&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Consideration of Other Regulatory
Revisions in Support of the Second
Six-Year Review of the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations
-------
Office of Water (4607M)
EPA 815-B-09-008
October 2009
www.epa.gov/safewater
-------
EPA - OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background 1
1.1 Purpose of the Six-Year Review 1
1.2 Purpose of the Review of "Other Regulatory Revisions" 1
2.0 Issues Identified by the EPA/State Workgroup 2
2.1 Change the Monitoring Location for Nitrate/Nitrite 3
Issue Description 3
Potential Resolution(s) Suggested by State Workgroup Members 3
2.2 Reduce the Monitoring Frequency for Ground Water Systems with Historically Low
Levels of Nitrate/Nitrite 4
Issue Description 4
Potential Resolution(s) Suggested by the State Workgroup Members 5
2.3 Revise the Monitoring Requirements for Non-Community Water Systems in Light of
the Potential Health Risks Associated With Chronic Contaminants 5
Issue Description 5
Potential Resolution(s) Suggested by the State Workgroup Members 6
3.0 Other Issues 6
3.1 Public Notification Requirements for Fluoride 6
References 7
Appendices 8
Appendix A: Review of Implementation Issues — State and EPA Offices Participating in
the Workgroup A-l
Appendix B: Second Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations -
Summary of Initial List of 22 Issues Identified by Working Group B-l
Appendix C: Summary of the January 18, 2008 Discussion on the Use of POU/POE
Devices C-l
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AMG
ASDWA
BAT
CCR
CFR
cws
EPA
EPTDS
FR
GWUDI
HAAS
LCR
LT2ESWTR
MCL
MCLG
mg/L
MRL
NAS
NPDWR
NTNCWS
OCCT
OECA
OGC
OGWDW
OPEI
PN
POE
POU
PQL
PWS
SDWA
SMCL
SNC
TCR
Stage 2 DBPR
TNCWS
TSC
TT
Alternative Monitoring Guidelines
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
Best Available Technology
Consumer Confidence Report
Code of Federal Regulations
Community Water System
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Point to the Distribution System
Federal Register
Ground Water under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
Haloacetic Acids
Lead and Copper Rule
Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
Milligrams per Liter
Method Reporting Limit
National Academy of Sciences
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
Non-transient, Non-community Water System
Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of General Counsel
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
Public Notification
Point-of-Entry
Point-of-Use
Practical Quantitation Limit
Public Water System
Safe Drinking Water Act
Secondary Maximum Contaminant
Significant Non-Complier
Total Coliform Rule
Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
Transient Non-Community Water System
Technical Support Center
Treatment Technique
-------
EPA - OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
UIC Underground Injection Control
V&E Variance and Exemption
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
-------
EPA - OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 Purpose of the Six-Year Review
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) must periodically review existing National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs) and, if appropriate, revise them. Section 1412(b)(9) of SDWA states:
The Administrator shall, not less often than every 6years, review and revise, as
appropriate, each national primary drinking water regulation promulgated under
this title. Any revision of a national primary drinking water regulation shall be
promulgated in accordance with this section, except that each revision shall
maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons.
EPA completed and published the results of its first Six-Year Review (Six-Year Review 1) on July
18, 2003 (68 Federal Register [FR] 42908, USEPA, 2003a) after developing a systematic approach, or
protocol, for the review of NPDWRs. EPA has applied the same protocol with some refinements to
the second Six-Year Review of NPDWRs (Six-Year Review 2) (USEPA, 2009).
To facilitate the regulatory review of a large number of NPDWRs, EPA performs a series of
analyses at the beginning of each review cycle, intended to target those NPDWRs that are the most
appropriate candidates for revision. During each review cycle, EPA reviews the following key
information and/or factors to determine whether regulatory revisions are possible and appropriate:
health risk assessments; analytical methods and treatment technology assessments; occurrence and
exposure analyses; and other regulatory revisions (such as implementation-related issues).
1.2 Purpose of the Review of "Other Regulatory Revisions"
In addition to the review of the maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs), and treatment techniques (TTs) components of the NPDWRs, EPA
considers whether other regulatory revisions might be needed, such as system monitoring and
reporting requirements, as part of Six-Year Review process. For the Six-Year Review 2, EPA utilized
the protocol established during Six-Year Review 1 for evaluating which implementation issues to
consider (USEPA, 2003b). EPA's protocol focused on items that were not already being addressed,
or had not been addressed, through alternative mechanisms (e.g., as a part of a recent or ongoing
rulemaking). In addition to this limitation, EPA considered potential implementation-related
revisions if they:
1) Represented a potential change to an NPDWR, as defined under section 1401 of SDWA1;
2) Were "ready" for rulemaking — that is, the problem to be resolved had been clearly defined
and specific option(s) had been formulated to address the problem under the current
regulatory framework; and
3) Would clearly improve the level of public health protection; and/or provide a meaningful
opportunity for cost savings (either monetary or burden reduction) while not lessening
public health protection.
1 The subject of the Six-Year-Review, as specified in section 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA, is "each national primary drinking
water regulation," as defined under section 1401 of SDWA.
-------
EPA - OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
2.0 Issues Identified by the EPA/State Workgroup
To gather input regarding implementation-related concerns and help the Agency identify the top one
or two issues for Six-Year Review 2, EPA requested that the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA) form a workgroup of member States and primacy agencies. In the fall of
2007, ten member States agreed to participate and confer with EPA on a joint EPA/State
workgroup (see Appendix A for a list of States and EPA offices that participated in the workgroup).
In the initial meeting, EPA asked participating States to work towards identifying their top one or
two implementation-related issues and formulate potential solutions that States would be willing to
implement and EPA could feasibly address under existing regulatory frameworks. EPA also
provided participating States with an overview of the guidelines used for Six-Year Review 1, to help
States better understand the scope of the review process.
