifications to Project Priority ListAfter the Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission adopts the Drinking Water SRF priority list, it may modify the lists or redistribute the available funds in accordance with 10 CSR 60-13.020: • Inadequate allocations: If federal Drinking

Water SRF allocations are less than the allocations anticipated, or if previous allocations are reduced, it may be necessary to reduce allocations to projects on the priority list.

• Unanticipated or uncommitted funds: The availability of unanticipated or uncommitted funds can result in a project moving from the contingency list to the fundable list. Additionally, the amount of funds allocated to projects on the fundable lists may increase or projects that have already received assistance may receive increased assistance.

• Bypass: A project on the fundable priority list not making progress in satisfying requirements for Drinking Water SRF assistance may be removed from the fundable priority list. The project is then placed on the fundable contingency or planning priority list as decided by the commission.

• Project removal: Projects may be removed from the priority list at the request of the applicant or a finding by the Department of Natural Resources that the project is ineligible for Drinking Water SRF assistance.

Before taking action to modify the Project Priority List, the department notifies those projects directly affected.

Where the money comes fromMissouri applies to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency annually for a capitalization grant to fund its Drinking Water SRF program. To increase available funds, the state leverages its EPA capitalization grant in the municipal bond market. These funds are combined with the required state match and interest earnings and then made available to Missouri communities in the form of low-interest loans. As the loans are repaid, the money is reused (revolved) by the SRF to provide for future projects.

Project lists are in Appendix 2, and information on the targeted funding is in Appendix 5.

Program commitments and state assurancesThe Missouri Department of Natural Resources makes a number of program commitments and state assurances related to managing the Drinking Water SRF. See Appendix 5 for a list of these commitments and assurances.

Federal appropriations to the Drinking Water SRF program primarily fund high-priority infrastructure projects. However, the Safe Drinking Water Act also allows states to set aside up to 31 percent for authorized projects that support public drinking water program activities. See Appendix 3 for details on Missouri’s set-asides.

Other state grant and loan programs are availablePending sufficient state revenue sources, engineering report services grants, small borrower loans and rural water grants may also be available. Additional information is available in Appendix 4.


Engineering Report Services GrantsEngineering Report Services Grants are funded through the department’s Public Drinking Water Branch and are periodically made available to help community drinking water systems obtain an engineering report. The engineering report is to act as a first step toward implementing changes that will help the system achieve and maintain technical, managerial and financial capacity, including compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and the Missouri public drinking water regulations. The engineering studies include data collection, analysis and water system sustainability planning. The reports are valuable tools to help ensure continued delivery of adequate reliable and safe drinking water to customers in an efficient and cost-effective manner. These grants are offered periodically.

Small Borrower LoansSmall Borrower Loans are available only to communities or public water districts of fewer than 1,000 population or service area. Applications for Small Borrower Loans are prioritized based on immediacy of need.

Rural Water Grants

Public water supply districts and communities with a population of fewer than 10,000 may be eligible for Rural Water Grants. There are no funds available for Rural Water Grants in fiscal year 2018.

Additional information on Engineering Report Services Grants, Small Borrower Loans and Rural Water Grants is available in Appendix 4 or online:• Engineering Report Services Grants - dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/pdwb/eng-report-svcs.htm• Small Borrower Direct Loans - dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-loans.htm#smborrower•Rural Water Grants - dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-grants.htm

To apply for these other state loans and grants, please contact the department’s Financial Assistance Center at 573-751-1192 or [email protected].


http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/pdwb/eng-report-svcs.htm

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-loans.htm#smborrower

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-grants.htm


Appendix One: SRF

Application process and requirements

How to complete a Drinking Water SRF application

The application form, instructions and guidance documents are available at dnr.mo.gov/env wpp/srf/drinkingwater-assistance.htm.

1. Potential applicants are encouraged to contact the Missouri Department of Natural Resources prior to submitting an application dnr.mo.gov/forms/780-1845-f.pdf.

2. Complete a Facilities Plan Submittal Checklist dnr.mo.gov/forms/780-2091-f.pdf. Additional guidance documents will be helpful:

• Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Readiness to Proceed and Distribution of Funds Criteria Fact Sheet dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub2361.htm

• Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund Priority Points Criteria Fact Sheet dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub2362.htm

Facility plans without the Facility Plan Submittal Checklist are not complete. Incomplete facility plans will delay proposed projects and, ultimately, project funding.

Drinking Water SRF applicants are strongly encouraged to retain the services of a registered municipal financial advisor. The U.S. Securities Exchange Commission rules provide a clear definition of individuals who are considered municipal advisors. It also provides guidance as to the scope of services and activities they provide, and, most importantly, it requires municipal advisors, including those acting as financial advisors, to be registered with the Securities Exchange Commission. Additional information is available at sec.gov/municipal.

Description of assistanceFor projects listed in this plan, the Drinking Water SRF assistance is in the form of loans with a target interest rate of 30 percent of AAA municipal market rate and an annual fee of 0.5 percent on the outstanding loan balance. Short-term loans are for a one- to three-year period. Long-term loans currently are fixed-rate loans that do not exceed 20 years. Additional subsidization in the form of grants may be provided in accordance with current federal appropriations if available.

Carry-over projectsUnfunded projects that filed an original application by Feb. 15, 2016, were automatically carried into the fiscal year 2018 Intended Use Plan unless the Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission bypassed or removed the project, or the proposed loan recipient has requested to be removed.

Feb. 15 is the annual submittal deadline for applications to participate in the programs during any fiscal year. However, applications will be accepted and processed at any time.

State regulation 10 CSR 60-13.020 establishes that applications are valid for two Intended Use Plan cycles. Those projects not meeting program criteria within the allotted two-year cycle will have their allocated funds



http://dnr.mo.gov/forms/780-1845-f.pdf

http://dnr.mo.gov/forms/780-2091-f.pdf



https://www.sec.gov/municipal

released and reallocated to other projects. Reapplication to the program is possible at the end of the two-year cycle, but a project’s position on a fundable, contingency or planning list may change with each subsequent application.

Projects carried over from the 2017 Intended Use Plan retain the points they received under the criteria in effect at the time they initially applied. Carry-over projects in the fiscal year 2018 Intended Use Plan are not eligible to compete in the fiscal year 2019 Intended Use Plan unless reapplication is made by Feb. 15, 2018.

Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the department prior to submitting an application; call 573-751-1192 or email [email protected]

Funding ListThe Fundable Projects List identifies those projects the Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission intends to fund during a given fiscal year. An entity seeking to have a project placed on one of the fundable lists must have submitted a substantially complete facility plan and information indicating the public entity has an appropriate debt instrument in place. A debt instrument includes, but is not limited to, general obligation bonds and revenue bonds.

The Fundable Projects List is composed of three separate lists: very small community; small community; and general community.

CoordinationExcept for projects funded solely through the Drinking Water SRF, all applicants anticipating the use of other state or federal funds must complete a Missouri Water and Wastewater Review Committee project proposal. You can find information on both the application and the process at ded.mo.gov/programs/cdbg/grant-information#mini-panel-cdbg-grant-information1 and dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/docs/mwwrc-submission-process.pdf. The applicant should contact the committee for a complete project proposal package. The Missouri Water and Wastewater Review Committee members represent the following agencies:

Denise Derks Missouri Department of Economic Development, Community Development Block Grant Program 301 W. High Street, P.O. Box 118, Jefferson City, MO 65102 Telephone: 573-751-3600

Darleen Groner Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Financial Assistance Center 1101 Riverside Dr., P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102 Telephone: 573-751-1192

Leann Gleason U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Rural Development 601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite 235, Columbia, MO 65203 Telephone: 573-876-0995



http://ded.mo.gov/programs/cdbg/grant-information#mini-panel-cdbg-grant-information1

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/docs/mwwrc-submission-process.pdf

Appendix Two:

Project Lists and Financial Tables

Sources and Uses of FundsThe Drinking Water SRF program expects to have approximately $87 million available for financing during this fiscal year. The estimate includes carry-over monies from previous years, repayments, interest earnings on investments of Drinking Water SRF resources, federal capitalization grants and state match.

Funds are allocated to projects that are on a Fundable List as approved by the Safe Drinking Water Commission. The amount of funds made available through this Intended Use Plan may be revised at any time due to changing economic conditions.

The estimated sources and anticipated uses of funds can be found in the following table. The amounts reflected are as of Dec. 31, 2016.


Estimated Sources

FFY 2015 DW SRF Capitalization Grant (federal portion only) 2,714,009$ FFY 2016 DW SRF Capitalization Grant (federal portion only) 14,811,689$ FFY 2017 DW SRF Capitalization Grant (federal portion only, not yet awarded) 16,637,000$

Loan Repayment Fund (Balance in Fund 0602 as of 12/31/16) 62,797,216$ Balance of Fund 0649 as of 12/31/16 85,502$ Projected Savings (Estimated Proceeds) from Bond Refinancing (1/1/17 - 9/30/19) 2,517,042$ Estimated DWSRF portion of Fund 0602 Investment Interest (1/1/17 - 9/30/19) 960,990$ Estimated DWSRF portion of Fund 0649 Investment Interest (1/1/17 - 9/30/19) 5,300$ Reserve Release (1/1/17 - 9/30/19) 20,639,961$ Direct Loans - Principal and Interest Repayments (1/1/17 - 9/30/19) 23,647,686$ State Match Subsidy Fund Release (1/1/17 - 9/30/19) 1,340,500$ State Match Subsidy Fund Estimated Investment Interest (1/1/17 - 9/30/19) 513,686$ State Match - FFY 2017 Capitalization Grant* 3,327,400$

Total Estimated Sources 149,997,981$

Estimated Uses

-$ 23,412,015$

Additional Subsidation from FFY 2013 Cap Grant 157,483$ Additional Subsidation from FFY 2014 Cap Grant 3,828,073$ Additional Subsidation from FFY 2015 Cap Grant 3,547,600$ Additional Subsidation from FFY 2016 Cap Grant 3,356,200$ Additional Subsidation from FFY 2017 Cap Grant 3,327,400$ Anticipated Grants Awarded FY 2017 (1/1/17 - 9/30/17) (7,041,924)$ Additional Subsidation Allocated to FFY 2018 DWSRF IUP Projects 7,174,832$

Funds Committed to FFY 2015 DW Set-Aside Uses 2,714,009$ Funds Committed to FFY 2016 DW Set-Aside Uses 5,202,110$ Funds Committed to FFY 2017 DW Set-Aside Uses 5,157,470$ 2010B and 2015A Pledge Commitments (1/1/17 - 9/30/19) 5,082,019$ Anticipated Direct Loans during FFY 2017 (1/1/17 - 9/30/17) 21,355,380$ Loan Funds Available for FFY 2018 DWSRF IUP Projects 79,900,146$

Total Estimated Uses 149,997,981$

Loan and Grant Commitments Before FFY 2018 IUP Approval Loan Grant TotalHarrisonville Funded - 1/17/17 9,544,000$ -$ 9,544,000$ Birch Tree Funded - 1/24/17 738,000$ 1,856,325$ 2,594,325$ Reeds Spring Funded - 3/9/17 434,000$ 934,500$ 1,368,500$ Sparta Funded - 6/27/17 1,896,000$ 1,896,000$ 3,792,000$ Campbell 523,153$ 1,569,460$ 2,092,613$ Osage County PWSD #1 1,415,586$ 584,414$ 2,000,000$ Scotland Co. Consolidated PWSD #1 Funded - 9/21/17 2,170,931$ -$ 2,170,931$ Clarksville -$ 201,225$ 201,225$ Jackson Co. PWSD #13 - Funded 7/27/17 3,000,000$ -$ 3,000,000$ Osage County PWSD #3 633,710$ -$ 633,710$ Tri-County Water Authority 1,000,000$ -$ 1,000,000$

Total Commitments Before FFY 2018 IUP Approval 21,355,380$ 7,041,924$ 28,397,304$

Sources and Distribution of FundsCapitalization Grants and Loan Repayments

(As of Dec. 31, 2016)

*A bond sale or a transfer of loan administration fees is expected to provide the $3,327,400 in state match needed.

Binding Loan Commitments (Balance of Reserve Payable Report 12/31/16)Binding Grant and Loan Commitments (Balance of Project Payable Report 12/31/16)


Project ListsThe list of fiscal year 2018 applicants appears below. The project lists follow the list of applicants.

It is important to note:

• The Fundable Project Lists may change significantly between the draft Intended Use Plan placed on public notice and the final version approved by the Safe Drinking Water Commission.

• The inclusion of a project on the fundable list is not a guarantee of funding. Other factors, such as timely progress toward funding, compliance with program requirements and funding availability, may impact project funding.

For more information on the Drinking Water SRF Program, contact the department’s Financial Assistance Center at 573-751-1192 or [email protected].

Note: * Carried over from the last Intended Use Plan X Fundable in the last Intended Use Plan

Priority Points Applicant DWSRF # Population

Served Loan Request

120 Newburg DW291229-02 470 1,129,826$109 Chamois DW291365-01 396 1,113,329$

* X 85 Madison County PWSD #1 DW291364-01 1,959 3,706,796$* X 85 Memphis DW291363-01 1,931 2,325,740$

X 73 Marshfield DW291148-04 6,633 4,763,594$* X 71 Pierce City DW291345-01 1,268 4,715,363$* X 65 Missouri City DW291351-01 267 1,142,352$

65 North Central Missouri Regional Water Commission DW291226-02 6,714 8,953,600$

* 60 Bowling Green (Treatment and Distribution) DW291167-04 5,334 2,254,000$

X 57 Buchanan County PWSD #1 (Interconnection and Distribution) DW291339-02 2,400 5,000,000$

* X 55 Sunrise Beach - Phase 2 DW291219-03 431 473,700$* 51 Cassville DW291300-02 3,266 5,679,720$

X 50 Saline County PWSD #1 DW291359-01 591 1,049,055$35 Garden City DW291073-02 1,642 131,000$

* X 34 St. Louis DW291280-13 315,685 4,900,000$* X 34 Brashear DW291347-01 273 806,840$

Total Comprehensive List Projects 48,144,915$

Comprehensive List



Allocation Of Available Loan Funds

Initial Distribution of Available FundsLoan Grant Total

Very Small Community 20% 10,240,164$ 7,174,832$ 17,414,996$Small Community 15% 13,061,247$ -$ 13,061,247$General Community 65% 56,598,735$ -$ 56,598,735$Total Available Funds 79,900,146$ 7,174,832$ 87,074,978$

Very Small Community

Small Community

General Community Total

Very Small Community

Small Community

General Community Total

Allocation 10,240,164$ 13,061,247$ 56,598,735$ 79,900,146$ 7,174,832$ -$ -$ 7,174,832$Total Projects (1) (14,288,169)$ (4,763,594)$ (4,900,000)$ (23,951,763)$ (7,174,832)$ -$ -$ (7,174,832)$Balance Before Transfers (4,048,005)$ 8,297,653$ 51,698,735$ 55,948,383$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Transfers 4,048,005$ (8,297,653)$ 4,249,648$ -$ -$-$

Total Transfers 4,048,005$ (8,297,653)$ 4,249,648$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Balance Available (2) -$ -$ 55,948,383$ 55,948,383$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Amount Forward to Project Tables (3) 14,288,169$ 4,763,594$ 60,848,383$ 79,900,146$ 7,174,832$ -$ -$ 7,174,832$

(1) From the Project Lists on the subsequent pages.(2) Balance may be shifted to other categories to fund projects that are ready to proceed.(3) Amount equals the Allocation + Total Transfers.

Loans Grants

Missouri law requires that twenty percent and fifteen percent of available funds, respectively, shall be made available to water systems serving populations of 3,300 or less (designated as very small communities) and water systems serving populations of 3,301 to 9,999 (designated as small communities). The remaining sixty five percent (designated for general community) is not restricted by population served.

It is important to note:

* If a system is utilizing a Contract For Engineering Services: Design and Development for Community Water Systems Grant from the Department, their SRF project was reduced by a like amount.

* The fundable project lists may change significantly between the draft Intended Use Plan placed on public notice and the final version approved by the Safe Drinking Water Commission.* The inclusion of a project on the fundable list is not a guarantee of funding. Other factors, such as timely progress toward funding, compliance with program requirements and funding availability, may impact project funding.

Financial Summary of the Fundable Projects Lists


Car

ryov

erFu

nd. L

ast I

UP

Dis

adva

ntag

ed

Prio

rity

Poin

tsApplicant DWSRF # Pop. Description

/ Needs

Prob

lem

Cod

e

Amount Requested Loan Grant

Fina

ncin

g Sc

hedu

leFY

- Q

uart

er

Amount Available 14,288,169$ 7,174,832$

D 120 Newburg DW291229-02 470 Dis, Stor 3 1,129,826$ 282,456$ 847,370$ 18-4

D 109 Chamois DW291365-01 396 Well, Stor, Dis 3 1,113,329$ 278,332$ 834,997$ 18-4

* X D 85 Madison County PWSD #1 DW291364-01 1,959 Dis, Well, Stor 3 3,706,796$ 1,706,796$ 2,000,000$ 18-3

* X D 85 Memphis DW291363-01 1,931 Dis, Stor, TP 3 2,325,740$ 581,435$ 1,744,305$ 18-4

* X D 71 Pierce City DW291345-01 1,268 Dis, Stor 3 4,715,363$ 2,967,203$ 1,748,160$ 18-4

* X D 55 Sunrise Beach - Phase 2 DW291219-03 431 Dis 3 473,700$ 473,700$ -$ 18-2

* X 65 Missouri City DW291351-01 267 Dis 3 1,142,352$ 1,142,352$ -$ 18-4

X 57Buchanan County PWSD #1 (Interconnection and Distribution)

DW291339-02 2,400 Dis 3 5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ -$ 18-4

X 50 Saline County PWSD #1 DW291359-01 591 Dis, Stor 3 1,049,055$ 1,049,055$ -$ 18-4

* X 34 Brashear DW291347-01 273 Stor 3 806,840$ 806,840$ -$ 18-4

Very Small Community Total Fundable Projects 21,463,001$ 14,288,169$ 7,174,832$

Balance -$ -$

Amount Available 4,763,594$

X 73 Marshfield DW291148-04 6,633 TP, Stor 3 4,763,594$ 4,763,594$ -$ 18-2

Small Community Total Fundable Projects 4,763,594$ 4,763,594$ -$ Balance -$ -$

Amount Available 60,848,383$

* X 34 St. Louis DW291280-13 315,685 Dis 3 4,900,000$ 4,900,000$ 18-1

General Community Total Fundable Projects 4,900,000$ 4,900,000$ -$ Balance 55,948,383$ -$

Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears at the end of the project lists.