To compile an initial list of possible issues, the workgroup requested feedback from all States. The
feedback from States resulted in a list of 22 possible issues. ASDWA then asked States from the
workgroup to rank each of the issues as high, medium, or low priority. Eight of the ten workgroup
members responded. Total scores used for ranking the issues were calculated by assigning the
following values: high priority - 3 points; medium - 2 points; and, low - 1 point, and then tallying the
scores for each issue. The list of all 22 issues identified during the workgroup process is presented in
Appendix B; issues are listed in order of highest to lowest priority score, and their actual score totals
are provided in the "State/Workgroup Priority Score" column of the table. Concurrent with the
ranking process, EPA used the factors listed on page 1 (Section 1.2) to evaluate whether the issues
were: (1) best addressed through technical assistance, guidance, or other mechanisms2, (2) outside
the scope of this Six-Year Review3, or (3) within the scope of the this Six- Year Review and could
possibly be addressed by regulatory action. These groupings are reflected in the "Findings" column
of Appendix B. Although the primary purpose of the workgroup was to identify the top issues that
were within the scope of this NPDWR review, EPA attempted to provide assistance during the
workgroup meetings by having Agency experts discuss some of the items that fit within the technical
assistance/guidance categories.
Based on issue rankings and determinations of how issues were best addressed, the workgroup
narrowed the list of 22 down to 4 issues. Of these four items, three appeared to be within the scope
of the Six-Year Review, and EPA agreed that an information or fact sheet might be appropriate for
the fourth item, which pertains to the need for clarification of public notification (PN) requirements
for fluoride (see Section 3.1 for summary of this "non-Six-Year Review" issue). The EPA/State
workgroup agreed that public comment via the FR would provide additional insight on the national
scope of these issues (i.e., Are the issues isolated to a few States/systems or more widespread?); the
importance of these issues to other States, as well as the public water systems (PWSs); and ideas for
potential resolutions. This additional input could further assist in identifying the top one or two
issues that should be considered for regulatory revision.
2 An example of an item identified by the States that was better addressed through technical assistance is the issue of
false positive analytical test results (e.g., for phthalates). EPA addressed this concern with States during the course of the
workgroup meetings, offering direct technical assistance from laboratory experts at EPA's Technical Support Center
(TSQ in Cincinnati, Ohio, and noting that TSC is a resource for any laboratory with questions regarding methods issues,
with contact information available at: http://www.epa.gov/esd/tsc/tsc.htm. EPA provided additional information and
technical experts to suggest possible solutions for each of the issues raised by the States (see Appendix B).
An example of an issue that was "outside of the scope of the Six Year Review" was a concern raised related to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR). Because the UCMR is not an NPDWR, as defined under
section 1401 of SDWA, it was therefore not within the scope of the Six-Year Review.
-------
EPA - OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
The following sections of this document provide background and summary information regarding
the three issues that were within the scope of an NPDWR review, as well as the fourth item (PN
requirements for fluoride) for which EPA is considering some form of information or fact sheet.
Potential resolutions discussed by State workgroup members are also summarized. EPA recognizes
that some of the potential resolutions suggested by the State workgroup members may need to be
better defined prior to any potential revision that the Agency might consider. Issues that fall within
the scope of an NPDWR revision for the current review effort include:
• Section 2.1 — Change the location of monitoring for nitrate/nitrite.
• Section 2.2 — Reduce the monitoring frequency for ground water systems with historically low
levels of nitrate/nitrite.
• Section 2.3 — Revise the monitoring requirements for non-community water systems in light of
the potential health risks associated with chronic contaminants.
2.1 Change the Monitoring Location for Nitrate/Nitrite
Issue Description
States in the workgroup expressed concern that nitrification within the distribution system may be a
growing issue4. And while the extent or cause has yet to be fully examined, there is some concern
that nitrification is occurring in water systems that have adopted chloramines as a disinfection
treatment option and potential exceedances above the MCL for nitrate/nitrite may go undetected at
the current sampling location5.
See Appendix B for the original tracking notes on this issue.
Potential Resolution(s) Suggested by State Workgroup Members
To address this concern, the State workgroup members suggested moving the location of the
nitrate/nitrite sampling point. This would either be somewhere other than the entry point to the
distribution system (EPTDS), or the system could maintain the existing EPTDS sample location and
add additional sampling points in the distribution system6. The State workgroup members also
posed several potential options for the frequency of sampling. First, sampling for nitrate/nitrite
could be done on the same schedule for bacteria under the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). Second, the
samples for nitrate/nitrite could be taken together with samples for disinfection byproducts under
the Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR). Lastly, the sampling
4 Nitrification is a microbial process by which reduced nitrogen compounds (primarily ammonia) are sequentially
oxidized to nitrite and nitrate. See www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper tcr nitrification.pdf for
additional information on nitrification.
5 The health effects technical review identified new information on developmental effects of nitrate and nitrite, as well as
data regarding its carcinogenicity, which may indicate the need to update the Agency's risk assessment. In light of this
information, EPA is considering nitrate and nitrite as potential candidates for new health effects assessments. If new
assessments are initiated, EPA does not expect that they will be completed in the time frame of the current Six-Year
Review cycle. When the new assessments are completed EPA will be able to determine the potential impacts on the
MCLG, MCL, and/or monitoring requirements, and the most appropriate timing for any potential revisions.
6 The monitoring framework suggested by the workgroup is consistent with the monitoring requirements for six
nitrosamine compounds in the second Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems
(UCMR 2) (72 FR 367 (USEPA, 2007)). Under that rule, some PWSs are required to sample both at the entry point to
the distribution system and within the distribution system at the point of maximum residence time.
-------
EPA - OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
could occur at particular points in the distribution at a frequency to be determined. The Agency
indicated that additional data on nitrate/nitrite occurrence within the distribution system would be
needed to determine if the issue is State-specific or national in scope. Although Texas provided
some monitoring data7, workgroup members agreed that taking public input on this topic might
generate the data needed to better define the scope of the issue.