Very Small Community 20% Reserve Fundable List(Systems that serve a population of 3,300 or fewer)

Small Community 15% Reserve Fundable List(Systems that serve a population of 3,301 to 9,999)

General Community 65% Reserve Fundable List(Not restricted by population served)


Car

ryov

erFu

nd. L

ast I

UP

Dis

adva

ntag

ed

Prio

rity

Poin

ts

Applicant DWSRF # Pop. Description / Needs

Prob

lem

Cod

e

Amount Requested Loan Grant

Fina

ncin

g Sc

hedu

leFY

- Q

uart

er

Total Fundable Contingency Projects -$

65 North Central Missouri Regional Water Commission DW291226-02 6,714 TP 3 8,953,600$

* 60 Bowling Green (Treatment and Distribution) DW291167-04 5,334 TP, Dis 3 2,254,000$

* 51 Cassville DW291300-02 3,266 TP, Dis, Stor 3 5,679,720$

35 Garden City DW291073-02 1,642 Dis 3 131,000$

Total Planning List Projects 17,018,320$

* - Carried over from the last Intended Use Plan X - Fundable in the last Intended Use Plan D - Disadvantaged

Planning List(Note: Information will be added to the shaded columns when the project moves to a fundable list)

Dis – Distribution 3 - Future Regulatory Violation Expected Rehab - Rehabilitation

TP - Treatment 1 - Compliance Stor – Storage 2 - Public Health

Fundable Contingency List(Note: Information will be added to the shaded columns when the project moves to a fundable list)


Program Program Income Earned Income EarnedDuring Grant After Grant Non-Program

Income Period Period IncomeBeginning Balance as of 07/01/16 4,484,723$ 1,411,759$ 918,799$FY 17 Income (thru 12/31/16) 18,449$ 458,943$ 64,779$FY 17 Interest Earnings (thru 12/31/16) 11,384$ 2,820$ 1,537$

Subtotal 4,514,556$ 1,873,522$ 985,115$

Expenditures Thru 12/31/16FY 17 Program Administration -$ -$ -$FY 17 PSD Expenditures -$ -$ -$FY 17 Transfer to Loan Program (FFY 2016 State Match)2 (498,348)$ (1,873,013)$ (984,839)$

Subtotal (498,348)$ (1,873,013)$ (984,839)$Income Less Expenditures 4,016,208$ 509$ 276$

Projected IncomeFY 17 Income (01/01/17 - 06/30/17) 29,548$ 299,641$ 76,654$FY 17 Interest Income (01/01/17 - 06/30/17) 36,286$ 6,506$ (2)$FY 18 Income (07/01/17 - 06/30/18) 103,309$ 777,700$ 161,499$FY 18 Interest Income (07/01/17 - 06/30/18) 35,140$ 15,279$ 2,647$

Subtotal 204,283$ 1,099,126$ 240,798$

Projected ExpendituresFY 17 Program Administration -$ -$ -$FY 17 State Parks Drinking Water Infrastructure -$ -$ -$FY 17 Technical Assistance Grants -$ (25,000)$ (25,000)$FY 18 Transfer to Loan Program (FFY 2017 State Match)3 (2,086,691)$ (1,049,635)$ (191,074)$FY 18 Program Administration (350,874)$ -$ -$FY 18 Technical Assistance Grants -$ (25,000)$ (25,000)$

Subtotal (2,437,565)$ (1,099,635)$ (241,074)$Total Actual and Projected 1,782,926$ 0$ (0)$

3 The department may utilize proceeds of a bond sale or a transfer of loan administration fees to generate state match for FFY 2017 Capitalization Grant. A loan administration fee transfer for state match is shown to illustrate the fee balance for such alternative.

Source And Distribution Of FundsLoan Administration Fees1

As of Dec. 31, 2016

2 Loan administration fees were transferred into the loan program and used as the source of state match for the FFY 2016 Capitalization Grant.

1 The distribution of loan administration fees to various department activities is subject to change throughout the Fiscal Year. Actual fund uses will be shown in detail in the Fiscal Year 2018 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Annual Report. FY 2018 projected expenditures may include amounts carried over from prior fiscal years.

Distribution of Loan Administration FeesThe fees charged by the Missouri Drinking Water SRF program are not included as principal in loans. Dependent upon the source of the loan, as well as the timing of the receipt of the administration fee, the administration fee is considered to be program income. The administration fees collected are considered

• program income earned during the capitalization grant period; • program income earned after the capitalization grant period; or • non-program income.


During the grant period is defined as the time between the effective date of the grant award and the ending date of the award reflected in the final grant financial report.

Administration fees charged by the program are deposited into an account outside of the Drinking Water SRF Fund. In accordance with federal regulations, fees charged by the program may be used for program administration or other purposes in accordance with 40 CFR 31.25 (g)(2) and (3) and federal capitalization grant requirements.

The department may use loan administration fees or proceeds from a bond sale as state match for the federal fiscal year 2017 federal capitalization grant. If loan administration fees are used, the fees held outside the revolving fund will be transferred into the Drinking Water SRF fund for distribution through the loan program.


Appendix Three:

SRF program administrationThe Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Water Protection Program is the delegated authority for the administration of federal funds made available to the state under the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The funds are for financing a variety of eligible projects and are to be used in perpetuity for low-interest loans made from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.This Intended Use Plan describes the proposed use of funds reserved for financial assistance for drinking water infrastructure improvements during fiscal year 2018 (Oct. 1, 2017, to Sept. 30, 2018). This Intended Use Plan shall remain effective until Sept. 30, 2018, or until such time as the fiscal year 2019 Intended Use Plan becomes effective.

Solicitation of loan applications for this Intended Use PlanThe application process is open to all community public water systems and not-for-profit, non-community public water systems that are not owned by the federal government.

The Missouri Safe Drinking Water Regulations require the department to have the application package for loans available to the public at least 60 days prior to the deadline for receipt of applications. The application package consists of the application form, priority point criteria and readiness-to-proceed criteria.

The department seeks public comment and holds a public meeting on the priority point criteria and readiness-to-proceed criteria. The priority point criteria describe the criteria the department uses to prioritize loan applications. The readiness-to-proceed criteria describe the minimum criteria that an applicant must meet to be eligible to be placed on the fundable list.

Both criteria are in the 2017 Intended Use Plan, which was approved by the Safe Drinking Water Commission on Oct. 6, 2016. The department made the application package available to the public with an initial application receipt deadline of Feb. 15. 2017, and issued a notice informing the public of the availability of loan applications. It also notified city water systems, water districts and engineering firms in Missouri.

After reviewing applications for eligibility and financial requirements, the department used the priority point criteria and readiness-to-proceed criteria to assign priority points and to determine if the applicant met the readiness-to-proceed criteria. Applications received by the initial deadline that substantially met the readiness-to-proceed criteria received priority for funding over those received after the deadline.

Solicitation of loan applications for Fiscal Year 2019In fiscal year 2018, the department will solicit loan applications for loan funds available in fiscal year 2019. The process that will be used for solicitation and review of the applications will follow the same process and procedures described in this plan.

The loan application package, which includes the application form and instructions, priority point criteria and readiness-to-proceed criteria, is available online at dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-project-assistance.htm or by contacting the department’s Financial Assistance Center at 573-751-1192 or [email protected].

The initial application receipt deadline for fiscal year 2019 applications is Feb. 15, 2018. Applications received by that date that meet readiness-to-proceed criteria will receive priority for funding over those received after that date.




Carryover projects in the fiscal year 2018 Intended Use Plan are not eligible to compete for fiscal year 2019 funding unless reapplication is made by Feb. 15, 2018.

Additional subsidizationAs funding is available, projects for a disadvantaged community may be funded through a combination of 75 percent grant and 25 percent loan with a maximum grant of $2 million per applicant. Any grant funds remaining after disadvantaged communities allocations are allocated to projects with a maximum grant of $2 million, not to exceed 50 percent of the project cost, per applicant in accordance with the criteria described below.

Per 10 CSR 60-13.020, a disadvantaged community is any applicant serving a population of 3,300 or fewer based on the most recent decennial census, whose average user rates for 5,000 gallons will be at or above 2 percent of the recipient median household income, and the recipient median household income is at or below 75 percent of the state average as determined by the most recent decennial census.

The intent of the program is to target, as much as possible, the additional subsidized monies to communities that could not otherwise afford an SRF loan. To meet this goal, the use of grant funds will be committed to projects using the following criteria, listed in order of priority:

• Projects serving disadvantaged communities on any fundable list based on priority ranking in the order of highest ranking to the lowest ranking;

• Refinancing projects are not eligible for grant funding unless the community is disadvantaged; • Projects on the Very Small Community 20 percent Reserve Fundable List based on priority ranking; • Projects on the Small Community 15 percent Reserve Fundable List based on priority ranking; and • Projects on the General Community 65 percent Reserve Fundable List based on priority ranking.

Assistance to small communitiesMissouri law requires that at least 35 percent of the monies credited to the Drinking Water SRF program shall be made available to eligible water systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. This is a higher percentage than the 15 percent minimum federal requirement for these water systems. Of the 35 percent, 20 percent is for systems serving 3,300 or fewer people, and 15 percent is for systems serving from 3,301 to 9,999 people.

To demonstrate this commitment, the fundable list contained in Appendix 2 has three parts: the very small community 20 percent reserve, the small community 15 percent reserve and the general community 65 percent reserve. The general community 65 percent reserve is not restricted to systems of a certain population.

Priority systemThe department prioritizes loan applications using the priority point criteria in effect at the time the application is received. So, projects carried over from the 2017 Intended Use Plan retain the points they received under the criteria in effect at the time they initially applied.

The department assigns priority points based on the overall project. The Fiscal Year 2018 Project Lists in Appendix 2 list all the new and carry-over loan projects from highest to lowest priority. The priority point criteria and readiness-to-proceed criteria are available online at dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-assistance.htm.



Cash flow modelMissouri uses the cash flow model for the Drinking Water SRF.

The cash flow model diagram on the following page illustrates the SRF flow of funds. Construction loan repayments must begin within one year after the first operational contract is substantially completed; that is, the facilities are placed into operation. The loan repayment schedules will generally consist of semi-annual interest payments, and semi-annual or annual principal payments. The trustee bank holds the periodic participant repayments in separate recipient accounts outside the Drinking Water SRF. Interest earnings on these recipient accounts are credited to the communities’ debt service account, which reduces the amount of interest to be paid by the communities.

The department receives federal Capitalization Grants from the Environmental Protection Agency. There is a 20 percent state match required to receive the grants. The funds are deposited into the State Revolving Fund (A) and used in accordance with applicable federal and state program requirements. State match funds are disbursed prior to using Capitalization Grant funds.

Under the cash flow model loan program, the department purchases the debt obligations of the participants directly. As construction progresses, funds are released from the Drinking Water SRF (A) to the recipient (B) through the trustee bank (C) so the construction costs can be paid. Recipients of a grant receive the grant funds directly from the Drinking Water SRF program. Upon completion of the project, the loans are adjusted to reflect the final loan amount.

Loan recipients send their loan principal and interest payments to the trustee bank (C). At such time as the Drinking Water SRF program needs to replenish the repayment fund, the EIERA (D) exercises its authority to sell bonds, and the direct loans are pledged to retire the EIERA debt. The proceeds of this sale are deposited into the Drinking Water SRF repayment account. The principal and interest payments on the EIERA bonds are secured through the pledge of the direct loan principal and interest payments from previous Drinking Water SRF program participants. Any surplus principal and interest that is not needed for the EIERA debt service is deposited into the repayment account.

Cross-collateralization of fundsThe U.S. Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and the Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-65), authorized limited cross-collateralization between the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Cross-collateralization allows states to use Clean Water SRF funds as security for bonds issued to finance Drinking Water SRF projects and vice versa. The cross-collateralization of the two funds may enhance the lending capacity of one or both SRFs. State statute 644.122 RSMO provides the state’s legal authority to implement cross-collateralization.

Transfer of Funds from the Drinking Water SRF to the Clean Water SRF

Section 302 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 authorized the transfer of funds between the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The rules governing the transfer of funds limit the dollar amount a state can transfer to no more than 33 percent of a Drinking Water SRF capitalization grant. As funding is available and as needs arise, the department can transfer loan funds with the approval of the Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission, the Missouri Clean Water Commission and EPA. Transfers between the two funds may enhance the lending capacity of one or both state revolving funds. State statute 644.122 RSMO provides Missouri’s legal authority to implement this transfer of funds. No transfers are planned for fiscal year 2018.


Drinking Water SRF Cash Flow Model

EPA Capitalization Grant

Loan Recipient (B)

EIERA (D)

Repayment / State MatchEPA Funds

State Revolving Fund (A)

EIERA Bond Holders

Trustee Bank (C)

Non-Pledged Pledged

SR

F G

rant

Fun

ds

Direct LoanPledged Direct Loan


Fiscal Year Clean Water SRF Drinking Water SRF 2013 $10,000,000 ($10,000,000)

2013* $18,500,000 ($18,500,000) 2015 ($5,000,000) $5,000,000 2016 ($5,000,000) $5,000,000

A listing of current and recent transfers is below:

*Federal capitalization grant portion.

The department, with prior approval from the Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission, the Missouri Clean Water Commission and EPA as appropriate, reserves the right to make additional transfers in the future.

Assistance for disaster reliefThe department may provide financial assistance to projects that address direct or indirect damage to a drinking water system in a declared disaster area. Funding is available under the Drinking Water SRF loan and Drinking Water State Direct Loan Program for disaster-related projects. The department may provide these projects with advanced authority to construct in accordance with 10 CSR 60-13.030(4). These projects may be given preferential priority ranking when determining the use of uncommitted Drinking Water SRF loan funds.

Allocation of Drinking Water Capitalization GrantThis section summarizes previously awarded federal capitalization grants and the anticipated award of the 2017 grant.

The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 authorize funding for the Drinking Water SRF, and Congress appropriates this funding annually. Each state and U.S. territory is eligible for a portion of this funding. The act authorizes EPA to use a portion of the funding for health effects studies, small system technical assistance, monitoring of unregulated contaminants and operator certification reimbursement grants. EPA allots the remaining funds appropriated for the Drinking Water SRF to each state based on the state’s proportional share of total eligible needs reported for the most recent drinking water infrastructure needs survey, which is conducted every four years.

Capitalization grant allocation for Missouri’s Drinking Water SRF ProgramFederal capitalization grants will be used to fund loans, grants and authorized set-aside activities for federal fiscal year 2017. A summary of the percentage reserved from each capitalization grant appears below.

The department reserves up to 31 percent of the grants for authorized set-aside activities. If the department does not use the full 31 percent for set-aside activities, the difference will be used for financing infrastructure projects.

31%31%31%31%31%

2014201520162017

69%69%69%69%69%

Federal Fiscal Year

2013

Loans and Grants Set-Asides


Table 1. Distribution of Set-Aside Funds

Set-Aside ActivitiesPercent

Capitalization Grant

Amount

Drinking Water SRF Administration and Technical Assistance 4 percent $665,480

Small System Technical Assistance 2 percent $332,740Public Water System Supervision 10 percent $1,663,700Local Assistance and Other State

Programs 15 percent $2,495,550

Total 31 percent $5,157,470

Drinking Water SRF Set-Asides Federal appropriations for the Drinking Water SRF program are used primarily to fund low-interest loans to public drinking water systems for high priority infrastructure projects. However, the Safe Drinking Water Act allows states to reserve up to 31 percent of the federal capitalization grant to fund authorized activities that support public drinking water program activities. This is referred to as the set-asides.

Activities supported by the set-asides include supplemental funding to support the state primacy program, capacity development, wellhead protection, operator certification and technical, managerial and financial capacity assistance to public water systems. Set-aside activities are implemented and managed by the department’s Public Drinking Water Branch.

This section of the Intended Use Plan indicates how the department intends to use the set-asides that will be available from the federal fiscal year 2017 capitalization grant.

A. Distribution of Set-Aside FundsThe Department of Natural Resources intends to reserve 31 percent of the federal fiscal year 2017capitalization grant for set-asides and will deposit those funds in a separate account. Table 1 shows theintended distribution of these set-asides.

The department reserves the right to reserve the unused set-asides authority from the federal fiscal year2017 capitalization grant for future set-aside expenditures.

B. Description of Set-Aside Activities1. DRINKING WATER SRF ADMINISTRATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

This set-aside provides funding to administer the programs established under section 1452 of thefederal Safe Drinking Water Act and to provide technical assistance to public water systems. A state canreserve a maximum of 4 percent of the capitalization grant for these purposes.

The department is reserving the entire 4 percent available under this set-aside. It will use this fundingfor salaries and associated expenses of program personnel to administer the Drinking Water SRF loanprogram, including the following:

• Assistance to loan applicants and loan recipients;• Project review and approval;• Assistance with the needs survey, project prioritization, loan issuance, payment and accounting

activities; and• Tracking repayments and project inspections.


In addition, the Department of Natural Resources will use the set-aside for equipment and training staff.

The department may also use a portion of this funding to contract for assistance to help loan applicants and potential applicants with rate setting and other similar hurdles related to meeting loan eligibility criteria.

It may also use this set-aside for technical assistance to public water systems in the form of Engineering Report Services Grants to community water systems.

If the department does not use the entire authorized amount, it will reserve the unused balance and use it for technical assistance to small systems the following year.

2. SMALL SYSTEMS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

This set-aside provides technical assistance to public water systems that serve 10,000 or fewer people. The department intends to continue using this set-aside to assist small public water systems in the following ways:

• Complying with existing and near-term federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements; • Obtaining Engineering Report Services Grants and facility plans; and • Other technical assistance activities that will improve compliance with safe drinking water requirements.

The Department of Natural Resources will provide technical assistance using staff and contract services.

The department is taking the full 2 percent allowed for this set-aside. If it does not use the entire authorized amount, it will reserve the unused balance and use it for technical assistance to small systems the following year.

3. PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION

This set-aside can be used for the following:

• Primacy program support; • Administering or providing technical assistance through source water protection programs; • Developing and implementing a capacity development strategy; and • Operator certification.

The department has used and intends to continue using this set-aside for these authorized activities.

Examples of the activities funded by this set-aside include:

• Primacy program activities, including program administration, inspections and sanitary surveys, rule development, primacy applications, compliance and enforcement, information and data management; • Technical assistance; • Contracts for database system updates and maintenance;

• Research into emerging contaminants;


• Contract lab support; • Capacity development strategy development and implementation; • Operator certification program administration;

• Source water protection plan review and approval; and • Administration of grant programs for well plugging and source water protection measures.

The Department of Natural Resources intends to take the full 10 percent allowed for this set-aside. If the department does not use the entire authorized amount of this set-aside, it will reserve the unused balance and use it for eligible activities the following year.

4. LOCAL ASSISTANCE AND OTHER PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 1452(k) OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

The act allows states to set aside up to 15 percent of the capitalization grant for the following:

• Source water protection loans to acquire land or easements; • Source water protection loans to implement local, voluntary source water protection programs; • Assistance, including technical, managerial and financial assistance, to any public water system as part of a capacity development strategy; and • Expenditures for the establishment and implementation of wellhead protection programs compliant with section 1428 of the act.

The department intends to use this set-aside to provide technical, managerial and financial assistance to public water systems as part of the capacity development strategy and for wellhead protection. It is setting aside 15 percent of the capitalization grant for these purposes. If the department does not use the entire authorized amount, it will reserve the unused balance and use it for eligible expenses the following year or transfer funds to the loan program.

The types of activities the department intends to fund with this set-aside include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Contracting for circuit riders to conduct leak detection surveys; provide compliance assistance, and technical, managerial and financial capacity assistance to water systems; and operator training; • Grants to community water systems for implementation of source water protection measures and plan development;

• Grants to community water systems to plug abandoned drinking water wells that threaten aquifers; • Contracting with the University of Missouri for maintaining public water system source water

assessment and delineation information; • Performing studies to assist small community water systems with disinfection by-product compliance issues;

• Education and outreach materials and training sessions on water system capacity development, source water protection or wellhead protection issues; • Assistance to public water systems with development of regional solutions to solve capacity issues; • Providing vouchers to community water systems to defray the costs associated with operator training and certification;

• Contracting for training of drinking water system board and city council members; and • Other activities as appropriate to implement the capacity development strategy or promote wellhead protection.


Appendix Four:

Other state-funded grant and loan programs

Engineering Report Services Grants: Engineering Report Services grants are funded through the department’s Public Drinking Water Branch and are periodically made available to help community drinking water systems obtain an engineering report. The engineering report is to act as a first step toward implementing changes that will help the system achieve and maintain technical, managerial and financial capacity, including compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and the Missouri public drinking water regulations. The engineering studies include data collection, analysis and water system sustainability planning. The reports are valuable tools to help ensure continued delivery of adequate reliable and safe drinking water to customers in an efficient and cost-effective manner. These grants are offered periodically.

Small Borrower Loans: Small Borrower Loans are available only to communities or public water districts of fewer than 1,000 population or service area. Qualifying communities or public water districts may be considered for a direct loan for drinking water system improvements for up to $100,000 with a maximum 20-year repayment term. Applications for small borrower loans are prioritized based on immediacy of need.

Rural Water Grants: Public water supply districts and communities with a population of fewer than 10,000 may be eligible for rural water grants. These grants cover up to 50 percent of the eligible cost of a project that does not qualify for a loan from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program. Grants are capped at $500,000, and there are restrictions. There are no additional funds available for Rural Water Grants in fiscal year 2018.

Additional information on Engineering Report Services Grants, Small Borrower Loans and Rural Water Grants is available online: • Engineering Report Services Grants - dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/pdwb/eng-report-svcs.htm • Small Borrower Direct Loans - dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-loans.htm#smborrower • Rural Water Grants - dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-grants.htm

To apply for these other state loans and grants, please contact the department’s Financial Assistance Center at 573-751-1192 or [email protected].


http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/pdwb/eng-report-svcs.htm

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-loans.htm#smborrower

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/drinkingwater-grants.htm


Appendix Five:

EPA requirements and assurancesThe Missouri Department of Natural Resources makes a number of program commitments and state assurances related to managing the Drinking Water SRF. Each year, the department intends to comply with each of the terms and conditions in the capitalization grant.

Federal capitalization grantsThe Department of Natural Resources receives federal capitalization grants from the Environmental Protection Agency. There is a 20 percent state match required to receive the grants. The funds are used in accordance with applicable federal and state program requirements. State match funds are disbursed prior to using capitalization grant funds.

Additional subsidization

A portion of the capitalization grants since 2010 are to be used to provide additional subsidization. A summary of the amounts reserved from each capitalization grant appears below.

Missouri safe drinking water regulations allow for additional subsidies in the form of principal forgiveness, negative interest loans, grants or any combination thereof per any federal act.

The federal fiscal year 2017 capitalization grant requires that 20 percent of the $16,637,000 grant shall be used to provide additional subsidies. The department reserved $3,327,400 of the grant for additional subsidies in the form of grants.

These grant funds will be committed to projects as they become fundable using the guidelines described in Appendix 3.

For each capitalization grant, the department intends to continue to reserve any carry-over grant funds for projects the following fiscal year unless modified as described in this plan.

Public review and commentThe Intended Use Plan and priority list are reviewed and adopted through a public review and comment process.

2014201520162017

$4,883,100$3,828,073$3,547,600$3,356,200$3,327,400

Federal Fiscal Year Amount2013


Environmental reviewThe department has adopted regulation 10 CSR 60-13.030, which provides for a state environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act for projects receiving Drinking Water SRF loans. Projects have a potential need for preparation of an environmental impact statement. A final decision regarding the need for an environmental impact statement will be made on each project during review of the facility plans. Most projects are determined to have no significant impact or can meet a categorical exclusion.

Federal cross-cutters, signage requirements and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA)The Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission assures that all Drinking Water SRF requirements are met by the designated equivalency projects in prior intended use plans. This means that for each capitalization grant the department receives, it has to identify a group of projects that equals the amount of the grant and ensures those projects meet all required federal cross-cutters, signage requirements, and FFATA. Cross-cutters include environmental, social and economic federal laws, executive orders and policies that apply to projects receiving federal financial assistance. Examples of the cross-cutters include compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Order and the Uniform Relocation Act. Signage requirements will be established by the department and may include construction signage, posters, brochures, newsletters, bill insert, press releases or other acceptable media. FFATA requires reporting on executive compensation. All projects are susceptible to equivalency requirements. A final determination is made at the time of loan closing or other binding financial agreement execution.

Binding commitmentsThe department will enter into binding commitments for a minimum of 120 percent of each EPA grant payment into the Drinking Water SRF within one year of the receipt of each payment.

Expenditure of fundsThe department will expend all funds in the Drinking Water SRF in an expeditious and timely manner.

Anticipated cash draw ratio (proportionality)Missouri uses the cash flow model of the Drinking Water SRF. The federal capitalization grant is not used as security on the state match bonds. State match funds are deposited prior to using capitalization grant funds for Set-Aside expenditures. State match funds are disbursed prior to using capitalization grant funds for the loan program.

Additional Recipient Requirements

• Single Audit Act Compliance Recipients of federal funds from any source(s) totaling more than $750,000 are subject to the provisions of

the federal Single Audit Act of 1984 and the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996.

These requirements provide the federal government with assurances that the expenditures of federal funds are for their intended purposes and that the dispersal of those funds occurs in a timely manner. Final loan and grant documents will include specific information.


• Missouri Labor Standards In accordance with Chapter 290 RSMo, projects receiving financial assistance for any construction project

carried out in whole or in part with assistance made available by the Drinking Water SRF must comply with the requirements of the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.

The Department of Natural Resources will not supply annual wage orders (wage determinations) for the projects. It is the responsibility of each recipient to obtain the correct wage orders and maintain compliance throughout the project. For additional information, contact the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards, Wage and Hour Section, 3315 W. Truman Boulevard, Room 205, P.O. Box 449, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0449; 573-751-3403, or [email protected].

• Davis-Bacon Act All agreements to provide assistance for any construction project carried out in whole or in part with such

assistance made available by the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, shall comply with the requirements of section 1450(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.300j-9(e)) in all procurement contracts and sub-grants, and require that loan recipients, procurement contractors and sub-grantees include such a term and condition in subcontracts and other lower-tiered transactions. This requirement applies to all agreements to provide assistance under the authorities referenced herein, whether in the form of a loan, bond purchase, grant or any other vehicle to provide financing for a project, where such agreements are executed on or after Oct. 30, 2009.

Anyone employed on projects funded directly or in part by the federal government must be paid prevailing wages as determined by the Secretary of Labor. The U.S. Department of Labor has additional information, including an overview and compliance assistance resources, at dol.gov/whd/govcontracts/dbra.htm.

• Procurement of professional services In accordance with Sections 8.285 through 8.291 and 327.181 RSMo, all Drinking Water SRF recipients

shall negotiate contracts for architectural, engineering and land surveying services on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of services required and at fair and reasonable prices.

• Signage The recipient agrees to comply with the SRF Signage Guidance, dated June 3, 2015, to enhance public

awareness of EPA assistance agreements nationwide.

For more information, contact the Department of Natural Resources’ Financial Assistance Center at 573-751-1192, [email protected] or dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/.


mailto:laborstandards%40labor.mo.gov?subject=

https://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts/dbra.htm


http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/

Water Protection Program - Financial Assistance CenterPO Box 176 • Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176

573-751-1192 • [email protected] • dnr.mo.gov


http://dnr.mo.gov



Water Protection Program Financial Assistance Center


Fiscal Year 2019 Missouri Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Priority Points Criteria and Readiness to Proceed Criteria and Distribution of Funds

Issue: Proposed adoption of Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Missouri Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Priority Points Criteria and Readiness to Proceed Criteria and Distribution of Funds. Background: The draft FY 2019 Missouri DWSRF Priority Points Criteria and Readiness to Proceed Criteria and Distribution of Funds were placed on public notice August 30, 2017. A public meeting was held on September 21, 2017 and the comment period closed on October 2, 2017. No comments were received. Recommended Action: Staff recommends the adoption of the FY 2019 DWSRF Priority Points Criteria and Readiness to Proceed Criteria and Distribution of Funds. List of Attachments: FY 2019 DWSRF Priority Points Criteria FY 2019 Readiness to Proceed Criteria and Distribution of Funds Presented by: Darleen Groner, P.E., Financial Assistance Center

PUB2361 - DNR Page 1 of 2

MISSOURI DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

READINESS TO PROCEED AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS

CRITERIA

Water Protection Program fact sheet 10/2014

Division of Environmental Quality Director: Ed Galbraith PUB2361

General Information

In order to ensure best use of the drinking water loan funds in a reasonably expeditious manner, the Missouri

Department of Natural Resources will begin recognizing the effort of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, or

DWSRF, applicants to complete their proposed project. Also, to ensure availability of DWSRF loan funds to more

water systems, the department is including an annual funding limitation. Readiness to proceed criteria will be used

to determine fundable status and the distribution of available and anticipated DWSRF funds.

Readiness to Proceed Readiness to proceed criterion is defined as any project that, at a minimum, has submitted a complete facility plan

and has secured voter-approved bond authorization or received an acceptable debt instrument. For the purpose of

determination of readiness to proceed, a complete facility plan must adequately address the information required by

sections 1-4 of the Facilities Plan Submittal Checklist attached to the DWSRF application. See the Distribution of

DWSRF Funds section below for details as to how the department proposes to list new and carry-over projects in

the Drinking Water Intended Use Plan.

Maximum Loan Limit

The maximum amount for a DWSRF loan from any single plan shall not exceed 30 percent of the total available and

anticipated loan and grant funds or $10 million, whichever is less, unless the department receives approval from the

Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission to exceed such limits.

Distribution of DWSRF Funds

Based on priority points and readiness to proceed, the following describes how the department intends to list the

projects for the purpose of committing DWSRF loan and grant funds. The department will designate DWSRF

projects in the Intended Use Plan, as either fundable, fundable contingency or planning. Projects designated as

fundable are those projects the department has committed to finance with available or anticipated state revolving

funds under the plan. The department’s commitment to fundable projects is to reserve loan funds in the amount

requested until the applicant secures the DWSRF loan or until the application period expires. Fundable contingency

projects are those projects meeting readiness to proceed but not receiving funding commitments due to the lack of

funds.

Projects designated as planning are those projects that have not yet met the definition of readiness to proceed

criteria. The department will initially reserve 20 percent of the available or anticipated uncommitted funds for very

small water systems (systems serving 3,300 or fewer people) that submit a loan application meeting the readiness to

proceed criteria by the application receipt deadline. The department will reserve 15 percent for small water systems

(systems serving from 3,301 to 9,999 people) that submit a loan application meeting the readiness to proceed criteria

by the application deadline. Any initially reserved funds for small or very small water systems not committed will

be transferred to the general reserves and made available for projects that meet readiness to proceed criteria and

committed according to priority ranking of the projects. Any uncommitted funds available after the application

deadline will be committed to projects in the order the projects meet readiness to proceed. In the case where funds

reserved for small or very small systems are not fully used, the department can give preference to such projects in

the future.

PUB2361 - DNR Page 2 of 2

I. Fundable List All eligible carry-over applications from last year’s fundable list will retain their same funding commitment from

the prior Intended Use Plan, unless bypassed. All carry-over applications from last year’s fundable contingency list

and new DWSRF applications that meet the criterion for readiness to proceed will be placed on the fundable list in

order of priority ranking. Those projects below the funding cutoff will be placed on the fundable contingency List.

Carry-over projects will retain the points they received in the last year’s Intended Use Plan unless they reapplied for

consideration under the latest criteria (such projects are then deemed new applications).

II. Fundable Contingency List

These are eligible projects that meet readiness to proceed but due to priority ranking, timing, or funding limitations

will not receive funding commitments. These projects will be ranked on the list in accordance with their priority

points. If uncommitted funds become available, the department, with the Safe Drinking Water Commission’s

approval, will move the highest ranking project from the contingency list to the fundable list.

III. Planning List These are the eligible carry-over or new projects that do not meet the readiness to proceed criterion to make the

fundable or fundable contingency list. These projects will be ranked according to their priority points. Any

application(s) that meets the readiness to proceed criteria, subject to the availability of funding, may be moved to the

fundable or fundable contingency list and shall be incorporated into the appropriate list in priority point order.

Bypass Procedures

With the commission’s approval, the department may bypass any project on the fundable list that does not make

satisfactory progress toward meeting requirements. Procedures for bypassing projects are contained in 10 CSR 60-

13.020(3)(A).

Refinancing and Refunding Criteria for Readiness to Proceed

Applications that involve both new project financing plus the refinancing or refunding of existing debt will only

retain the new project priority points if:

• The refinancing or refunding is necessary to meet affordability criteria after the current project financing is

factored into the application’s total debt service.

• It is a current refinancing or refunding, OR in an advance refinancing/refunding, interest portion of the

defeasance escrow attached to the SRF program shall include no more than two years of interest on the bonds

to be refunded.

• The current debt is not that of another state or federal agency.

• Refinanced or refunded debt will only incorporate level or net level debt amortization structures.

Projects that only involve the refinancing of existing debt will only receive priority points for affordability.

If it is determined a refinancing or refunding project has not followed the DWSRF environmental and procurement

requirements, then commitment to fund such projects will be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on

availability of funds and the merits of the project as determined by the department and the Safe Drinking Water

Commission.

Nothing in this document may be used to implement any enforcement action or levy any penalty unless

promulgated by rule under chapter 536 or authorized by statute.

For more information

Missouri Department of Natural Resources


P.O. Box 176

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176

800-361-4827 or 573-751-1300

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp


MISSOURI DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

PRIORITY POINTS CRITERIA

Water Protection Program fact sheet 09/2017

Division of Environmental Quality Director: Ed Galbraith PUB2362

General Information

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources must prepare annually a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, or

DWSRF, Intended Use Plan that includes lists of projects expected to qualify for financing within the fiscal year

addressed by the plan. The priority point criteria are used to evaluate DWSRF loan applications to be addressed by

the fiscal year 2019. The department must annually seek public comments on the priority point criteria proposed.

The Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission must approve the priority point criteria at least 60 days before the

application deadline. A project must be listed in the plan to be eligible for funding and the projects are listed in

priority order.

Projects are listed so that the most serious problems are given the highest priority. Consistent with the federal Safe

Drinking Water Act, priorities are based primarily on protection of public health, compliance with the act and

household affordability.

Assignment of Priority Points

Priority points shall be assigned only where the proposed project is intended to correct the problem associated with

the points. For example, if the public water system has had persistent violations of a secondary maximum

contaminant level, or MCL, but the proposed project does not address that problem, the points associated with

persistent violations of a secondary MCL will not be assigned.