Although this flexibility was not addressed during workgroup deliberations, EPA notes that 40 CFR
141.23(a)(2) allows surface water systems discretion to locate the sampling point in the distribution
system if that is more representative of the source after treatment.8
2.2 Reduce the Monitoring Frequency for Ground Water Systems with
Historically Low Levels of Nitrate/Nitrite
Issue Description
The workgroup discussed the possibility of monitoring relief for ground water systems with many
years of nitrate/nitrite results that were well below the existing MCL. States in the workgroup
asserted that because nitrate/nitrite levels do not fluctuate significantly over time in stable ground
water sources, reduced monitoring would not decrease public health protection, and would lower
monitoring costs for these systems and reduce the State tracking burden. Under the current rule,
States cannot issue waivers for nitrate monitoring, and no water system can conduct nitrate
monitoring less frequently than annually .
EPA published the current NPDWR for nitrate on January 30, 1991 (56 FR 3526 (USEPA, 1991))
(40 CFR 141.62), establishing an MCL of 10.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and the requirement that
all PWSs must monitor for nitrate at each EPTDS. The federal regulations required nitrate
monitoring to begin in 1993 at a quarterly frequency for community water systems (CWSs) and non-
transient, non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) with surface water or ground water under the
direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) sources, and annually for all other systems including
transient non-community waters systems (TNCWSs). If monitoring results identified nitrate
occurrence at less than one-half the MCL, CWSs and NTNCWSs with surface water or GWUDI
sources could reduce quarterly monitoring to annual monitoring (to occur in the quarter that
previously yielded the highest nitrate monitoring result). All other systems were required to remain
on annual monitoring.
See Appendix B for the original tracking notes on this issue.
7 Subsequent to these initial discussions, the Minnesota Department of Health has also performed studies and gathered
some data on nitrification in the distribution system.
8 40 CFR 141.23(a)(2) states: Surface water systems shall take a minimum of one sample at every entry point to the
distribution system after any application of treatment or in the distribution system at a point which is representative of
each source after treatment (hereafter called a sampling point) beginning in the initial compliance period. The system
shall take each sample at the same sampling point unless conditions make another sampling point more representative of
each source or treatment plant.
9 Note that the Federal regulation at 40 CFR 141.23(a)(l) and (2), and 141.23(e) provide for more flexibility for reduced
nitrite monitoring. Systems were only required to monitor for nitrite once during the initial compliance period, or
between 1993 and 1995. Systems with analytical results that are less than one-half the MCL of 1.0 mg/L conduct
continued monitoring at a frequency specified by the State. The federal regulations do not require these systems to
monitor for nitrite again.
-------
EPA - OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Potential Resolution(s) Suggested by the State Workgroup Members
The workgroup members discussed several regulatory revision options to address these ground
water systems that have historically low levels of nitrate/nitrite. The potential options included:
• Revisions to Monitoring Frequency — The State workgroup members suggested a reduced
monitoring frequency of 3, 6, or 9 years. These monitoring schedules are consistent with the
reduced monitoring provisions of the existing standard monitoring framework. The States
suggested that some other frequency could be established as well, and noted that even a two-
year monitoring frequency would help lessen the monitoring burden.
• Monitoring or Trigger Level to Qualify for Reduced Monitoring — The State workgroup
members also discussed options for a new trigger (nitrate concentration) level that would
qualify systems to begin this new reduced monitoring schedule. The new trigger level would
be some fraction of the MCL (e.g., one-half the MCL), the practical quantitative
limit/method detection limit (or some other descriptor of detection), or some other
appropriate trigger level.
• Duration of Meeting Trigger Level to Qualify for Reduced Monitoring — States discussed
how long a system would need to meet this trigger level to be allowed to begin reduced
monitoring. One proposal was to use a 3-, 6-, or 9-year period consistent with the standard
monitoring framework. Another proposal was to use a 5-, 10-, or 15-year option.
State workgroup members also discussed the need for a waiver option that would give States the
discretion to allow systems to monitor less. EPA recommended that States consider a non-
regulatory option for monitoring relief. States that adopt EPA's Alternative Monitoring Guidelines
(AMG) (established in 1997 under section 1418(b) of SDWA) would have the flexibility to reduce
nitrate sampling for ground water systems from an annual to a biennial (every other year)
requirement. However, to adopt the AMG, States would need to undergo a full rule adoption
process, and many States felt that this process was too cumbersome. States expressed that there is
some hesitation to adopt AMG because in many cases, adoption of the AMG could also place
system sampling out of sync with their standard chemical monitoring schedule. States indicated that
they would prefer some type of regulatory revision for these ground water systems instead of using
the AMG.
2.3 Revise the Monitoring Requirements for Non-Community Water
Systems in Light of the Potential Health Risks Associated With
Chronic Contaminants
Issue Description
The workgroup raised two concerns about balancing public health protection, and use of limited
financial resources associated with non-community water system monitoring. In the case of
NTNCWSs, EPA requires monitoring for contaminants that pose a health risk from chronic
exposure (other than radionuclides). The workgroup suggested that some of this monitoring may
not reflect the best use of limited resources. In light of the probability and magnitude of health
threats, some monitoring requirements for these systems may be insufficient, and others may be
excessive. However, the workgroup was also concerned that EPA does not require monitoring for
these contaminants at TNCWSs, and that this may pose a potential public health risk. Though some
States would have the flexibility to require additional monitoring for TNCWSs, this is not an option
-------
EPA - OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
in States with statutes that prohibit them from applying regulations more stringent than those
specified by EPA.
See Appendix B for the original tracking notes on this issue.
Potential Resolution(s) Suggested by the State Workgroup Members
The State workgroup members posed three potential options for regulatory revision related to
monitoring by non-community water systems. The first option was to revise all contaminant rules to
include additional monitoring requirements for TNCWSs, as well as radionuclide monitoring for
NTNCWSs. The second option was to review existing regulated contaminants and include TNCWS
monitoring requirements based on the relative health risk from chronic exposure. The third option
was to develop general language that would apply to all contaminant rules, giving States the
discretion to require additional monitoring for contaminants that pose chronic exposure risks and
can have acute effects at elevated levels potentially found at TNCWSs. Most States in the workgroup
tended to prefer the third option since it offered the most flexibility for States. For some of these
options EPA would need to evaluate whether sufficient occurrence and exposure data are available
for TNCWSs and NTNCWSs to assess the need for revised monitoring strategies.