The sections on Distribution System Reliability (section III.B.) and Design Considerations (section III. F.) are

limited to a maximum of 20 points each. This is done to ensure projects addressing MCL violations are not

overwhelmed by projects addressing only design considerations or distribution system problems. The 25 points

available for violations of acute risk contaminant MCLs are used as the baseline in developing the priority point

criteria.

Projects will be ranked by the total number of points received. In the event of a tie, the projects receiving the highest

number of points under Distribution System Reliability and Design Considerations (sections III.B. and III.F.) with

the 20-point maximum limits lifted will receive the higher ranking. If the projects are still tied, the secondary tie-

breaking criteria will be number of affordability points. The applicant with the highest affordability points will

receive the higher ranking. If the projects are still tied, the third tier of tie-breaking criteria will be the number of

people served. The system serving the larger number of people will receive the higher ranking.

Projects that involve the refinancing of existing debt will receive priority points only for affordability.

No priority points shall be assigned to a project intended to correct deficiencies resulting from inadequate operation

and maintenance of the public water system.

Priority point assignment and listing in the plan does not guarantee all financial and project eligibility requirements

have been met.

Priority Points

Page 1 of 6PUB2362 - DNR

I. Safe Drinking Water Act Compliance

Only projects for existing eligible public water systems as defined in 10 CSR 60.13.020(1)(B) will be assigned

points under this section. See the lists on pages 6 and 7, Safe Drinking Water Act Compliance Priority Points:

Existing and Anticipated Regulations for further explanation of categories A through D below.

A. Acute Risk Contaminants (such as E coli, turbidity or nitrate). 25 points will be assigned if there have been

persistent violations of MCLs or treatment performance criteria for acute risk contaminants within the past 36

calendar months.

B. Treatment Technique Requirements. 20 points will be assigned if there have been persistent violations of

treatment technique requirements (for example, the Surface Water Treatment Rule, lead and copper, etc.).

C. Non-Acute Risk Contaminants

1. 25 points will be assigned if there have been persistent violations of any non-acute risk primary

MCL within the past 36 calendar months.

2. 10 points will be assigned if there have been persistent violations of any secondary MCL

within the past 36 calendar months.

D. Anticipated Federal Regulations. 10 points will be assigned if the proposed project will enable the public water

system to comply with anticipated federal regulations identified on the attached list, Safe Drinking Water Act

Compliance Priority Points: Existing and Anticipated Regulations.

E. Compliance. 15 points will be assigned if the proposed project will enable an eligible public water system to

comply with an administrative order, a bilateral compliance agreement, or other enforceable document issued by the

department.

II. Public Health

A. Waterborne Disease Outbreak. 25 points will be assigned if a waterborne disease outbreak declared by the

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services is attributable to an existing public water system and 51 percent

or more of the cost of the proposed project addresses the problem(s) causing the waterborne disease outbreak.

B. Inadequate Water Supply

1. 10 points will be assigned if an existing public water system can document its inability to

consistently maintain at least 35 pounds per square inch (psi) as a normal working pressure in the

distribution system.

2. 10 points will be assigned if an existing public water system can document its inability to

consistently maintain pressures of at least 20 psi at all service connections, including fire flow.

3. 20 points will be assigned if the private or noncommunity wells or sources in the proposed

project service area are unable to consistently provide an adequate amount of potable water for

general household purposes and 51 percent or more of the cost of the proposed project addresses

this need. Private or noncommunity wells or sources contaminated by commercial, industrial or

mining wastes will be considered in this category.

III. Public Water System Infrastructure Improvement Note: Only projects for existing eligible public water

systems will be assigned points under this subsection.

A. System source reliability

1. 10 points will be assigned to a project that addresses a need for new backup well or a backup

interconnection with another public water system.

2. 10 points will be assigned if the system has one or more improperly constructed wells.


B. Distribution system reliability. (Limited to a maximum of 20 points.)

Reminder: After points have been calculated for all eligible applicants, ties will be broken by calculating total points

possible under this section and section III.F., design considerations, without the 20-point limitations. The project

receiving the higher score under these two sections without the 20-point limitations will be ranked above the project

receiving the lower score.

1. 10 points will be assigned if the system has water loss that exceeds 10 percent of the drinking

water produced by the system.

2. 10 points will be assigned if the distribution system is anticipated to exceed design capacity or

useful facility life within the next five years.

3. 10 points will be assigned if the distribution system has faulty waterlines or substandard

waterline materials.

4. 5 points will be assigned if the public water system requires additional system isolation and

flushing measures.

5 points will be assigned if the public water system requires looping of water waterlines.

C. Disinfection. 15 points will be assigned if a public water system is unable to maintain a disinfectant residual at all

points in its distribution system.

D. 10 points will be assigned if a system has storage facilities in poor condition, not related to inadequate

maintenance of the facilities.

E. Reliability of service. 10 points will be assigned if a system has water storage capacity that is less than one day's

average use or lacks adequate standby power.

F. Design considerations. (Limited to a maximum of 20 points)

Reminder: After points have been calculated for all eligible applicants, ties will be broken by calculating total points

possible under this section and section III.B., system distribution reliability, without the 20- point limitations. The

project receiving the higher score under these two sections without the 20-point limitations will be ranked above the

project receiving the lower score.

1. 20 points will be assigned if the source or treatment facility is anticipated to exceed its useful

life or if the demand is expected to exceed the design capacity within the next five years.

2. 20 points will be assigned if a system has suffered significant degradation of the quality of the

raw water supply.

3. 20 points will be assigned if a system has suffered significant degradation of the quality of

finished water in storage.

4. 10 points will be assigned if a system currently does not meet existing state requirements for

the treatment or storage of waste residues generated by the water treatment plant.

G. 20 points will be assigned if the treatment facility(ies) for required disinfection or turbidity removal are severely

deteriorated and beyond the facility useful life.

H. Vulnerability.

1. 10 points will be assigned to a water system whose source is vulnerable to natural disasters

(such as flood or drought) or contamination.


2. 10 points will be assigned to a water system whose treatment plant is vulnerable to natural disasters (such as flood, earthquake, etc.) or contamination.

I. Wellhead and Source Water Protection. 10 points will be awarded to applicants who have a department approvedwellhead or source water protection plan.

IV. Affordability Only community water system projects will be assigned points under this section.

A. Annual Median Household Income. The statewide annual median household income levels of the state must bedetermined from income data from the latest decennial census of the United States. The median household incomedata can be found at the following web address:http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml

1. A community water system will use the annual decennial median household income for theappropriate political subdivision or subdivisions encompassing its service area.

2. A nonmunicipal community water system will use the annual decennial median householdincome for the smallest political subdivision encompassing the nonmunicipal community watersystem.

B. Assignment of Points. (Limited to a maximum of 25 points)

1. 10 points will be assigned a project if the median household income of the applicant is lessthan 75 percent of the state median household income as reported in the most recent decennialcensus.

2. From 1 to 25 points will be assigned, determined by the ratio of their current monthly waterbill for 5,000 gallons of water to the monthly median household income for the project area to beserved (expressed in percent times 10) and rounded to the nearest whole number.

For example: Monthly water bill = $20 Annual median household income = $24,000Monthly median household income = $24,000/12 = $2,000 ($20/$2,000) x 100% = 1%1 x 10 = 10 points

V. Additional Priority Point Categories

A. Natural disasters.

1. 10 points will be assigned if 51 percent or more of the proposed project cost is for repair orreplacement of an existing public water system damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster. Inorder to be assigned these points, the project must be located in an area declared a federal or statenatural disaster area, and a description of the public water system damaged or destroyed by thenatural disaster must be submitted along with a statement that other state or federal disaster reliefis not sufficient to meet the costs of the project.

2. 20 points will be assigned for systems affected by drought for projects that will result ininterconnections with other systems or for upgrades to existing systems to address drought relatedproblems.

3. 20 points will be assigned to address systems prone to flooding that will result ininterconnections with other systems or for upgrades to existing systems to address flood relatedproblems.

B. Consolidation.

1. 20 points will be assigned if the proposed project provides necessary infrastructure upgrades toa primary water system, allowing it to continue or expand service as a regional water supplier.


2. 20 points will be assigned for consolidation of public water systems, where at least one of the systems has demonstrated technical, managerial and financial capacity with respect to theNational Primary Drinking Water Regulations. This would include newly formed regional watersuppliers (generally water districts), which will allow small water systems within their boundariesto consolidate.

3. 10 points will be assigned for consolidation of public water systems where the proposedproject will result in a regional management system responsible for the day-to-day operation ofthe water system, where the management system has the required technical, managerial andfinancial capacity to meet the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. If the project meetsthe criteria for the points under item V.B.4., points under these criteria will not be awarded.

4. 20 points will be assigned if the proposed project will result in a new water distribution systemor existing distribution system upgrade to meet the standards of a regional water supplier for thepurpose of consolidation.

C. Security. 10 points will be assigned for eligible security measures. Eligible security measures includevulnerability assessments, emergency response plans, fencing, security cameras and lights, motion detectors, securechemical and fuel storage, security hatches and access panels, cross-connection control, and supervisory control anddata acquisition (SCADA).

D. Board Member or City Council Member Training. 10 points will be assigned if 50 percent of the governing bodyhas received training related to the operation and management of the water utility.

E. Asset Management. 10 Points will be assigned if the system has completed an asset inventory, including thecondition and age of assets, for all critical assets in their system and has incorporated replacement schedules intoannual and capital improvement budgets.

SDWA Compliance Priority Points: Existing and Anticipated Regulations

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) and Treatment Technique Requirements. Acute Risk Contaminants

10 CSR 60-4.022 (or Missouri State Revised Total Coliform Rule in effect at the time of application) Maximum Microbiological Contaminant Levels and Monitoring Requirements, subsections (7)(A) and (7)(B).10 CSR 60-4.030 Maximum Inorganic Chemical Contaminant Levels, Action Levels, and Monitoring Requirements, paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 of subsection (l)(A). 10 CSR 60-4.050 Maximum Turbidity Contaminant Levels and Monitoring Requirements, subsections (3) (A) and (3)(B).

Treatment Technique Requirements

10 CSR 60-04.025 Ground Water Rule, section (4)10 CSR 60-4.050 Maximum Turbidity Contaminant Levels and Monitoring Requirements, section (3).10 CSR 60-4.052 Source Water Monitoring and Enhanced Treatment Requirements, sections (1) and (2) 10 CSR 60-4.055 Disinfection Requirements, subsection (l)(A), section (2), section (3), section (4), section (5) and section(6).10 CSR 60-4.090 Maximum Contaminant Level and Monitoring Requirements for Disinfection By Products,subsections (l)(D) and (4)(D).10 CSR 60-15.010 General Requirements (lead and copper), sections (4), (5) and (6). Non-Acute Primary MCL10 CSR 60-4.030 Maximum Inorganic Chemical Contaminant Levels, Action Levels, and MonitoringRequirements, section ( 1).10 CSR 60-4.040 Maximum Synthetic Organic Chemical Contaminant Levels and Monitoring Requirements,section ( 1).10 CSR 60-4.060 Maximum Radionuclide Contaminant Levels and Monitoring Requirements, subsections (1)(A)-(D).10 CSR 60-4.090 Maximum Contaminant Level and Monitoring Requirements for Disinfection By Products,subsections (l)(A)-(C).10 CSR 60-4.100 Maximum Volatile Organic Chemical Contaminant Levels and Monitoring Requirements, section(2).


Secondary MCL

10 CSR 60-4.070 Secondary Contaminant Levels and Monitoring Requirements, section (1).

New and Anticipated Federal Regulations

Revised Total Coliform Rule: The Environmental Protection Agency's final Revised Total Coliform Rule was

published in the Feb. 14, 2013 Federal Register. It goes into effect April 1, 2016. Points will be awarded for

projects that will bring systems into compliance with this new rule.

Nothing in this document may be used to implement any enforcement action or levy any penalty unless

promulgated by rule under chapter 536 or authorized by statute.

For more information

Missouri Department of Natural Resources


P.O. Box 176

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176

800-361-4827 or 573-751-1300







Public Comments on the Missouri Red Tape Reduction

Background: Under Governor Greitens' leadership, all state agencies are working to reduce regulations and other government processes that unnecessarily burden individuals and businesses while doing little to protect or improve public health, safety, and our natural resources. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources is committed to limiting regulation to what is necessary to protect Missouri's environment, implementing statutory mandates, and maintaining state control of programs. The Department will be accepting public comments on the Missouri Red Tape Reduction Regulation Review for the rules under the purview of the Safe Drinking Water Commission. Recommended Action: Information only Attachment: None Presented by: David J. Lamb, Chief, Public Drinking Water Branch




October 11, 2017

Operator Certification Program Update Agenda Item # 6

Background: Drinking water operators provide a critical service to their neighbors and customers. The daily operational activities they perform serve to protect public health and maintain safe and reliable operations of water treatment and distribution facilities. An operator certification program ensures operators possess the knowledge, skill, and ability, as well as attend ongoing training to maintain certification and stay current with new regulations and emerging technologies. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Operator Certification Section provides for the training, examination and certification of drinking water treatment, drinking water distribution, wastewater treatment, and concentrated animal feeding (CAFO) operators. Certificates are issued, renewed, deactivated, suspended and revoked according to state regulations. This presentation provides an overview and update of the program. Recommended Action: Information only. List of Attachments: PowerPoint presentation Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Annual Report Presented by: Darlene Helmig, Chief, Operator Certification Section

Operator Certification Program Update Darlene Helmig, Section Chief

Operator Certification…Why? • Professionals

– Responsible for day-to-day operational decisions affecting quality and quantity of water

– Maintain safe and reliable operations of water and wastewater systems

– Certification program – ensures knowledge, skill and ability

Types of Operator Certifications

• 10 CSR 60-14 (Drinking Water)

• 10 CSR 20-9 (Wastewater)

• 10 CSR 20-14 (CAFO)

2,298

3,644

2,842

173

Drinking WaterTreatment

Drinking WaterDistribution

WastewaterTreatment

CAFO

Highlights for Fiscal Year 2017

• 1,641 drinking water systems required to have a certified operator

• 5,942 active drinking water treatment and distribution certificates

• 4,266 certified individuals (838 people hold both types of drinking water certificates.)

Certification Trends

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Treatment D Distribution I Distribution II Distribution III

Aug. 2007 (Approx. 10 Yrs. Prior)

FY14

FY15

FY16

FY17

Number of Systems

97% 96% 98%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

FY2015 FY2016 FY2017

Systems With a Properly Certified Operator

Percentage ofSystems Compliant

Compliance Assistance • Training vouchers to cover expenses for

courses and certification fees • Website to find contract operators

(dnr.mo.gov/operator) • Circuit riders - answer questions and

provide information • Frequent exam opportunities (monthly and

in many locations)

New Opportunity • Partnering with the Missouri Department of

Corrections • Wastewater treatment multi-day pre-

certification training course – Hosted in a correctional institution for

offenders – Career opportunity – Tentative November date

Questions?

Additional information can be found in the annual Operator Certification Program Report for fiscal year 2017.

1

Drinking Water Operator Certification Program

Annual Report State Fiscal Year 2017

Reporting period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017

Missouri Department of Natural Resources Division of Environmental Quality

Water Protection Program Public Drinking Water Branch Operator Certification Section

P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102‐0176

2

Overview 2017 of Operator Certification Program Drinking water operators provide a critical service to their neighbors and customers. The daily operational activities they perform serve to protect public health and maintain safe and reliable operations of water treatment and distribution facilities. An operator certification program ensures operators possess the knowledge, skill, and ability as well as attend ongoing training to maintain certification and stay current with new regulations and emerging technologies. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Operator Certification Section provides for the training, examination and certification of drinking water treatment, drinking water distribution, wastewater treatment, and concentrated animal feeding (CAFO) operators. Certificates are issued, renewed, deactivated, suspended and revoked according to state regulations. This report focuses on the Operator Certification Program for drinking water certification. It’s important to note that about two‐thirds of the sections’ work duties are associated with drinking water certification. The other one‐third can be attributed to wastewater and CAFO certification work. This report, and outputs provided, reflects the drinking water portion of the section’s duties. This annual report is formatted to identify each of the nine baseline standards for Operator Certification Programs established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and highlight Missouri’s efforts related to each item. The report concludes with a look ahead to anticipated projects for the coming state fiscal year. 1. Authorization: A new Attorney General’s certification is not necessary; there have been no statutory and/or regulatory changes to the certification program during this reporting period. 2. Classification of Systems, Facilities, and Operators:

All Missouri community and nontransient noncommunity public water systems and those transient noncommunity public water systems that use surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water are classified based on: (a) complexity, size and source water for treatment facilities; and (b) complexity and size for distribution systems. All operating personnel making independent process control/system integrity decisions about water quality or quantity that affect public health must be certified. There are 1,641 public drinking water systems in Missouri that are required to have a chief operator certified at the level of the system’s classification. The following tables provide the number of active systems by classification:

3

Community Systems (examples: towns, water districts, subdivisions and mobile home parks) Wholesale

No Distribution Distribution

I Distribution

II Distribution

III Totals

Distribution Only

366 735 34 1,135

Treatment A 1 0 14 34 49

Treatment B 1 0 34 12 47

Treatment C 0 21 88 11 120

Treatment D 0 4 59 8 71

Totals 2 391 930 99 1,422

Nontransient Noncommunity (examples: schools and factories)

Wholesale No Distribution

Distribution I

Distribution II

Distribution III

Totals

Distribution Only

145 56 0 201

Treatment A 0 0 3 0 3


Treatment C 0 6 3 0 9

Treatment D 0 1 0 0 1

Totals 0 153 64 0 217

Transient, Non Community Systems, using surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (examples: restaurants, resorts and rest stops) Wholesale

No Distribution Distribution

I Distribution

II Distribution

III

Totals Distribution Only

0 0 0 0


Totals 0 1 1 0 2

3. Operator Qualifications: Applicants must meet the following requirements to demonstrate they have the necessary skills, knowledge, ability and judgment prior to becoming certified:

Examination ‐ A minimum passing score of 70 percent is required in order to become certified. Exams are based on subjects an operator needs to know for that particular type and level of certification. Exam questions are validated by a group of subject matter experts to ensure questions are relevant, and used on the appropriate level of exam.