3.0 Other Issues
3.1 Public Notification Requirements for Fluoride
The fourth item that was identified by the State workgroup members pertains to the need for
clarification of PN requirements for fluoride. Although PN is not within the scope of the Six-Year
Review because it is not an NPDWR as defined by SDWA section 1401, EPA agreed this item could
be addressed outside the review process, possibly through some form of information or fact sheet to
clarify the PN requirements for fluoride.
Currently, PWSs that exceed the fluoride MCL of 4.0 mg/L are required to notify their customers
within 30 days of the exceedance. If a PWS exceeds the fluoride Secondary MCL (SMCL) of 2.0
mg/L, they are required to notify their customers within 12 months of the exceedance. The States
voiced concerns about (1) the confusion that occurs between the different PN requirements for the
MCL and the SMCL, and (2) the timeliness of the PN requirement for the SMCL.
The workgroup indicated that waiting 12 months to notify customers of an exceedance of the SMCL
does not adequately protect young children from dental fluorosis during a critical stage of tooth
enamel development. The participating States requested that EPA consider regulatory revisions to
clarify the PN requirements and better reflect the health and aesthetic implications of each. EPA
noted that PN requirements are not within the scope of an NPDWR review though agreed that a
fact or information sheet may be useful to clarify any confusion.
The Agency is updating its evaluation of the relative contribution of drinking water to total fluoride
exposure considering the contributions from dental products, foods, pesticide residues, and other
sources such as ambient air and medications. After the Agency completes and publishes peer
reviewed versions of these assessments, it will be able to determine the potential impacts on the
MCLG, MCL, and/or the SMCL, and associated PN requirements.
See Appendix B for the original tracking notes on this issue.
6
-------
EPA - OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
References
USEPA. 1991. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic Organic Chemicals and
Inorganic Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants; National Primary Drinking
Water Regulation Implementation; National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Final Rule.
Federal Register. Vol. 56, No. 20, p. 3526. January 30, 1991.
USEPA. 2003a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Announcement of Completion of
EPA's Review of Existing Drinking Water Standards. Federal Register. Vol. 68, No. 138, p. 42908.
July 18, 2003.
USEPA. 2003b. EPA Protocol for Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA
Report 815-R-03-002. Final. June 2003.
USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water Systems
Revisions; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 72, No. 2, p. 367. January 4, 2007.
USEPA. 2009. EPA. Protocol for the Second Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(Updated). EPA Report 815-B-09-002. October 2009.
-------
Appendices
Appendix A: Review of Implementation Issues — States and EPA
Offices Participating in the Workgroup
Appendix B: Second Six-Year Review of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations - Summary of Initial List of 22
Issues Identified by Working Group
Appendix C: Summary of the January 18, 2008 Discussion on
Issues Use of POU/POE Devices
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Appendix A: Review of Implementation Issues -
State and EPA Offices Participating in the Workgroup
ASDWA/States
ASDWA (Liaison to EPA)
Delaware
Idaho
Minnesota
Missouri
North Carolina
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
Texas
EPA Offices
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA)
Office of General Counsel (OGC)
Office of Ground Water and
Water (OGWDW)
Office of Policy, Economics,
Innovation (OPEI)
Drinking
and
A-l
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Appendix B: Second Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations - Summary of
Initial List of 22 Issues Identified by Working Group
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Violations
More clearly distinguish between
monitoring and reporting violations so
that the actual significance of each type
of violation is known: Under the current
violation tracking process, a water system
that samples and reports the results a day
late looks as bad as a system that does not
collect any samples at all. This may have
ramifications on the status of systems as
Significant Non-Compliers (SNCs). There
may be a solution to this issue that does not
require a regulatory change.
21
Outside the scope of this
review effort; best
handled through technical
assistance.
B-l
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
Chem/Rad
Rules (Arsenic
and Uranium
MCLs)
States would like assistance in
determining cost effective methods for
dealing with chem/rad wastes: The new
MCLs for arsenic and uranium are causing
problems for some very small systems (e.g.,
< 50 connections). The problem is not in
the treatment, but in the disposal of the
treatment waste. This is a significant
implementation issue that has never been
adequately addressed by EPA.
21
Outside the scope of this
review effort; best
handled through
guidance.
EPA noted during workgroup discussions that many
guidance documents/training materials related to
treatment/disposal costs have been developed for the
arsenic and radionuclides regulations. The following
websites link to the various webcasts and/or other sources
of information for these rules:
www.epa.gov/safewater/dwa/rules.html
.gov//safewater/radionuclides/compliancehelp.h
r.epa.gc
tml
www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/compliance.html
In a follow up email, EPA provided a weblink
(www.npdespermits.com/sparrc/) to a simulation tool
entitled "Software Program to Ascertain Radionuclide
Residual Concentrations (SPARRC)." This tool can be
used to estimate quantities and concentrations of radium
and uranium in water treatment plant residuals (for
selected treatment technologies using a mass balance
approach). In this version, EPA also incorporated a
disposal cost estimating tool for a few technologies in
SPARRC, and included default unit costs based on
national average cost information. EPA has used available
case study data to validate the mass balance calculations
and compared outputs with another radionuclide mass
balance model. The users can estimate quantities and costs
for radionuclide-contaminated residuals given user-defined
inputs for influent water quality and treatment operation
parameters.
B-2
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
LT2ESWTR
Provide regulatory relief for small
system cryptosporidium requirements:
Early implementation of 40 CFR
141.701(a)(4)(i) has shown that one sample
after months and months of low readings
can trigger cryptosporidium monitoring by
small systems. Some relief seems
appropriate.
20
Outside the scope of this
review effort since the
NPDWR was just revised
and published in 2006;
best handled through
other mechanisms.
Current Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (LT2ESWTR) offers flexibility. EPA has been
collecting data on turbidity, E. coli, and cryptosporidium
for large water systems; this information may help to
evaluate monitoring requirements for small systems.
Lead and
Copper Rule
(extend OCCT
plan timeframe)
Modify the Lead and Copper Rule to
extend the optimal corrosion control
treatment (OCCT) plan submission
time frame to 12 months and then allow
18 months after that to install treatment:
Very few systems have been able to
complete the study and submit plans under
the existing timeframes.
18
Outside the scope of this
review effort since the
NPDWR was recently
revised and published in
2007.
EPA is currently evaluating issues for the long-term
revision effort and this item is best handled by referring it
to this effort.
Nitrate-
Nitrite
monitoring
Revise current nitrate/nitrite
monitoring requirements to more
appropriately reflect chloramination
considerations: Many water systems are
adopting disinfection with chloramines as a
treatment option to reduce levels of
disinfection byproducts. Nitrification may
be an issue but currently source water
monitoring is the only requirement for
nitrate and nitrite. A potential health impact
could go undetected. One State (Texas)
noted that they were developing data on
occurrence in distribution systems but does
not have these data yet.
18
Within the scope of
considering for this
review effort; best
handled through
regulatory revision or
clarification.
Regulatory revision may be needed to change the location
of the sampling point for monitoring. Guidance could also
be considered as part of the solution; would need
information/data to better understand the conditions that
lead to nitrification.
See section 2.1 of this document for further discussion.
B-3
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
Non-
Community
System
Monitoring
Review and revise, as appropriate,
monitoring requirements applicable to
non-community water systems in light
of the potential health risks associated
with each: NTNCWSs monitor for chronic
contaminants but TNCWSs do not. There
may be instances where NTNCWSs
monitor too much, and TNCWSs do not
monitor enough (e.g., extremely high levels
of a "chronic" contaminant at a TNCWS
may pose an acute risk). Appropriate
changes could better utilize limited
resources and reduce public health risks. In
addition, at least one State participant noted
that radionuclides need to be monitored at
NTNCWSs.
18
Within the scope of
considering for this
review effort; best
handled through
regulatory revision.
Regulatory revisions would be needed to change the
applicability of monitoring requirements for NTNCWS
and/or TNCWS.
See section 2.3 of this document for further discussion.
Chem/Rad
Rules
(Radionuclide
Rule)
Some flexibility on monitoring and
reporting should be provided to the
extent it does not decrease public health
protection. The data and information
used to support development of the
radionuclide MCLs should also be
revisited. The MCLs are too stringent
compared to the actual risks posed by
radionuclides: Keeping up with quarterly
radium testing is very difficult. By the time
samples are collected, analyzed, reported,
and data are analyzed, it is nearly impossible
to report violations to EPA by the required
deadline. Additionally, the way the rule is
written, all 4 analytes are required to be
17
Outside the scope of this
review effort; the
radionuclides rule was
effective in 2006 and it is
not clear that any changes
in monitoring and
reporting would clearly
improve public health
protection; best handled
through other
mechanisms.
Note that EPA correspondence with commercial labs
found that counting time for radiums range from 10 to
300 minutes (depending on radium species and sample
volume collected).
Regarding MCLs, currently there is no new information to
indicate that EPA could consider changes to the MCLs
(and it would be considered backsliding to make MCLs
less stringent since the MCLG is zero).
B-4
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
monitored on possibly different frequencies
therefore precluding the ability to substitute
the alpha for the more expensive 226 and
uranium in routine monitoring.
Analytical
Methods
Revise performance criteria for the
haloacetic acids (HAAS) analytical
method: The HAAS method specified by
40 CFR 141.131 gives erratic results. When
samples are split between separate labs
there is little or no correlation between the
analytical results. State workgroup members
indicated that EPA's own studies showed
that many labs could not produce accurate
analytical results.
17
Outside the scope of this
review effort; best
handled through technical
assistance (see notes
regarding in the
Additional Information
column).
Experts from EPA's Technical Support Center discussed
this issue with the workgroup noting that EPA has not
experienced erratic results with the HAAS method. As part
of the quality assurance program for the Information
Collection Rule, laboratories were required to perform
analyses of fortified samples and report the results to EPA.
More than 80 laboratories around the nation participated
in that study providing percent recoveries for the 1,250
samples that were fortified for HAA analyses. The data
demonstrated that 80% of the HAA recoveries (in fortified
field samples) were within 89% and 120% while 80% of
the THM recoveries (in fortified field samples) were within
87% and 114%. These data demonstrated that both HAA
and THM results were equivalent and that they can both
be determined accurately.
EPA also provided a contact list of EPA personnel (at
TSC and the Office of Research and Development), who
are familiar with the analytical methods for various
contaminants.
B-5
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
Lead and
Copper Rule
Amend the LCR to require PWSs that
fail to comply with reduced monitoring
requirements for lead and copper tap
sampling (i.e., annual or tri-annual
testing) to return to their initial
monitoring requirements (6-month
testing): They would then have to
complete two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods with results below the
action levels before they would again be
eligible for reduced monitoring. Currently,
PWSs that fail to monitor during a reduced
monitoring period could go up to 6 years
without having to test for lead and copper.
16
Outside the scope of this
review effort since the
NPDWR was recently
revised and published in
2007.
EPA is currently evaluating issues for the long-term
revision effort and this item is best handled by referring it
to this effort. In addition, the reduced monitoring issue
may be handled best through enforcement actions.
Process
Control
Measurement
Clarify and expedite the procedures for
approving process control technologies:
Process control technologies often utilize
new analytical methods for on-line
analyzers and operational testing that are
difficult to get accepted. It is difficult to
determine what constitutes an acceptable
adaptation of a "bench-top" technique.
Since they are not analytical methods
associated with an MCL, it is uncertain
whether the newly proposed, expedited
analytical method approval process will
help.
16
Outside the scope of this
review effort; best
handled through technical
assistance.
EPA noted during workgroup discussions that online
residual analyzers for chlorine would need to go through
and be evaluated under the Alternative Test Procedures
(ATP) process. EPA provided information and a contact
person for EPA's Technical Support Center who could
discuss the ATP process for potential evaluation of online
analyzers.