4

Experience Requirements‐ Each type and level of certification requires a defined minimum amount of on‐the‐job experience. The amount of experience required increases with each classification level. Post high school education may be substituted for experience. Credit may be given for experience in a related field. There is a maximum amount of substitution allowed for each certificate level. Experience that is used to meet the experience requirement for any class of certification cannot be used to meet the education requirement.

Education Requirement – The minimum education requirement can be met with any of the following: high school diploma; general equivalency diploma (GED); successful completion of a Department‐approved training course; or six months of additional experience. Training or experience that is used to meet this requirement for any class of certification may not be used to meet the experience requirement.

Certification by Examination: Persons wishing to become certified by examination must submit an application for certification along with a $45 fee. By regulation, the Department is required to provide a minimum of four exam sessions per year. During FY17, a total of 64 exam sessions were provided state‐wide, well exceeding the regulatory requirement. There are 32 regularly scheduled examinations at six locations throughout the state each year. In addition to the regular exam sessions, trainers may request special examination sessions to be held at the completion of multi‐day pre‐certification training courses. There were 32 special examination sessions held in FY17. The following table shows how many exams (both regular and special sessions) were administered for the last four fiscal years. FY17 showed a slight increase in the number of exams compared to the previous fiscal year. Examination Type FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Treatment 320 393 289 368

Distribution 596 547 528 520

Total 916 940 817 888

Multi‐day training sessions continue to be a valuable training opportunity for operators. Most individuals seeking certification will voluntarily attend training, however, if an examinee fails the same type and level of exam three times and has not completed a multi‐day pre‐certification course in the last 12 months, they must do so before taking the exam a fourth time.

When looking at examination passing rates for drinking water treatment and distribution exams, it’s important to consider the effect training has on pass rates. The following tables show that special exam sessions held after a multi‐day pre‐certification course have consistently higher pass rates compared to the regular, open session exams.

5

Distribution Exams – Percent Passing Treatment Exams – Percent Passing Regular Exam Session

Special Exam Session (Following Training)

Regular Exam Session

Special Exam Session (Following Training)

FY14 58 78 57 81 FY15 56 76 52 75 FY16 52 74 46 74 FY17 49 75 38 54

Certification without Examination (Grandparenting): Grandparenting was permitted only to operators in responsible charge of systems that had not been required by the Department to have a certified operator prior to August 1, 2001. By regulation, applications for grandparented certificates were required to be submitted by February 5, 2003. Grandparented certificates are only valid for the operator named on the certificate and are restricted for use only for the specified water system. Sixteen years later, 157 grandparented certificates remain active from the original 1,225 certificates that were issued. Only 13% of the original certificates remain active. During the FY, there was a reduction of 32 certificates from last year’s report. If the grandparented certificate is allowed to expire, the operator must meet requirements for regular, non‐grandparented certification, including pass the appropriate examination to become recertified. On‐The‐Job Experience: Upon successfully passing an exam, the applicant’s information is reviewed for sufficient work experience. Applicants who pass the exam are either issued a certificate or notified of a deficiency in their work experience or education. Drinking water examinees have eighteen months from the date of the test to obtain additional, qualifying work experience and become certified without having to retest. A certificate is issued when the Department is notified that the additional required work experience has been completed. Active Certificates: The following table shows the total number of active Missouri certificates. There are 5,942 active drinking water treatment and distribution certificates which is down slightly from last year’s total of 6,012 certificates. For comparison purposes, numbers from approximately ten years prior to the reporting period are included (shaded column). In total, the number of certificates that are active has not changed dramatically. The most noticeable change has been the increase in the number of active DS‐I certificates, which may be attributed to the fact that the Distribution classification was created in 2001 and those numbers grew as a result of the change to system classification.

6

Total number of active drinking water certificates by type and level: Aug. 2007 (Approx. 10

Yrs. Prior) FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Treatment A 657 628 605 594 582

Treatment B 115 116 126 124 125

Treatment C 859 802 798 786 748

Treatment D 768 820 867 833 843

Distribution I 487 836 858 860 847

Distribution II 741 1,015 1,036 1,065 1,085

Distribution III 2,049 1,847 1,826 1,750 1,712

Totals 5,676 6,064 6,116 6,012 5,942

New certificates are issued throughout the year to individuals who pass exams or apply for reciprocity. The following table breaks down the new certificates issued during the one‐year reporting period by type and level. New certificates are issued to individuals who have not previously been certified and to operators who have earned a higher level or new type of certificate. Certificates are issued for a three‐year period.

New drinking water certificates issued in FY 2017: New Certificates Issued

Exam Process New Certificates Issued

Reciprocity Totals

Treatment A 9 2 11 Treatment B 9 2 11 Treatment C 35 1 36 Treatment D 115 1 116 Distribution I 107 2 109 Distribution II 130 2 132 Distribution III 66 1 67 Totals 471 11 482

The following tables show the number of contract operators listed on the Department’s website. Participation is relatively stable. Participating operators’ phone number is available online making it easy for drinking water systems to find potential contract operators.

7

Treatment Certificate Level FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

A 45 51 47 47

B 4 3 4 4

C 39 37 38 42

D 27 24 21 25

Total Treatment 115 115 110 118

Distribution Certification Level

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

DS III 98 101 96 104

DS II 55 56 55 58

DS I 24 23 21 21

Total Distribution 177 180 172 183

4. Enforcement: Enforcement activities can be broadly divided between two categories: water systems that fail to have a properly certified operator, and suspension or revocation actions against certified operators. Systems Without Properly Certified Operators The Department’s website at dnr.mo.gov/operator provides a way to search for drinking water systems that do not have a properly certified operator designated in the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) database. The list is kept up‐to‐date with a nightly automated update that pushes certification changes from the OpCert database into the SDWIS database to update each operator’s records regarding the type and level of certification they hold. This special communication and comparison between databases allows for very accurate information. It also means that with each new certificate issued and deactivated, new systems appear on the list and others fall off daily. To help systems self‐report changes to their points of contact information, including updates for their certified operator, a form can be printed from the same website. Systems can also find contract operators and search for them several ways, including county and type of certification held. Missouri has 1,641 water systems that require a certified operator. The number of systems without properly certified operators has dropped significantly from 378 systems reported in FY09 down to 33 systems on the list at the end of this reporting period. The 98% compliance rate can be attributed

8

to the efforts of many, including staff from the Central Office Monitoring Section, Regional Offices, Circuit Riders, Operator Certification Section, and Enforcement Section. The chart below shows that over the last several years, the number of systems in non‐compliance tends to fluctuate between 35 and 50 systems. Systems are added and removed from the list daily as their status changes.

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

No Operator Listed 13 13 12 14

Operator Listed in SDWIS is Not Certified 25 22 37 14

Operator Listed in SDWIS is Inadequately Certified 6 9 16 5

Totals 44 44 65 33

The Department offers assistance through a number of avenues to help systems obtain a properly certified operator. Some of those key compliance assistance efforts, which will be discussed later in more detail, include:

Department‐issued training vouchers that systems can use to pay for training courses and certification exam fees

A website that provides information on certified operators who have self‐identified as being available for contract operations (www.dnr.mo.gov/operator)

Circuit riders who provide a variety of assistance to systems, including answering questions related to certification

Frequent opportunities throughout the year and across the state to take certification exams

Developing a partnership with the Missouri Department of Corrections to provide training courses in a correctional institution

Where our assistance efforts do not result in system compliance with the operator certification requirement, the Public Drinking Water Branch has a progressive enforcement process that begins with an initial Notice of Non‐Compliance Letter and advances to actions like Bilateral Compliance Agreements and Administrative Orders on Consent for systems that do not take active steps to comply. Following is a table showing the type and number of operator certification enforcement actions during the fiscal year. The items in the table, particularly BCAs and AOCs, may not be exclusive to Operator Certification issues. They include all concerns and deficiencies that need to be addressed, not just operator certification. The Department’s Public Drinking Water Branch Enforcement Section continues to issue notices and track compliance activities from these systems. Issued in FY17 Notice of Non‐Compliance Letters 60 Letters of Warning (LOWs) 46 Notices of Violation (NOVs) 22 Bilateral Compliance Agreements (BCAs) 4 Administrative Orders on Consents (AOCs) 0

9

Operator Certification Suspensions and Revocations Based on the frequency and severity of violations, the Department may suspend or revoke an operator’s certificates. Items that can lead to this action include practicing fraud or deception in obtaining certification, gross negligence, malpractice or incompetence in operating a public water system, sabotaging a water system, misleading or lying to a government official regarding a water system, participating in sample tampering or selective sampling, falsifying facility operating records or reports, or other willful violations. Revocation activities are generally preceded by investigations conducted by Department investigators and experienced regional office staff. The investigations are often initiated via complaints or tips from water system co‐workers, the public, or by Departmental staff noticing unusual monitoring reports (e.g. identical daily chlorine residuals measurements) or obtaining evidence of sample tampering (e.g. chlorine in a bacteriological sample received from a public water system that is not a chlorinated system). Suspending or revoking an operator’s certificate is an extremely serious action. During the fiscal year, no suspensions or revocations took place. 5. Certification Renewal: Each type and level of classification has specific operator certification and renewal requirements. Certificates are valid for three years from the date of issuance. During that time operators, including grandparented operators, must receive approved continuing education in order to renew their certificate. The training requirements for renewal are based on the type and level of certification held by the operator.

Renewal Training Hours Required: Certificate Level Renewal Hours

A 30 B 30 C 30 D 20

DS III 30 DS II 20 DS I 10

10

The following chart shows the number of applications for certificate renewal that were processed during the reporting period.

Drinking water certificates renewed in FY 2017: Renewed Certificates

Treatment A 173 Treatment B 39 Treatment C 207 Treatment D 178 Distribution I 170 Distribution II 230 Distribution III 446 Total 1,443

Operator Training: Department‐approved training is sponsored by Department staff, professional organizations and private companies year‐round at various locations throughout the state. The Operator Certification Section is responsible for reviewing courses and awarding credit towards the continuing education requirement. Training providers submit a Request for Training Course Approval form with a course outline and training materials for review. Training credit is awarded based on the subject matter and contact time. In addition to traditional classroom‐style training, operators can also complete approved correspondence and computer‐based courses for renewal hour credit. This includes traditional correspondence, online courses, webinars and webcasts. Below is a comparison of the total number of courses approved during the fiscal year with drinking water subject matter. Courses are listed on the Operator Certification page of the Department’s website for operators to consider. During the reporting period, 197 correspondence and computer‐based courses were completed with a total attendance of 281. This accounts for less than 2% of 18,407 attendance records for the 879 drinking water courses that took place in‐state during the year. While this form of training is an important option for some individuals, most Missouri operators chose to attend traditional classroom training. FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Correspondence & Computer Based Training 160 193 208 197

Total DW Courses 883 961 897 879

Certified operators can track their training hours and renew certificates online at the Department’s website. The site summarizes all training on record for that person’s certificate during the current renewal cycle and indicates how many additional hours are needed. A hard copy of the report can

11

be printed out by the operator or requested from the Operator Certification Section. All renewal training must be completed by the expiration date on the certificate. Sixty days prior to the expiration date of each certificate, a renewal postcard is mailed to the operator. Operators return the postcard, along with a $45 renewal fee, to the Department or they may go online and renew the certificate with a credit card. Following the expiration date of the certificate, there is a 60‐day grace period for returning the renewal application and fee. Applications submitted during the grace period require a $10 per month late fee, for a maximum of $20. The Department sends a courtesy late reminder postcard to operators near the expiration date of the certificate to encourage them to renew their certificates during the 60‐day grace period. Operators who fail to renew their certificate within the two months following the expiration date are considered lapsed and the certificate is deactivated. Any operator with a lapsed certificate must submit a new application and reexamine. Operators are encouraged to visit the Department’s website to renew online, update their address and other personal information, and track their training hours. Training Voucher Program – Drinking Water: Vouchers are Department‐issued forms and stickers that are provided to drinking water systems. They can be used to pay for operator certification fees and eligible drinking water training fees. The program is funded through set‐asides, but was originally created in 2004 with the use of the Expense Reimbursement Grant received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Drinking Water Training Voucher Program (DWTVP) has been so successful, that a similar program, the Wastewater Treatment Training Voucher Program (WWTVP) began in August of 2013. The program is operated similar to the DWTVP. To maintain separation of funding sources, training courses are Department‐approved to accept only one type of voucher, but not both. The vouchers are different colors so trainers can easily identify what color of vouchers they are approved to accept for payment and reimbursement. Drinking water vouchers are blue. Wastewater vouchers are green. Drinking water systems have flexibility to use the vouchers in a manner that will best meet their needs, whether that’s paying for renewal training for an existing operator or seeking certification for a new or back‐up operator. The following information is specific to the DWTVP and excludes wastewater data. Each year vouchers are issued to approximately 1,500 community and nontransient noncommunity drinking water systems service populations of 3,300 or less. Ninety percent of the public water systems in Missouri receive vouchers. Systems that are classified as only distribution receive $625 and those that have a treatment classification receive $950 worth of vouchers. Vouchers consist of two major components: forms and stickers. To use a voucher, the individual fills out the voucher

12

form and affixes the appropriate dollar amount in voucher stickers. The completed form is then submitted as payment. Trainers who collect vouchers for course attendance fees bundle the vouchers and submit them to the Department with an invoice requesting reimbursement. The DWTVP continues to be very successful. During FY17, a total of 1,908 vouchers were processed. Of that total, 1,465 were used for training and 443 were submitted for operator certification fees. A total of $281,845 worth of vouchers were processed during the fiscal year. In FY17, there were 709 different drinking water systems that used vouchers, and since the voucher program began in 2004, 1,554 different systems have used them. Not every water system will use vouchers each year. One reason for this may be that certificates are issued for three‐year cycles, so training costs may not be incurred each year. Another reason that a system may not use their vouchers is if they use the services of a contract operator. A contract operator may use the vouchers, but if they operate more than one water system, they may not need vouchers from each system they operate to cover their training and certification expenses. Since the DWTVP began, 3,451 different certified operators have submitted vouchers. In this fiscal year alone, 873 different certified operators used them and 558 vouchers were used by individuals working toward certification. The voucher forms submitted include a survey. One of the survey questions asks individuals, on a scale of 1 to 4, if they would have been able to attend the training without the use of the voucher. The scale is defined as “1” being they definitely would have attended even without a voucher and “4” meaning they would not have been able to attend without a voucher. The average response over FY17 to this survey question was 3.7. This response shows that a majority of individuals would probably not have been able to attend the training of their choice without the voucher program. 6. Resources Needed to Implement the Program: FTEs The Operator Certification Section has 6.0 full time employees (FTEs). The following staff changes occurred during the fiscal year. Robert Besalke accepted a position elsewhere in the Department. His last day with the section was January 20, 2017. The position was filled by Russell Gerling on May 9, 2017. Rabahka Murphy, a Senior Office Support Assistant, left the agency during the fiscal year. Her last day was May 26, 2017. This administrative position is being evaluated to determine if it will be filled. Working Relationships Operator Certification staff work closely throughout the year with the Department’s regional offices, central office staff, trainers (both Departmental and non‐Departmental), and circuit riders. State‐wide there are 10 Water Specialists (WSs) with two located in each region. Each region typically assigns one of their WSs with wastewater and one with drinking water duties. The Operator Certification Section reviews annual training plans from the Department’s WSs. The annual training

13

plan from each WS is then combined into one document. The Operator Certification Section then shares the resulting spreadsheet with non‐Department trainers in an effort to reduce training date/location conflicts, and demonstrate areas in the state that may be in need of training. Circuit Rider The Department has a contract with the Missouri Rural Water Association (MRWA) to provide a variety of assistance to public drinking water systems. The contract was procured through a competitive bid process through Missouri’s Office of Administration. The contract includes assistance related to helping existing certified operators and systems that did not have a properly certified operator. The circuit riders assist systems in updating systems’ contact information, explaining the importance of having a certified operator, encouraging them to train or hire a certified operator, and offering information on upcoming training courses. Data Management Data management is absolutely critical to the success and day‐to‐day duties of the Operator Certification Section. The OpCert database tracks examinations, renewals, training courses, training hours, and issuing certificates. Examinations are scored and managed using LXR Test software. This specialized exam software is used to manage exam question banks, validation data, develop exams, provide statistical analysis of question performance, and is necessary to grade exams. A wide variety of information has been made available to the public on the Department’s web site. These online resources allow certified operators to track their training hours, update contact information, and renew certificates online. It also makes it possible for systems to search for certified operators in their area and verify that someone is certified. 7. Recertification Individuals may lose their certificates by either failing to meet renewal criteria or from a revocation action. Following is a breakdown of the recertification requirements for these two categories. Failure to Renew Certificates that are not renewed within the two months following the expiration date are considered lapsed. Expired certificates are not valid. Any operator with a lapsed certificate must submit a new application and reexamine. The applicant must meet all current experience and education requirements. Revocation Revocation is not necessarily the end of an operator’s career. Once an operator’s certificate(s) are revoked, the regulations allow the individual to become re‐certified by going through the examination process. Applications for examination to become certified may not be filed until one (1) year has elapsed following the date of revocation. Acceptance of any application for examination is at the Department’s discretion.