Variances
and
Exemptions
Rule
Streamline and simplify the Variance
and Exemption (V & E) Rule: V & Es
could be useful tools if the rule were revised
to make them less cumbersome, more
16
Outside the scope of this
review effort; best
handled through other
mechanisms.
The process required for V&Es (other than the small
system variances) is specified by the statute (Sections 1415
and 1416). The primacy requirement for States adopting
V&E requirements (other than the small system variances)
B-6
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
streamlined, and with "less strings
attached."
is that they must be no less stringent than the statute.
States already have flexibility to adopt whatever process
they want as long as it is consistent with the statute (40
CFR 142.10(d)(2)). It is unlikely that EPA can provide any
more flexibility on the process for V&Es.
Point of Use
and Point of
Entry
Revise Best Available Technologies
(BATs) for rules for which point-of-
use/point-of-entry (POU/POE) devices
may be appropriate, but which are not
specifically listed as BATs (e.g.,
nitrates): POU/POE are sometimes
recognized as BATs but they have not been
consistently adopted in existing rules. There
may be other situations where this
technology could be effectively used as a
treatment option and these need to be
recognized.
15
Outside the scope of
this review effort; best
handled through use of
existing guidance and
technical assistance.
EPA noted that existing guidance includes:
(1) "Small System Compliance Technology List for the
Non-Microbial Contaminants Regulated before 1996"
(EPA 815-R-98-002, September 1998). Available at:
www.epa.gov/ogwdw/standard/tretech.html
(2) "Point-of-Use Treatment Options for Small Drinking
Water Systems". Available at:
www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsys/pdfs/guide smallsyste
ms pou-poe june6-2006.pdf.
EPA has listed small system POU/POE devices for rules
promulgated since the 1996 SDWA Amendments. An
August 6,1998 FR (63 FR 151) notice lists small system
devices for rules promulgated before the 1996 SDWA.
In addition, a separate discussion was held between EPA
staff, ASDWA, and State personnel who were interested in
the POU/POE topic. Notes from this meeting are
included in Appendix C.
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
Revise the Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR) to address a number of
current implementation issues and
concerns, based on experiences in
implementing the rule over the past
several years: The amount of system and
State resources allocated to the CCR is
significant with very limited return. A major
15
Outside the scope of this
review effort since CCR is
not technically part of an
NPDWR.
B-7
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
overhaul of this rule is needed. Possible
changes may include that the CCR is done
in conjunction with and at the frequency of
the sanitary surveys. A second option: The
CCR is an EPA report that is maintained by
EPA through SDWIS/Fed and is available
electronically or in hardcopy from EPA.
System owners would be responsible for
identifying that the report is available and
how to receive a copy.
False
Positive
Sample
Results
The regulations should recognize the
potential for "false positive"
measurement of phthalates and allow
any relief from the burden of
unnecessary follow-up: This issue is most
common with phthalates, but other
contaminants can show up at very low
levels (below the practical quantitation limit
[PQL] /method reporting limit [MRL]) and
trigger additional monitoring and potentially
increased levels of treatment when there
really is no contamination in the water
system but the result is a "false positive".
15
Outside the scope of this
review effort; best
handled through technical
assistance (see notes in
the Additional
Information column).
EPA's Technical Support Center discussed this item with
the workgroup noting compounds such as phthalates can
occasionally be observed as false positives. EPA indicated
that it is not difficult for laboratories to determine the
source of the contamination and eliminate it. The first step
is to determine if the contamination is the result of
sampling or sample shipment and storage, or if it is a
laboratory issue. The next step or solution is to either
educate sampling personnel about correct sampling
procedures or determine the specific step in the laboratory
procedure that needs to be corrected.
EPA also noted that the presence of contaminants at or
above the MCL needs to be taken seriously. The
presumption of a "false positive" may in itself be
incorrect, or the "false positive" portion of the result may
obscure the actual presence of the analyte in the sample.
Using good laboratory and good sampling practices will
greatly reduce if not eliminate the problems associated
with false positives, even with analytes such as the
phthalates.
B-8
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
EPA indicated that States, PWSs or laboratories can always
call TSC if they are having problems with any EPA-
approved methods. EPA provided a contact list of EPA
personnel (at TSC and the Office of Research and
Development), who are familiar with the analytical
methods for various contaminants.
B-9
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
Definition of
a public
water system
Revise the definition of a PWS: Although
the definition of a PWS is in the SDWA, it
seems that EPA could exercise reasonable
flexibility in interpreting the statutory
definition to alleviate the confusion
between 25 people vs. 15 connections. The
definition states, "The term 'public water
system' means a system for the provision to
the public of water for human consumption
through pipes or other constructed
conveyances, if such system has at least
fifteen service connections or regularly
serves at least twenty-five individuals." No
preference or guidance is given in the law as
to where and when 25 people or 15
connections apply. It would be reasonable,
for instance, for EPA to clarify through
guidance that "service connections" applies
where the PWS actually has individual
connections that can be counted (CWSs),
and "persons served water" applies to
PWSs without individual service
connections (TNCWSs, NTNCWSs,
businesses, etc.). At least one State
participant indicated that it would be useful
to clarify what types of consecutive systems
are not covered by SDWA, and that this
could require a change to section 300g of
Act.
14
Outside the scope of
this review effort; best
handled through
guidance (see notes in
the Additional
Information column).
Current guidance includes Water Supply Guidance memos
(#12, 34, 66A, H3 and H18), available at:
http:/7www.epa.gov/safewater/wsg/subject.html#interpr
etation
B-10
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
Fluoride
Revise PN requirements associated with
both the MCL and the SMCL to better
reflect the implication of violations of
each; this may be "folded in" to an
overall effort to revise the MCL: a) The
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has
recommended that the MCL be reviewed.
b) There is some confusion between the
MCL and the SMCL (secondary standard)
and the appropriate public notification
requirements for each level.
14
Outside the scope of this
review effort; best
handled through
regulatory revision (see
notes in the Additional
Information column).