14

8. Stakeholder Involvement: Ongoing stakeholder involvement occurs with operators, technical assistance providers, utility managers, trainers, system administrators, and the general public. Staff sought input during the fiscal year from stakeholders at the following events, meetings, and conferences through open discussion and comments.

August 30 – September 1, 2016, presentation and participation in the Drinking Water Regional Office/Central Office coordination workshop.

A number of routine workshops were hosted with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) for both drinking water treatment and drinking water distribution to review exam questions for validation purposes. Industry representatives from a variety of sizes and types of water systems serve as SMEs. Workshops were held in July, September, and October of 2016 and February, April, and May of 2017.

Jan. 25, 2017, Darlene Helmig presented and participated in a Department hosted workgroup discussion with industry representatives to discuss Operator Certification workforce issues.

March 10, 2017, OpCert staff participated in a training brainstorming session with the Missouri Rural Water Association in their office in Ashland.

March 15 and 16, 2017, Darlene Helmig presented at the Missouri Public Utility Alliance’s Spring Tech Days program for water and wastewater operators in Rolla and Fulton.

May 17, 2017, Operator Certification staff and regional office Water Specialists held an annual coordination meeting.

9. Program Review: MoGEM A Department database project called Missouri Gateway for Environmental Management (MoGEM) is underway and will connect master data from independent databases from a variety of programs within the agency. Connecting databases will allow the agency to determine those entities that have overlapping contact, for example, a facility that has a discharge permit for a wastewater system and a permit for air emissions. This project will improve data management of regulated entities while providing clean and consistent master data pertaining to these entities. On August 18, 2016, staff from the Operator Certification Section attended an initial MoGEM onboarding meeting. This was a kickoff meeting to begin the process of reviewing the OpCert data for readiness to onboard into MoGEM. Over the next few months, OpCert data was analyzed and profiled for a variety of benchmarks to determine the quality of data and its readiness to proceed with onboarding. The review and analysis was conducted by IT staff and a third party contractor. Data analysis results showed that the OpCert data was very consistent and of high quality. For example, no invalid data fields were found for the 5,806 active records, meaning that each record had all of the required mandatory fields (address, city, state, etc.). The review found four pairs of

15

records that appeared to be duplicates based on the name and address combinations, however upon review, all eight records were unique and found to be father/son relationships using the same mailing address. Very few, less than 50, manual changes were necessary as a result of the analysis. Some apostrophes, commas and dashes were removed from addresses to meet new Department data standards. The standards will allow better matching of data in MoGEM from different databases if data is more standardized. On‐boarding of the OpCert data is anticipated in the next fiscal year. Overall, the data analysis provided a very detailed review of a number of data components which was beneficial for the OpCert program and helps to ensure data conforms to standards and continues to be high quality. 10. Implementation Schedule Update: The Operator Certification Section looks forward to the coming fiscal year. In addition to core work duties, the following work items are also anticipated. Training Plans Water Specialists submit their annual training plans to the Operator Certification Section. These plans are reviewed and when final are sent to trainers outside the agency for them to consider. The intended outcome is for trainers to more easily plan training topics, locations and dates to better cover the state‐wide needs of operators. Partnering with the Missouri Department of Corrections The Department is partnering with the Missouri Department of Corrections to host a wastewater treatment multi‐day pre‐certification training course in an institution in the coming fiscal year. This may expand into a similar drinking water distribution course being offered. Water & Wastewater Digest The Operator Certification Section will continue to compile articles of interest for operators and send out a quarterly newsletter to all certified operators and others who’ve indicated interest in receiving the publication. Red Tape Review On January 10, 2017, Governor Greitens signed Executive Order 17‐03. This Executive Order requires executive agencies to review every regulation under its jurisdiction in the Code of State Regulation, solicit input from the public, submit a report to the Governor’s Office by May 31, 2018, and take action to rescind or amend those regulations the agency has identified as needing action. The goals of the Executive Order review process are to cut red tape, encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, and job growth, and remove needless, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations to fulfill those goals, the Department will aim to reduce regulatory restrictions by one‐third.

16

Conclusion Fiscal year 2017 was productive and successful for Missouri’s Operator Certification Program. The work that certified operators do each day is critical to the protection of public health. The state’s operator certification program fulfills a valuable role of issuing certificates of competency to operators possessing necessary knowledge, skill, and ability. Operator Certification staff strive to approach their responsibilities regarding examination, certification, and renewal activities with consistency and thoroughness and thereby contribute to the overall professionalism of the certificates.





Backflow Prevention Update

Background: Previously, the American Society of Sanitary Engineering (ASSE), requested the Commission amend the Safe Drinking Water Rules, Chapter 11—Backflow Prevention, to allow the installation of ASSE approved assemblies. This presentation will provide an update on the status of the Department’s review of this regulation. Recommended Action: Information only Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation Presented by: Brandon Bach, Environmental Engineer, Permits & Engineering Section

Backflow Prevention Rule Update

Brandon Bach Public Drinking Water Branch

Background • At the April 6, 2016 SDWC meeting representatives from

the American Society of Sanitary Engineering (ASSE) asked the commission to consider two rule changes: – Allow assemblies approved by ASSE to be installed in addition to

assemblies approved by University of South California’s Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research (USC).

– Mandate individuals who repair the assemblies to be certified as backflow prevention assembly repairers.

• No statutory authority. RSMo 640.100.3 says commission shall promulgate rules for backflow prevention assembly testers.

• The commission asked the branch to look into the proposals. – Presented findings at the July 2016 commission meeting.

Current Regulations • Assemblies installed in Missouri must be

approved by USC. • Current list has ~3,800 assemblies listed

from 13 manufacturers.

Neighboring States • Arkansas

– ANSI/AWWA or ASSE or CSA

• Illinois – ASSE or CSA or USC or

ANSI or NSF

• Iowa – USC or ASSE

• Kansas – As determined by PWS

• Kentucky – ASSE or USC or CSA

• Nebraska – USC or ANSI or UL or NSF

or IAPMO

• Oklahoma – Within state plumbing code

• Tennessee – USC

AWWA- American Water Works Association CSA- Canadian Standards Association ANSI- American National Standards Institute NSF- National Sanitation Foundation IAPMO- International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials

10 States Standards Members • Indiana

– USC or ASSE or CSA • Michigan

– ASSE or CSA • Minnesota

– ASSE • New York

– USC

• Ohio – ASSE or USC or CSA

• Pennsylvania – As determined by PWS

• Wisconsin – ASSE or CSA

• Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri are also members

*10 States Standards is what our community design guide is modeled after

Testing Methodology • USC and ASSE both do laboratory tests.

– Largely the same – USC tests in their own lab. ASSE has approved

labs around the country. • USC requires assemblies pass a 12 month

field test. • ASSE field test is optional.

– Similar to USC field test

Red Tape Reduction • Entire chapter to be evaluated to determine

if any changes are necessary. • We will consider any public comment

received in determining what changes are appropriate.

Items Being Considered for Revision • Update the rule to allow ASSE approved assemblies. • Remove 10 CSR 60-11.010(4)(A)

– Requires the department to maintain a list of all approved assemblies. – Will instead have a link to each organization’s website to view list of

approved assemblies. – Can still put together a list if someone asks but if a second certifying

organization is added the list would need to be updated too often to keep up.

• Remove 10 CSR 60-11.030(4)(D) – Granted a 120 license extension to an any tester who failed the

certification requirements within 3 years of the effective date of the rule. – Provision stopped being applicable in 2000. Can remove for clarity.

Next Steps • Complete Red Tape Review of the

backflow prevention rules. • Obtain approval pursuant to Executive

Order 17-03 process to begin rulemaking.

Questions?





Annual Compliance Report

Background: The Public Drinking Water Branch is required by Section 1414(c)(3) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 to complete an annual compliance report. The report contains violation data for the previous calendar year and is due to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by July 1st. Once final, this report will be made available to the general public on Missouri Department of Natural Resources website at http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/fyreports/index.html. Recommended Action: Information only. List of Attachments: PowerPoint presentation 2016 Annual Compliance Report Presented by: Todd Eichholz, Chief, Monitoring Section

Overview of Annual Compliance Report

Todd Eichholz Monitoring Section, Chief [email protected] (573) 751-4090

mailto:[email protected]

The Public Drinking Water Branch is required by Section 1414(c)(3) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 to complete an annual compliance report. The report contains violation data for the previous calendar year and is due to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by July 1st. Each state must submit to the EPA Administrator an annual report of violations and to make the annual report available to the general public on the web.

* Due July 1st to EPA * Previous calendar year’s violation history * Data is queried from SDWIS * 2011 web-based only

EPA summarizes and evaluates the annual state reports in an annual national report, which must also make recommendations concerning the resources needed to improve compliance with SDWA. The annual compliance report differs from the Consumer Confidence Report in that the CCR is a report produced by the water system for its customers. The annual compliance report is produced by the state (primacy agency) for EPA.

Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)

Drinking Water Watch

https://dnr.mo.gov/DWW/

ACRs on the web • http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/fyreports/index.

html

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/fyreports/index.html

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/fyreports/index.html

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORTOF MISSOURI PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS

2016Hoot Owl Point Subdivision Water Treatment Plant

Table of ContentsReport Summary from the Branch Chief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2What is a Public Water System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3The Missouri Public Water System Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Analysis of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Consumer Confidence Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Compliance Activities: Preserving the Quality of Drinking Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Summary of Violations Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Organic Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Disinfection Byproducts Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Inorganic Contaminants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Radiologicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Surface Water Treatment Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Microbiologicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Lead and Copper Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Public Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Ground Water Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Appendix A: Health Based Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 I. Total Coliform Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

A. Acute MCL Violations and Boil Order Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 B. Non-Acute MCL Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

II. Revised Total Coliform Rule - Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Count . . . 17 III. Chemical MCL Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 IV. Radiological MCL Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 V. Surface Water Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Appendix B: Chronic Major Monitoring Violators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Appendix C: Major Repeat Monitoring Violators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1

Report Summary from the Branch ChiefMissouri is blessed with an abundance of high-quality water supplied by its many underground aquifers and major river networks. These sources provide Missourians with water not only for drinking but for a myriad of household, agricultural, industrial and other purposes. It is critical that water provided to the public be safe and abundant.

In Missouri, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Public Drinking Water Branch has the responsibility for implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act and ensuring that the state’s 2,720 public water systems provide safe drinking water. To do this, the department sets limits and monitors for 91 different chemical and microbiological contaminants that could be found in public water supplies. This report provides information on how well Missouri’s public water systems are doing in meeting these standards.

This report is the 21st Annual Compliance Report produced by the department. It contains compliance statistics for Missouri’s public water systems for calendar year 2016. The department prepares this report not only to comply with statutory obligations mandated by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, but also to focus attention and provide an understanding of the importance of quality drinking water to the public. This report is provided to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for inclusion in a national report that summarizes the performance of the nation’s public drinking water systems. The report shows Missouri’s water systems continued to provide safe and reliable drinking water, but also shows there are still remaining challenges to overcome.

In Missouri, the Revised Total Coliform Rule monitoring and implementation requirements generate the most violations. This reflects the relatively high frequency of monitoring (monthly) and the vulnerability of water systems to bacteriological contamination, as well as the fact that it is a rule that applies to every public water system. The Ground Water Rule implementation is closely aligned with the Revised Total Coliform Rule and compliance with it can also be a challenge as Missouri has a large number of very small public water systems that use well water as their source.

A significant number of systems are also experiencing difficulty complying with Disinfection Byproduct (DBP) Rule requirements. More stringent requirements under the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule were phased in based on a system’s population, starting in 2012. The Stage 2 DBP Rule also requires secondary water systems to meet the disinfection byproduct standards and all systems are now required to comply with the rule regardless of population. Since water age can exacerbate disinfection byproduct levels, there can be significant compliance hurdles for some secondary water systems to overcome.

Compliance with the annual Consumer Confidence Report requirements continues to be a challenge. The department assists the community water systems with this workload by hosting the reports on the department’s website, which has dramatically helped reduce the cost to systems of meeting this requirement and has improved compliance.

Implementation of the Long Term 2 Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) has resulted in the need for systems to provide additional treatment. In recently completed second round of source water monitoring for cryptosporidium (crypto) by the 10 largest surface water treatment plants, three additional plants detected crypto at sufficient levels to have to install additional treatment. With the second and final round of source water monitoring complete, seven plants will have to or have already upgraded their treatment to protect against crypto.

And finally, the Lead and Copper Rule continues to receive national attention. The branch continues to put a lot of effort into ensuring system compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule through ongoing monitoring, education and technical assistance. In general, Missouri’s large water systems have lime softening plants that add calcium and produce stable water and our groundwater systems that rely on wells to supply the water draw from aquifers that normally produce very hard water that is not corrosive and is unlikely to leach lead from the distributions system.

Going forward, we know there are still several challenges ahead in getting every system into compliance with all applicable standards. However, we will continue to work with Missouri’s water systems to help them to address their compliance issues so that they can continue to provide Missouri’s citizens with access to safe and reliable drinking water.

I hope you find this report informative and useful.

David J. Lamb, ChiefPublic Drinking Water BranchMissouri Department of Natural Resources

2

A public water system is defined as a system that provides water through piping or other constructed conveyances for human consumption to at least 15 service connections, or serves an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days each year. These are the systems that are the focus of this report.

There are three types of public water systems: 1. Community systems include towns, water districts,

subdivisions, mobile home parks and residential facilities such as nursing homes or prisons.

2. Nontransient noncommunity systems regularly serves at least 25 of the same people during six months per year; schools and factories are

good examples. 3. Transient noncommunity systems serve different

people daily, such as restaurants, resorts and campgrounds. These smaller systems are typically in rural areas where it is not feasible to hook up to a city or water district.

Requirements for construction, operation, monitoring, etc., vary among systems based on their type, size and source of water. Water testing at systems that are not public water systems (for example, homes served by private wells) is facilitated by local and countysanitarians and the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, rather than the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

The Missouri Public Water System UniverseIn 2016, there were 2,720 active public water systems in Missouri. Of this total, 1,415 were community, 216 were nontransient noncommunity, and 1,089 were transient noncommunity systems.

The community water systems in Missouri served more than 5 million citizens in 2016. These citizens benefit from one of Missouri’s most outstanding resources: its water. There is generally a large quantity of high-quality water in Missouri.

By far the largest source of drinking water for Missourians is surface water from the Missouri River. The abundant supply of water in the Missouri River and its proximity to the state’s major population centers make the use of this river as a source so popular.

Groundwater is the next most used source of drinking water for Missouri’s community supplies. In southern Missouri, good quality groundwater is easy to obtain and typically requires very little treatment to be used for drinking water. Some groundwater systems have the best of both worlds and use alluvial wells in valleys of the Missouri and Mississippi river systems where they can get large volumes of water free of surface contaminants. Wells in the Missouri River alluvium provide groundwater to a significant population. More than half the state’s population gets their drinking water from the Missouri River or its alluvial wells. The importance of this resource cannot be overstated.

What is a Public Water System?

3

Missouri River:48%

Mississippi River:1%

Other SW Systems:18%

Groundwater:33%

Source of Water (Percent of Population Served by Public Water Systems)

*Population served by aullvial wells are included in the groundwater percentage

Community: 141552%

Transient Noncommunity:

108940%

Nontransient Noncommunity:

2168%

Public Water Systems by Type

Analysis of Compliance Missouri expects a lot from its public water systems and requires testing for 91 different regulated chemicals and microbiological contaminants on a regular schedule. A system is to be applauded for performing all required testing and meeting all Maximum Contaminant Level (MCLs), and treatment technique standards. When violations do occur, that often is the first identification of a problem and can be the first step toward correcting it. Many public water systems perform testing beyond what is required by the state.

The Summary of Violations table in this report counts individual violations. Each public water system has the potential to accumulate multiple violations during the year because there are multiple regulations involved and some monitoring is on a monthly schedule. For example, the monitoring requirements for the Total Coliform Rule alone create a potential for more than 30,000 violations. This puts some perspective on the violation figures shown in the Summary of Violations table and the information in the appendices. Another factor to consider is the number of systems that have violations. Many of the violations are from water systems with problems that result in multiple violations during the year. Other systems may only have one or two violations.

Appendices A through C list specific systems by county. The department uses various methods to focus on the water systems that need attention. The department used a process for many years developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify significant noncompliers. State regulators were critical of this process because it weighted monitoring and reporting violations as much as health-based violations. As a result, EPA developed a new enforcement response policy that focuses on health-based violations. This new policy includes an enforcement targeting tool that tracks systems with the highest levels of noncompliance. The new policy and tool identify priority systems for enforcement response, define timely and appropriate enforcement responses and clarify what constitutes a formal action.

MCL and treatment technique violations represent the most significant impact on public health. These occurred at a small number of public water systems serving approximately 5.3 percent of the population. Since 1996, when the first Annual Compliance Report was produced, through 2003, Missouri has consistently met or exceeded EPA’s target of serving water that meets all health-based standards to 95 percent of the population. Again in 2006, Missouri community water systems met EPA’s target. The small dip below the 95 percent target in 2004 and 2005 did not represent a reduction in water quality, but is a result of more stringent drinking water standards. In 2007, this compliance measure dropped significantly because Missouri’s largest water system had a treatment technique violation. The same phenomenon happened again in 2010. Even though these events were of short duration, the entire population had to be counted in this statistic. For more information on this item, refer to the 2008 Annual Compliance Report.

EPA and the states have worked together to develop an additional compliance measure called “person-months during which community water systems provide water that meets health-based standards.” This measure is intended to take into account situations where violations are of short duration. Missouri achieved 95.31 percent compliance with this measure in 2016. The national target for federal fiscal year 2016 was 95 percent.

The majority of MCL and monitoring violations in 2016 were for failure to meet the requirements of

4

the Total Coliform Rule and the Revised Total Coliform Rule. Total coliform bacteria serve as an indicator that disease-causing organisms may be present. All public water systems in the state must test for this type of bacteria every month they dispense water to the public. Monitoring violations are by far the most common violation for this rule. The department is particularly concerned when monitoring violations occur at public water systems that have a history of bacteriological contamination. Adequate testing is the only way to know for sure if the problems have been corrected or have reoccurred.

In 2016, 17 public water systems, 0.7 percent, had acute violations for E. coli.

Another way to look at the number of acute MCL violations is to compare the number that actually occurred to the number possible. Since bacteriological testing is required monthly, the 2,720 water systems had more than 30,000 chances to get an E. coli MCL violation. The 19 that actually occurred represent less than 1 percent of the number possible. While these acute violations can be serious, they are rare.

Consumer Confidence ReportsSome people may be more vulnerable to waterborne illness than the general population. To educate the public on this issue, community water systems include a warning in their annual Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR) stating that some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as those with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, people who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections.

CCRs provide detailed information for individual community water systems, while this report does not. Community water systems must distribute the CCR annually to water customers detailing specific information about their water system. This includes information about the source(s) and the levels of contaminants in the drinking water. Usually, these contaminants pose no health threat or are below the MCL and are not violations. The CCR must list violations of state and federal requirements for the calendar year. The department prepares a draft CCR for water systems to review and utilize and posts this on its server at dnr.mo.gov/ccr/index.html along with additional information regarding CCRs. The department also hosts the final CCR version and

5

http://dnr.mo.gov/ccr/index.html

provides a unique URL web address for water customers to access the report for each system. As a result of these efforts, CCR compliance rates increased over the previous year. In 2016, 94.6 percent of Missouri’s community water systems distributed their Consumer Confidence Reports properly.

Anyone can request a copy of their CCR from their public water system or by calling the department’s Public Drinking Water Branch at 800-361-4827 or 573-751-5331.

Compliance Activities: Preserving the Quality of Drinking WaterThe department works closely with violators to return them to compliance in a timely manner. This includes phone contacts, on-site inspections, meetings with owners or operators and technical assistance as needed. For more serious violations, a bilateral compliance agreement between the water system owner and the department may be the tool used to return the system back into compliance. Bilateral compliance agreements are voluntary written agreements negotiated between the system owner and department’s regional office. This process allows the department to determine the improvements the water system needs to make without either party having to endure the time and cost of formal litigation. If a water system owner or operator violates a bilateral compliance agreement or a drinking water law or regulation, the department may take additional enforcement actions, such as issuing an administrative order.

Public Drinking Water Branch staff work in conjunction with other agencies to protect public health. By serving on a committee with staff from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, the two agencies identify ways to support and benefit each other’s activities. One of those areas is enforcement activity against facilities, such as restaurants, that are regulated by both agencies.

The department provides training and technical assistance in an effort to prevent the occurrence of violations. Training is routinely provided to operators and owners of public water systems around the state, primarily concentrating on the basic principles of running a water system, performing the required monitoring and preventing contamination of the system. Technical assistance in the form of phone contacts and on-site visits is also available to help water system operators avoid or correct problems. Staff in the department’s regional and satellite offices carry out most of these activities.

For most violations, public water systems are required to notify the consumers they serve. The department provides all public water systems with the necessary forms and information to effectively notify the public. The method of notification varies by the violation and system type. Systems must report back to the department how the public notice was performed. Some violations, such as the confirmed detection of E. coli, warrant immediate action due to the threat to public health. For such acute violations, the department requires systems to notify customers within 24 hours to boil water before consumption. Boil water orders remain in effect until the problem has been corrected and the water is safe to consume.

For More Information Information about Missouri’s public water systems can be obtained by writing to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Public Drinking Water Branch, PO Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176 or calling 800-361-4827 or 573-751-5331.

Information is also available on the department’s website at dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/dw-index.html.

6

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/dw-index.html

Summary of Violations TableThe following definitions apply to the Summary of Violations table.

Filtered Systems: Water systems that have installed filtration treatment [10 CSR 60-4.050].

Inorganic Contaminants: Non-carbon-based compounds such as metals, nitrates and asbestos. These contaminants are naturally-occurring in some water, but can get into water through farming, chemical manufacturing and other human activities [10 CSR 60-4.030].

Lead and Copper Rule: Lead and copper corrosion pose various health risks when ingested at any level, and can enter drinking water from household pipes and plumbing fixtures [10 CSR 60, Chapter 15]. Violations are reported for: failure to monitor; failure to install optimal corrosion control treatment or a source water treatment system that would reduce lead and copper levels in water at the tap; failure to replace lead service lines on the schedule required by the regulation; and failure to provide required public education about reducing or avoiding lead intake from drinking water.

Organic Contaminants: Carbon-based compounds, such as industrial solvents and pesticides. These contaminants generally get into water through runoff from cropland or discharge from factories [10CSR 60-4.040 and 4.100].

Radionuclides: Radioactive particles that can occur naturally in water or result from human activity. Safe drinking water regulations set MCLs on five types of radionuclides: radium-226, radium-228, uranium, gross alpha and beta particle/photon radioactivity [10 CSR 60-4.060].

Surface Water Treatment Rule: This includes a series of rules promulgated from 1989-2009 that establish criteria under which water systems supplied by surface water sources, or groundwater sources under the direct influence of surface water, must filter and disinfect their water (Surface Water Treatment Rule, Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule) [10 CSR 60-4.050 and 60-4.052].

Violations of the surface water treatment rules are reported for the following categories:• Monitoring, routine/repeat (for filtered systems): Failure to carry out required tests or to report the

results of those tests. A major monitoring violation for the surface water treatment rule occurs when at least 90 percent of the required samples are not taken or results are not reported during the compliance period.

• Treatment techniques (for filtered systems): Failure to properly treat the water.• Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR): The TCR and RTCR, establishes

regulations for microbiological contaminants in drinking water. These contaminants can cause a short-term health problem. If no samples are collected during the one-month compliance period, a major monitoring violation occurs. States report four categories of violations to EPA:1. Acute MCL violation: A violation where the system found E. coli, potentially harmful bacteria, in its

water.2. Non-acute MCL violation: A violation where the system found total coliform in samples of its water

at a frequency or at a level that violates the rule. For systems collecting fewer than 40 samples per month, more than one positive sample for total coliform is a violation. For systems collecting 40 or more samples per month, more than five percent of the samples positive for total coliform is a violation.

3. Major routine and follow-up monitoring: A violation where a system did not perform any moni-toring.

4. Sanitary Survey: A major monitoring violation if a system fails to collect five routine monthly samples if sanitary survey is not performed.

Maximum Contaminant Level: The highest amount of a contaminant allowed in drinking water. MCLs ensure drinking water does not pose a health risk. MCLs are defined in milligrams per liter (parts per million) unless otherwise specified.

7

Monitoring: The department specifies which water testing methods the water systems must use and sets schedules for the frequency of testing. A water system that does not follow the department’s schedule or meth-odology is in violation [10 CSR 60-4.010]. States must report monitoring violations that are significant as de-termined by the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the department. For purposes of this report, significant monitoring violations are major violations and they occur when no samples are taken or no results are reported during a compliance period.

Ground Water Rule: Applies to public water systems that serve groundwater. It ensures monitoring of ground-water sources for E. coli contamination, and relies on four strategies to address this risk: periodic sanitary sur-veys, triggered source water monitoring in the case of a positive sample, corrective action for a system found to have a significant deficiency or source water E. coli contamination, and compliance monitoring to ensure the treatment technology is reliable.

Treatment Techniques: A water disinfection process that EPA requires instead of a MCL for contaminants that laboratories cannot adequately measure. Failure to meet other operational and system requirements under the Surface Water Treatment and the Lead and Copper Rules have also been included in this category of violation for purposes of this report.

Violation: A failure to meet any state or federal drinking water regulation.

8

9

Organic Contaminants: Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016

MCL Treatment Technique Significant M i i /R i

MCL1 (mg/L)

No. of Violations

No. of Systems with Violations

No. of Violations


No. of Violations


Organic Contaminants *

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 12 12

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.005 12 12

1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007 12 12

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.07 12 12

1,2-DBCP 0.0002

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.005 12 12

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 12 12

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 3x10-8

2,4,5-TP 0.05

2,4-D 0.07

Acrylamide

Alachlor 0.002

Aldicarb 0.003

Aldicarb Sulfone 0.002

Aldicarb Sufoxide 0.004

Atrazine 0.003

Benzene 0.005 12 12

Benzo[a]pyrene 0.0002

BHC Gamma 0.0002

Carbofuran 0.04

Carbon tetrachloride 0.005 12 12

Chlorobenzene 0.1 12 12

Chlordane 0.002

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.07 12 12

Dalapon 0.2

Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate 0.4

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.006

Dichloromethane 0.005 12 12

Dinoseb 0.007

Diquat 0.02

Endothall 0.1

Endrin 0.002

Epichlorohydrin

Ethylbenzene 0.7 12 12

Ethylene dibromide 0.00005

Glyphosate 0.7

Heptachlor 0.0004 1 Values are in milligrams per liter (mg/L), unless otherwise specified.

*Shaded areas indicate a violation is not applicable in this category.

Organic Contaminants: Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016

MCL Treatment Technique Significant Monitoring/Reporting

MCL1

(mg/L) No. of

Violations No. of Systems with Violations

No. of Violations


No. of Violations


Heptachlor epoxide 0.0002

Hexachlorobenzene 0.05

Hexachlorobenzene 0.001

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05

Lasso 0.05

Lindane 0.0002

Methoxychlor 0.04

Monochlorobenzene 0.1

o-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 12 12

Oxamyl (Vydate) 0.2 12 12

Para-Dichlorobenzene 0.075

Pentachlorophenol 0.001

Picloram 0.5

Simazine 0.004

Styrene 0.1 12 12

Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 12 12

Toluene 1 12 12

Total PCB 0.0005

Toxaphene 0.003

Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.1 12 12

Trichloroethylene 0.005 12 12

Vinyl chloride 0.002 12 12

Xylenes (total) 10 12 12 1 Values are in milligrams per liter (mg/L), unless otherwise specified

Disinfection Byproducts Rule: Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016

MCL Treatment Techniques Significant Monitoring/Reporting

MCL

No. of Violations

No. of Systems with Violation

No. of Violations


No. of Violations


Total trihalomethanes 0.80 163 71 15 14

Haloacetic acids 0.60 13 7 15 14

Disinfection byproducts 176 72 0 0 15 14

Total Organic Compounds 0 0

Insufficient or Non-certified Operator 0 0

10

Inorganic Contaminants: Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016


MCL (mg/L)

No. of Violations

No. of Systems

with Violations No. of


No. of Violations

No. of Systems

with Violations

Inorganic Contaminants

Antimony 0.006 8 8

Arsenic 0.010 1 1 8 8

Asbestos 7 million fibers/L Barium 2 8 8

Beryllium 0.004 8 8

Cadmium 0.005 8 8

Chromium 0.1 8 8

Cyanide (as free cyanide) 0.2 2 2

Fluoride 4.0 4 1 8 8

Mercury 0.002 8 8

Nitrate 10 (as nitrogen) 37 36

Nitrite 1 (as nitrogen) Selenium 0.05 8 8

Thallium 0.002 3 1

8 8

Total nitrate and nitrite 10 (as nitrogen) 0 0

Radiological Contaminants: Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016 MCL Treatment Technique Significant Monitoring/Reporting

MCL1

(pCi/L) No. of


No. of Violations


No. of Violations


Radiological Contaminants

Gross Alpha 15pCi/L 15 7 8 5

Radium-226 and radium-228 5 pCi/L 26 8 8 5

Gross beta 4 mrem/yr Subtotal 41 10 16 5

Surface Water Treatment Rule: Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016


MCL No. of Violations


No. of Violations


Number of Violations


Surface Water Treatment

Filtered systems Monitoring, routine/repeat 3 2

Treatment techniques 19 5

Unfiltered systems Monitoring, routine/repeat Failure to filter Subtotal 19 5 3 2

11

Microbiological Contaminants: Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016 MCL Treatment Technique Significant Monitoring/Reporting

MCL Presence/ Absence

No. of Violations






Total Coliform Rule (In effect 1/1/2016-3/31/2016)

Acute MCL violation Presence 4 4 Non-acute MCL violation Presence 47 38 Major routine and follow up

117 97

Sanitary survey 3 Subtotal 4 47 38 117 97

Revised Total Coliform Rule (In effect 4/1/2016-12/31/2016)

Acute MCL violation Presence 15 14 Level 1 Assessment Violation 10 10 Level 2 Assessment Violation

0 0

Treatment Technique, Other 0 0 Major Routine 463 292

Reporting/Notification 2 2

Subtotal 15 14 10 10

465 293 1 Values are in Picocuries per liter (pCi/L), unless otherwise specified. 2 Some systems may have violations in multiple categories. 3 Number of violations for failure to perform sanitary survey under the Total Coliform Rule. 4 All Systems with an acute MCL violation also had a non-acute monthly MCL violation for the same month.

Lead and Copper Rule: Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016


MCL No. of

Violations No. of Systems with Violation

No. of Violations


No. of Violations


Lead and Copper Rule 1

Initial lead and copper tap monitoring and reporting

1 1

Follow-up or routine lead and copper tap monitoring and reporting

14 14

Treatment installation Public education 18 18

Subtotal 33 33 1 Includes any system not up to date on lead and copper monitoring. Not comparable with Annual Compliance Report figures from 2016

12

Public Notification: Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016

MCL Treatment Techniques Significant Monitoring/Reporting

MCL No. of


No. of Violations


No. of Violations


Public Notification 441 232

Consumer Confidence Reports1

76 76

Subtotal 517 259 1 Violations for failure to produce and distribute the 2015 Consumer Confidence Report in 2016

Ground Water Rule: Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016 MCL Treatment Technique Significant Monitoring/Reporting

MCL No. of


No. of Violations


No. of Violations


Groundwater Rule

Failure to treat 10 7

Failure to address contamination 0 0

Failure to address deficiency 24 24

Public Notice 5 2

Sanitary Survey 18 18

Major routine and follow up monitoring 91 56

Subtotal 34 31 114 74

13

14

Appendix A: Health Based Compliance I. Total Coliform Rule A. Acute MCL Violations The following systems were under boil water orders due to acute MCL violations for fecal coliform or E. coli bacteria for the months listed. These acute violations also violate the standard for total coliform bacteria.

County ID# System Name Month(s) Issue Rescind Date Date BENTON MO3048043 DOUBLE M MOBILE COACH RANCH July 7/21/2016 9/6/2016 BENTON MO3048043 DOUBLE M MOBILE COACH RANCH December 12/29/2016 1/3/2017 BENTON MO3242078 HEITS POINT LUTHERAN CAMP SYSTEM 1 January 2/10/2016 3/18/2016 BENTON MO3242078 HEITS POINT LUTHERAN CAMP SYSTEM 1 April 5/6/2016 5/25/2016 BOLLINGER MO4283197 DOLLAR GENERAL 16317 BOLLINGER May 5/18/2016 7/1/2016 CAMDEN MO3218012 HURRICANE DOLLYS June 7/7/2016 7/18/2016 CAMDEN MO5193158 KINGS POINTE July 7/28/2016 9/23/2016 COLE MO3010831 MO AMERICAN - WARDSVILLE May 5/12/2016 5/18/2016 CRAWFORD MO3241036 GARRISONS CAMPGROUND AND CANOE May 5/21/2016 5/27/2016 RENTAL FRANKLIN MO6192601 CEDAR CREEK CONFERENCE CENTER June 6/8/2016 6/15/2016 HICKORY MO5010197 CROSS TIMBERS August 8/19/2016 9/2/2016 JEFFERSON MO6180934 RIVER CEMENT COMPANY August 8/18/2016 9/14/2016 JEFFERSON MO6203139 WOLFFS SOFTBALL HAVEN June 6/18/2015 Ongoing PULASKI MO4031631 RIDGE CREEK WATER COMPANY LLC January 1/21/2016 2/8/2016 ST CHARLES MO6213173 BALDUCCI VINEYARDS August 9/8/2016 9/19/2016 STONE MO5031142 MEADOW HILLS SUBDIVISION October 10/24/2016 11/4/2016 STONE MO5031613 SKYVIEW SUBDIVISION March 4/10/2013 8/8/2016 WASHINGTON MO4283192 21 AUCTION June 6/29/2016 8/29/2016 WEBSTER MO5213087 FRATERNAL ORDER OF BEARS # 27 June 7/13/2015 4/5/2016

Note: If no "Rescind Date", the boil order was still in effect at time of printing.

2016 Boil Water Orders Issued due to acute MCL violations for the Total Coliform Rule and the Surface Water Treatment Rule

0 15 30 60 Miles

Systems with Boil Order

Other Public Water Systems

County

Mo American - Wardsville

Heit's Point Lutheran

Cedar Creek Conference

Ctr.

Balducci Wolff's Softball Camp - System 1 Vineyards Haven

Double M Mobile Coach Ranch

Cross Timbers

Hurricane Dolly's Kings Pointe

River Cement Co.

21 Auction

Ridge Creek Water Co. LLC

Dollar General #16317 - Fraternal Order Garrison's Bollinger

Meadow Hills Subdivision

of Bears #27

Skyview

Subdivision

Campground and Canoe Rental

6/2017

For current boil water orders, check the department's web page at www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/boil/index.html

15

Appendix A: Health Based Compliance I. Total Coliform Rule B. Non-Acute MCL Violations The following systems had two or more samples test positive for total coliform bacteria in the months indicated. The positive samples were then tested for fecal coliform or E. coli and were found to be negative.