While potential MCL changes are within the scope of Six-
Year Review, PN alone is technically outside the scope;
however, if EPA decides to make changes to the MCL,
PN requirements (as well as any issues with the SMCL)
will be considered. EPA is currently addressing the NAS
recommendations to update the health assessment for
fluoride and evaluate exposure sources (relative source
contribution).
Guidance and assistance could also clarify confusion
between MCL and SMCL and the PN requirements in the
interim.
See section 3.0 of this document for further discussion.
Alternative
Treatment
Allow bottled water to be a compliance
technology for appropriate rules and
with appropriate caveats: Some entities
may be able to justify the use of bottled
water as a viable method of resolving an
MCL. Discussion regarding the proposed
modification of the bottled water language
is requested.
13
Outside the scope of this
review effort; best
handled through guidance
and technical assistance.
At the request of States, EPA held a listening session in
December 2006 on the viability of bottled water as an
alternative compliance option for chronic contaminants
regulated under the SDWA. The meeting aimed to identify
what information and data would be needed for EPA to
evaluate the efficacy of bottled water as an alternative
compliance option for NTNCWSs. In a February 2007
follow up meeting, EPA and ASDWA agreed that current
State practices for the use of bottled water on a temporary
basis until the system returns to compliance are protective
of public health and are being implemented in a
responsible manner.
B-ll
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
Chem/Rad
Rules
(Nitrate
monitoring)
Systems with a proven history of nitrate
results of less than one-half the MCL (or
some other trigger level) should be
allowed to reduce nitrate monitoring: In
discussions on Chemical Monitoring
Reform several years ago, EPA seemed
favorable to this. States have identified
many systems with more than 15 years of
nitrate data with no nitrate detections.
Reducing this monitoring would be helpful
and would not decrease protection of public
health.
12
Within the scope of
considering for this
review effort; best
handled through
regulatory revision.
Regulatory revisions would be needed to change
monitoring frequency for these systems. See section 2.2 of
this document for further discussion.
Sanitary
Surveys
Clarify applicability of sanitary surveys
to various types of systems: Sanitary
survey applicability was expanded to include
consecutive systems but not specifically
noted in the regulations or special primacy
requirements.
11
Outside the scope of this
review; effort best
handled through other
mechanisms.
The requirements for States to conduct sanitary surveys
are found in the 40 CFR Section 142,10(b)(2) (general
primacy requirement for all PWSs), 142.16(b)(3)
(requirement for surface water and GWUDI systems) and
142.16(o)(2)(groundwater systems). The CFR does not list
any exclusion for PWSs that are classified as consecutive
systems. However, some small subset of consecutive
systems may be excluded from all the NPDWRs (including
the sanitary survey requirements) under 141.3 (Coverage)
and 142.3 (Scope). Public Water Systems excluded from
these requirements must meet all of the conditions
outlined in those sections including: Consists only of
distribution and storage facilities (and does not have any
collection and treatment facilities); Obtains all of its water
from, but is not owned or operated by, a public water
system to which such regulations apply: Does not sell
water to any person; and, Is not a carrier which conveys
passengers in interstate commerce.
B-12
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
Underground
Injection
Control
Liquid waste generated by a drinking
water treatment technology that is
recognized by EPA to be a BAT should
be exempted from the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) requirements or
at least establish specific
criteria/standards within the revised
UIC Rule for all States to adopt for these
circumstances: Some States are
interpreting the UIC Class V Rule definition
of Sanitary Waste to include "Water
Treatment Liquid Waste" (i.e., spent
backwash water), thus making it very
difficult to secure a discharge permit for
this type of liquid waste into on-site septic
systems. However, at least one State noted
that it did not agree with these exemptions,
and their State would classify it as an
industrial waste requiring a permit; this
State also indicated that the federal
standards that apply to the quality of
injected waste is pretty specific.
10
Outside the scope of this
review effort; best
handled through other
mechanisms.
UCMR
Allow for water system "opt out" from
the UCMR for certain specified
circumstances: States are concerned about
instances under the UCMR (both UCMR 1
and 2) in which there is no likelihood of a
contaminant being present in a water
system. That situation is very tough on
States that are required by State law to
evaluate all SDWA-required laboratory
Outside the scope of this
review effort; best
handled through technical
assistance.
Technically, UCMR is not an NPDWR. However, EPA
noted that UCMR does allow for State waivers and States
can always call EPA if they need clarifications or technical
assistance.
B-13
-------
EPA - OGWDW
Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review
EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Issue'
Description
State
Workgroup
Priority
Score
Findings
Within or Outside the
Scope of this Six-Year
Review Effort
(Issue best handled through
regulatory revision, guidance,
technical assistance, other
mechanisms)
Additional Information
samples for all PWSs under their fee
system. Since this situation applies to a few
States, it does not get much attention.
However, when States are spending
resources testing for a contaminant that
cannot possibly be there, they have a hard
time making the case to elected officials and
operators that they should participate in
UCMR monitoring.
VOC
detections
after painting
storage tanks
VOC detections after painting storage
tanks: Some systems in Texas are having
increases in volatile organic compound
(VOC) detections due to freshly painted
water storage tanks. Minnesota has also had
problems with newly installed plastic
coatings.
Not scored
since this item
was added
later in
workgroup
discussions.
Outside the scope of this
review effort; best
handled through technical
assistance.
Regardless of the source, EPA noted during the
workgroup meetings that this would still be a detection of
a VOC. Systems may need guidance or technical
information on how to avoid VOC contamination after a
tank has been freshly painted.
1. To compile an initial list of possible issues, the workgroup requested feedback from all States. This nationwide poll resulted in a list of 22 possible
implementation-related issues. ASDWA then asked States on the workgroup to rank each of the issues as high, medium, or low priority. Eight
workgroup members responded. Total scores used for ranking the issues were calculated by assigning the following values: high priority - 3 points;
medium - 2 points; and, low - 1 point. The issues are listed in order of highest to lowest priority score, and their actual score totals are provided in
the "Priority Scoring" column.
B-14
-------
EPA - OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Appendix C: Summary of the January 18, 2008 Discussion on the Use of
POU/POE Devices
Purpose of call: During the most recent conference call (on December 13th) of a state-EPA workgroup
that's looking at possible implementation changes for the six year review of regulations, several questions
arose related to POU devices. As a follow-up to that discussion, we gathered a few states that have a good
deal of experience with POU devices as compliance technologies, along with the EPA-OGWDW experts
who developed the Agency's POU guidance to brainstorm a bit more about this. These are the
questions/topics to discuss.
• PORTION OF SYSTEM IN COMPLIANCE: What has the Agency said, in guidance and policy,
about the percentage of the homes in a community whose homes should be in compliance in order for
the system as a whole to be in compliance with the MCL for the contaminant in question? Is there a
need to revise what's been said to date? What experiences have states/systems had in this regard that
might shed light on this question?
• NITRATE AND POU DEVICES: Can/should POU devices be used for compliance with nitrate?
What has the Agency said in this regard in the past? Is there a need for any further clarification of the
Agency's intent? (As background on this point, please refer to a letter of March 19, 2001 from Bill
Diamond [then with EPA-OGWDW] to EPA Region VII.)
• ROLE OF GUIDANCE VS. REGULATION: As a backdrop to the two questions above, is there any
need/value to incorporating any aspects of the response to these questions into regulation?
Attendees: EPA-OGWDW: Rajiv Khera, Brian Rourke, Jeff Kempic
Nebraska Drinking Water Program: Jack Daniel
Arizona Drinking Water Program: John Calkins
Texas Drinking Water Program: James Beauchamp
ASDWA: Jim Taft, Darrell Osterhoudt
Percentage of Users that Must Participate:
• Current Agency Guidance: Rourke read the portion of the Agency's POU guidance that addresses
this issue and noted that: 1) it acknowledges that PWSs may choose to initiate a POU-driven solution
to a water quality problem before all users have agreed to have POU devices installed; but 2) the
guidance encourages PWSs to move expeditiously toward getting all users participating. In addition,
the guidance goes on to talk about passing ordinances to cut off a customer's water in the event that
the customer will not participate. He explained that the Agency had tried to avoid recommending a
particular time frame for getting all users onboard due to concerns that whatever time frame was
recommended (e.g., 80 days, 180 days, 270 days, etc.), there would likely have been cases that
warranted exceptions to the policy/guidance. He also noted that, if eventual 100% participation is not
obtained, the PWS should consider POE devices. Moeller explained that the Drinking Water
Protection Division had not spoken to this issue in any of its guidance or training any differently than
the Agency's POU guidance does.
• State Experiences: Calkins explained that, in his state, the 20 or PWSs that had employed POUs thus
far each had 100% customer participation; but, all had been quite small and fairly homogeneous
situations. He noted that Arizona's POU guidance allows for start-up of a situation in which POUs are
used as a compliance technology if only 75% of the users participate — provided the PWS was moving
expeditiously to get all users participating. In such a circumstance, the state would enter into a Consent
C-l
-------
EPA - OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008
October 2009
Decree with the PWS to require and track their movement toward 100% participation. While no time
is set forth in the state's guidance for such incremental progress, he felt that 180 days was about right
and any time frame greater than 365 days for getting 100% participation is too long. Daniel said that
Nebraska had allowed use of POU devices as compliance technologies for 2 small CWSs and some
NTNCs. In each case, 100% participation was required. He expressed the concern that, without a
national maximum allowable interval for getting 100% participation, consultants who considering
POU devices sometimes tend to play one state off another and seek all of the "wiggle room" allowed
by current policy and guidance.
Treating Nitrate with POU Devices:
• Past and Current Agency Guidance: Kempic and Rourke explained that the perspective the Agency
tried to convey in its POU guidance is that there are POU technologies that will work in removing
nitrates, but that none has yet been listed in a rule as a small system compliance technology. They
noted that the current caveat in the POU guidance related to nitrate is intended to clearly signal that
POUs for nitrate should only be used in those situations where there is a public education component
in place that lays out the danger posed by high nitrate levels for at-risk populations and the fact that
POU devices typically only protect a single tap. Kempic and Rourke noted that, in the absence of such
a component being in place, POU devices for nitrate removal should not be allowed. That caveated
prohibition was what was intended by the brief mention of nitrate in Bill Diamond's 2001 guidance
memo. They further said that the most appropriate situations for nitrate would be small NTNCs where
only adult populations consumed water. Moeller explained that DWPD had developed some guidance
that pointed to the attributes of good POU applications that may be helpful in this context.
• State Experiences: Calkins noted that there is only one NTNC currently using POU devices for
nitrate control in Arizona (at a county park) and another location where approval is pending. He also
said that, while he appreciated that POU devices for nitrate posed special concerns, centralized
treatment for nitrate is likewise prone to problems and not always reliable. Daniel said that POU
devices for nitrate problems are not allowed in his state due to their tendency to fail. He also asked
why POU devices were specifically disallowed by the Agency for radon and VOCs. Kempic responded
that the principal risk pathway of concern for VOCs and radon was through inhalation, rather than
ingestion, thus a POU device at the drinking water tap would not address the volatilized radon or
VOCs at the showerhead.
Guidance vs. Regulation
• Discussion: The call participants agreed that specific guidance or regulation to further address these
questions could be helpful but can also become something of a two-edged sword: on the one hand, it
disallows inappropriate uses of POU devices and helps states fend off such uses on the part of water
systems or their consultants; on the other hand, prescriptive guidance or regulation can restrict
flexibility on the part of states in allowing certain uses and applications that the state deems acceptable.
The Agency representatives noted that there is a very "high bar" these days (due to process
requirements, Agency manpower needed, etc.) to embarking on a regulatory solution. Changes to
guidance (or new guidance) is a less high bar — provided states and EPA, as co-regulators, could agree
on revised guidance that seemed to work well for everyone.
• Next Steps: It was agreed that a summary of this discussion would be shared with the State-EPA Six
Year Implementation Workgroup for their further consideration.
C-2
------- |