County ID# System Name Month(s) BARRY MO5203145 FOX FITNESS 24 January, February MO5212841 FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLE 4155 March BENTON MO3242078 HEITS POINT LUTHERAN CAMP SYSTEM 1 January BOONE MO3036153 KUHLE H20 January CAMDEN MO3212427 LAKE BREEZE TERRACE February CAMDEN MO5293009 THOMSONS COUNTRY STORE January, February CEDAR MO5036164 STOCKTON HILLS WATER CO February MO5282846 AMERICAN VETERANS POST 116 March CHRISTIAN MO5036305 PIPPINVILLE & OAK PARK OWNERS ASSN January, February DOUGLAS MO5171804 MT ZION BIBLE SCHOOL January GASCONADE MO3031167 BLACK FOREST HOA INC NO 2 March GREENE MO5271587 TEMPLE ISRAEL January HICKORY MO5218044 POMME DE TERRES SHADOW LAKE GOLF COURSE January, February HOWELL MO4171176 SOUTH FORK ELEM SCHOOL March JASPER MO5010004 ALBA March MO5180607 DYNO NOBEL January JEFFERSON MO6036042 FICKEN HILL SUBD March LINCOLN MO6240045 CAMP TUCKAHO March MO6273193 CHRIST CENTERED CHURCH March MARIES MO3180610 KINGSFORD MANUFACTURING CO February MILLER MO3212296 TOOTERS SALOON & STEAKHOUSE February MORGAN MO5031482 THE VILLAS OF HARBOUR HILLS January, February, March PULASKI MO3024490 PULASKI CO PWSD 1 January PULASKI MO4031631 RIDGE CREEK WATER COMPANY LLC January, February SCOTT MO4010971 HAYWOOD CITY January MO4031614 NEW HAMBURG - CENTRAL January ST CHARLES MO6282901 CHANDLER HILL VINEYARD February ST CHARLES MO6283166 MONTELLE WINERY January, February STONE MO5010192 CRANE March MO5031613 SKYVIEW SUBDIVISION March STONE MO5043117 WARRENS OAKLAND PARK January TANEY MO5031621 GREEN ACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC January MO5036117 MOORE BEND WATER UTILITY, LLC February MO5242466 TRI LAKES MOOSE LODGE March MO5292575 RAPID ROBERTS 121 March WEBSTER MO5208114 WILD ANIMAL SAFARI INC January, February MO5213087 FRATERNAL ORDER OF BEARS # 27 January MO5258117 EAGLE STOP January

16

Appendix A: Health Based Compliance II. Revised Total Coliform Rule - Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Count Since the transition to the Revised Total Coliform Rule April 1, 2016, the following systems have exceeded the coliform treatment technique trigger - triggering an assessment on more than one occasion in 2016. These assessments are triggered for the following reasons: systems collecting forty (40) or more samples per month exceeding 5.0% total-coliform positive samples for the month, systems collecting fewer than forty (40) samples per month having two (2) or more coliform-positive samples for the month, failing to collect every required repeat sample after any coliform-positive sample, or incurring an E coli MCL violation.

County ID# System Name Assessments BARRY MO5010730 SELIGMAN 2 BENTON MO3048043 DOUBLE M MOBILE COACH RANCH 3 BUTLER MO4024071 BUTLER CO PWSD 2 2 CAMDEN MO5303169 ROANDA BEACH CONDOS 2 CAPE MO4079503 MID AMERICA TEEN CHALLENGE 3 CEDAR MO5172802 AGAPE BOARDING SCHOOL 2 CRAWFORD MO6010200 CUBA 2 DADE MO5245232 EVENING STAR CAMPGROUND 2 DOUGLAS MO5212925 HITCHING POST BAR & GRILL 2 FRANKLIN MO6024211 FRANKLIN CO PWSD 1 2 FRANKLIN MO6036085 SYLVAN MANOR SUBD 2 FRANKLIN MO6192601 CEDAR CREEK CONFERENCE CENTER 2 FRANKLIN MO6241626 CAMP MO VAL CAMP TAMBO 2 GASCONADE MO6010360 HERMANN 2 GREENE MO5010032 ASH GROVE 2 GREENE MO5024231 GREENE CO PWSD 6 2 GREENE MO5258076 BOLTONS GENERAL STORE 2 HICKORY MO5010197 CROSS TIMBERS 2 LINCOLN MO6240045 CAMP TUCKAHO 3 LINCOLN MO6273193 CHRIST CENTERED CHURCH 2 MARIES MO3242408 TURKEY HILL RANCH BIBLE CAMP 2 MILLER MO3010240 ELDON 2 MORGAN MO3031358 MORGAN CO PWSD # 2 3 MORGAN MO5301457 MILLSTONE LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS 2 NEWTON MO5010267 FAIRVIEW 2 NEWTON MO5241734 KOA CAMPGROUND 2 PETTIS MO3036065 SOUTHERN HILLS WATER CO 2 POLK MO5031408 BOLIVAR SOUTHTOWN UTILITIES COMPANY INC 2 POLK MO5036140 PRAIRIE HEIGHTS SUBD 2 PULASKI MO3024491 PULASKI CO PWSD 2 2 ST CHARLES MO6073165 WENTZVILLE VFW POST #5327 2 ST CHARLES MO6213173 BALDUCCI VINEYARDS 2 STONE MO5283073 KIMBERLING BOULEVARD 2 TANEY MO5242466 TRI LAKES MOOSE LODGE 3 TANEY MO5243160 BEAVER CREEK CANOE RENTAL, CAMPGROUND 2

17

Appendix A: Health Based Compliance II. Revised Total Coliform Rule - Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment Count Since the transition to the Revised Total Coliform Rule April 1, 2016, the following systems have exceeded the coliform treatment technique trigger - triggering an assessment on more than one occasion in 2016. These assessments are triggered for the following reasons: systems collecting forty (40) or more samples per month exceeding 5.0% total-coliform positive samples for the month, systems collecting fewer than forty (40) samples per month having two (2) or more coliform-positive samples for the month, failing to collect every required repeat sample after any coliform-positive sample, or incurring an E coli MCL violation.

County ID# System Name Assessments TANEY MO5273121 LIFE CHRISTIAN CENTER 2 TANEY MO5292355 WHITE OAK STATION # 21 2 WARREN MO6010505 MARTHASVILLE 2 WASHINGTON MO4201034 FOURCHE VALLEY GOLF CLUB 2 WASHINGTON MO6010659 POTOSI 4 WEBSTER MO5010734 SEYMOUR 2

18

Appendix A: Health Based Compliance III. Chemical MCL Violations

County ID# System Name Chemical ANDREW MO1010277 FILLMORE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1010757 ROSENDALE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1024006 ANDREW CO PWSD 3 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1024007 ANDREW CO PWSD 4 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) BARTON MO5010446 LAMAR TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) BATES MO1010698 ROCKVILLE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1021160 BATES CO PWSD 7 TOTAL HALOACETIC ACIDS (HAA5) MO1021160 BATES CO PWSD 7 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1024034 BATES CO PWSD 5 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1024035 BATES CO PWSD 6 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) BUTLER MO4010656 POPLAR BLUFF TOTAL HALOACETIC ACIDS (HAA5) MO4010656 POPLAR BLUFF TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) CALDWELL MO1024078 CALDWELL CO PWSD 1 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1024079 CALDWELL CO PWSD 2 TOTAL HALOACETIC ACIDS (HAA5) MO1024079 CALDWELL CO PWSD 2 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) CARROLL MO2010215 DEWITT TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) CASS MO1010024 ARCHIE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1010301 GARDEN CITY TOTAL HALOACETIC ACIDS (HAA5) MO1010301 GARDEN CITY TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1010261 EXCELSIOR SPRINGS TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1010546 MOSBY TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1010748 SMITHVILLE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1024143 CLAY CO PWSD 3 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) CLINTON MO1010131 CAMERON TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1024155 CLINTON CO PWSD 3 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) COOPER MO3010075 BLACKWATER TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO3010089 BOONVILLE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO3024170 COOPER CO CONS PWSD # 1 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) DAVIESS MO1010179 COFFEY TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1010405 JAMESON TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1021080 DAVIESS CO PWSD 2 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) DEKALB MO1010510 MAYSVILLE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) DUNKLIN MO4010379 HORNERSVILLE ARSENIC GENTRY MO1024223 GENTRY CO PWSD 1 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) GRUNDY MO2010452 LAREDO TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) HARRISON MO1024241 HARRISON CO PWSD 1 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) HENRY MO1010076 BLAIRSTOWN TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM)

19

Appendix A: Health Based Compliance III. Chemical MCL Violations

County ID# System Name Chemical HENRY MO1010123 CALHOUN TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1021117 HENRY CO PWSD 3 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1021175 HENRY CO PWSD 4 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1024247 HARRY S TRUMAN PWSD 2 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) HOLT MO1021304 HOLT CO PWSD 1 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) HOWARD MO2010271 FAYETTE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO2010566 NEW FRANKLIN TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) IRON MO4010402 IRONTON TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) JACKSON MO1010921 UNITY VILLAGE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) JOHNSON MO1010371 HOLDEN TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) LACLEDE MO5010458 LEBANON THALLIUM, TOTAL LAFAYETTE MO1010839 WAVERLY TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1024326 LAF/JO/SALINE CO CONS PWSD 2 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) LEWIS MO2010440 LAGRANGE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) LINCOLN MO6031217 TIMBER RIDGE ESTATES FLUORIDE LINN MO2010472 LINNEUS TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MADISON MO4010290 FREDERICKTOWN TOTAL HALOACETIC ACIDS (HAA5) MO4010290 FREDERICKTOWN TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MERCER MO2010515 MERCER TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) NODAWAY MO1010173 CLEARMONT TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) PERRY MO4024456 PERRY CO PWSD 2 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) PETTIS MO3021332 PETTIS/JOHNSON/SALINE PWSD 1 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) PIKE MO2010479 LOUISIANA TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) PLATTE MO1010851 WESTON TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1024477 PLATTE CO PWSD 3 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO1024482 PLATTE CO PWSD 8 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) PUTNAM MO2010804 UNIONVILLE TOTAL HALOACETIC ACIDS (HAA5) MO2024495 PUTNAM CO PWSD 1 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO2036165 LAKE THUNDERHEAD TOTAL HALOACETIC ACIDS (HAA5) MO2036165 LAKE THUNDERHEAD TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) RANDOLPH MO2010362 HIGBEE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO2010533 MOBERLY TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) RAY MO1010454 LAWSON TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) SALINE MO2010491 MALTA BEND TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO2010502 MARSHALL TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO2010520 MIAMI TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO2010559 NELSON TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM)

20

Appendix A: Health Based Compliance III. Chemical MCL Violations (continued)

County ID# System Name Chemical SALINE MO2010780 SWEET SPRINGS TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO2024555 SALINE CO PWSD 1 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO2024556 SALINE CO PWSD 2 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) MO2024557 SALINE CO PWSD 3 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) SHELBY MO2010165 CLARENCE TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) ST CLAIR MO5010020 APPLETON CITY TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) WORTH MO1010739 SHERIDAN TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE (TTHM) IV. Radiological MCL Violations

County ID# System Name Chemical BARRY MO5010968 CHAIN O LAKES VILLAGE GROSS ALPHA, EXCL. RADON & U IRON MO4010017 ANNAPOLIS GROSS ALPHA, EXCL. RADON & U COMBINED RADIUM (-226 & -228) LINCOLN MO6010902 SILEX COMBINED RADIUM (-226 & -228) MCDONALD MO5010449 LANAGAN GROSS ALPHA, EXCL. RADON & U COMBINED RADIUM (-226 & -228) OZARK MO5024444 OZARK CO PWSD 1 GROSS ALPHA, EXCL. RADON & U COMBINED RADIUM (-226 & -228) PERRY MO4024455 PERRY CO PWSD 1 GROSS ALPHA, EXCL. RADON & U COMBINED RADIUM (-226 & -228) ST FRANCOIS MO4010087 BONNE TERRE COMBINED RADIUM (-226 & -228) MO4010456 LEADWOOD GROSS ALPHA, EXCL. RADON & U COMBINED RADIUM (-226 & -228) MO4036059 TERRE DU LAC COMBINED RADIUM (-226 & -228) TANEY MO5301550 BRIARWOOD & REDBUD SHORES GROSS ALPHA, EXCL. RADON & U WATER ASSOC V. Surface Water Violations

The following systems violated the Surface Water Rule, Treatment Technique for Turbidity or other surface water requirements in the months or annual period indicated.

County ID# System Name Period Violation BUTLER MO4010656 POPLAR BLUFF January-December Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity COOPER MO3010089 BOONVILLE October Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity DEKALB MO1010510 MAYSVILLE February, June, August Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity MADISON MO4010290 FREDERICKTOWN October-December Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity MARION MO2010344 HANNIBAL May, October, November Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity MONROE MO2010538 MONROE CITY February, March, June-August Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity PIKE MO2010479 LOUISIANA October, November Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity

21

APPENDIX B Chronic Major Monitoring The following systems had three or more major monitoring violations of the Total Coliform Rule or the Revised Total Coliform Rule in 2016.

County System Name PWS ID # Months ANDREW AMAZONIA MO1010013 March, June, July,August BUNGALOW TRAILER PARK MO1049097 April, May, June BARRY FOX FITNESS 24 MO5203145 April, June, July, August, September October, November NONNAS NUMMIES MO5213150 January, April, August, December BENTON AMERICAN LEGION POST 217 MO3281109 January, March, April, June, July, August HIDDEN VALLEY MHP MO3262156 January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December T T CAMPGROUND MO1242804 January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December BUTLER STOP & GO MO4292680 February, March, June, August CAMDEN CAMDEN CO PWSD 1 MO3024090 June, October, December NIANGUA FALLS MO3218236 April, May, July, August, September, October OSAGE VILLAGE INN MO3191738 January, June, July, September October, December RED FOX BAR & GRILL MO3212446 January, May, June Y ROAD GENERAL STORE MO3258017 February, July, September CAPE GIRARDEAU CLASS ACT FAMILY FITNESS MO4283006 January, February, March, April, May June, July, August, September DADE EVENING STAR CAMPGROUND MO5245232 June, July, August, September DENT LUMBERYARD FAMILY RESTAURANT MO4213054 May, June, July JEFFERSON PRO STOP MO6292691 March, August, October LAWRENCE HUNGRY HOUSE CAFE MO5212682 February, September, November LINCOLN OLNEY TAVERN MO6210657 February, April, May MCDONALD LEGENDS RESTAURANT AND BAR MO5211235 January, March, May, November MILLER BIKINI BAY MO5213069 July, August, September CALVARY CHAPEL LAKE OF THE OZARKS MO5273082 January, June, November, December CAMP BAGNELL MO3241749 April, May, June, July MONTGOMERY DANVILLE SINCLAIR MO3291410 August, November, December NEWTON C MART MO5292823 June, August, December PERRY BILLS PLACE MO4218555 April, July, September, October PETTIS CAMP BRANCH BAPTIST CHURCH MO1272873 January, April, November CRESTVIEW MHP MO3048254 February, March, April, May, June, July August, September, October, November, December PHELPS WOODCREST MHP MO3048127 January, August, September, October POLK PLANTATION ESTATES MO5030019 January, February, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, PULASKI RIDGE CREEK WATER COMPANY LLC MO4031631 April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December ST CHARLES CHANDLER HILL VINEYARD MO6282901 March, September, October, November ST CLAIR SCOTTS ICONIUM STORE MO5258124 April, July, September STONE CROSS ROADS STORE MO5292589 January, February, March, April, May June, July, August, September, October SKYVIEW SUBDIVISION MO5031613 January, February, April, May, June WASHINGTON ROGUE CREEK UTILITIES MO4036318 January, February, July, October WEBSTER EAGLE STOP MO5258117 February, June, December XP0 LOGISTICS MO5182621 February, May, November

22

Violations

Appendix C Major Repeat Monitoring Violations The following systems had major repeat monitoring violations for the months listed. A major repeat monitoring violation occurs when a routine sample tests positive for total coliform bacteria and that system fails to submit any follow-up, or repeat, samples as required.

County ID# System Name Month(s) CAMDEN MO3190694 EL KAY LAKE VIEW MOTEL January MO3212427 LAKE BREEZE TERRACE January HICKORY MO5293126 ALPS GROCERY PITTSBURG February PHELPS MO3048127 WOODCREST MHP January ST CHARLES MO6282901 CHANDLER HILL VINEYARD March TANEY MO5242466 TRI LAKES MOOSE LODGE January

23

PO Box 176Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176

800-361-4827dnr.mo.gov

PUB2662

http://dnr.mo.gov





Regulatory Update

Issue: The department will provide a routine update to the commission on the status of rules under development. Recommended Action: For Information Only Presented by: Sheri Fry, Planner, Public Drinking Water Branch





Attorney General’s Office Legal Update

Issue: Routine update to the Commission regarding legal issues, appeals, etc. Recommended Action: Information only Presented by: Jennifer Hernandez, Missouri Assistant Attorney General





Branch Chief’s Update

Issue: Routine update to the Commission regarding Public Drinking Water Branch Activities Recommended Action: Information only Presented by: David J. Lamb, Chief, Public Drinking Water Branch





Other Business

Issue: Routine agenda item provides the Commission the opportunity to discuss last minute or minor issues arising after the agenda has been finalized.





Public Comment and Correspondence

Issue: Routine agenda item provides an opportunity for the public to comment on any issues pertinent to the Commission’s roles and responsibilities.





Future Meeting Dates

Information: Meeting Dates


Date Time Location Tuesday, January 16, 2018 10:00 A.M. Nightingale Creek Conference Room

1101 Riverside Drive Jefferson City, MO 65101

Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:00 A.M. Nightingale Creek Conference Room 1101 Riverside Drive Jefferson City, MO 65101

Wednesday, July 18, 2018 10:00 A.M. Nightingale Creek Conference Room 1101 Riverside Drive Jefferson City, MO 65101

Water Protection Program - DNR · Water Protection Program Public Drinking Water Branch October 11,...

Documents

Transcript of Water Protection Program - DNR · Water Protection Program Public Drinking Water Branch October 11,...