An AWWA Regulatory Update

Presented at

California Nevada American Water Works Association

Sacramento, CA

October 1, 2013

Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Authority

• Two pronged approach:– For large projects: low interest

direct loans or guarantees– For small projects: low interest

loans through State Revolving Funds

• Loans will be made at Treasury interest rates

• The default rate for water projects bonds is < 0.04%.

• The federal subsidy – which must be appropriated – is extremely low.

Highly Leveraged TIFIA Model

$122 million in appropriated budget authority supports more than $1 billion in annual credit assistance.

Number of Water Systems

Source: SDWIS Pivot Tables for Period 7/1/2011 to 6/30/2012

TypeVery Small

(<500)Small

(501-3,300)

Medium (3,301-10,000)

Large (10,001-100,000)

Very Large (>100,000)

Grand Total

NationCWS 27,965 13,673 4,921 3,821 423 50,803NTNCWS 15,226 2,538 141 16 1 17,922

TNCWS 79,129 2,708 92 13 2 81,944Total Systems (Nation) 122,320 18,919 5,154 3,850 426 150,669

CaliforniaCWS 1,959 465 232 344 88 3,088

NTNCWS 1,426 156 9 1,591

TNCWS 3,098 185 31 5 3,319Total Systems (State) 6,483 806 272 349 88 7,998

NevadaCWS 125 55 19 11 4 214

NTNCWS 101 15 6 122TNCWS 237 7 244

Total Systems (State) 463 77 25 11 4 580

SDWA Regulatory Activity

2014CCL3 Final(10/2009)

2012 2013 2015 2016

Reg Det 3 Final(<9/2014)1

Proposed Rule(s)(<9/2016)*

2017

Final Rule(s)(<1/2018)1

Reg Det 3 Proposal(late 2013 / early2014)

Six-Year 2(3/2010)

LT-LCR Proposal(2015 – 2016?)

RTCR Final(2/2013)

Note: (1) Reflects missed or likely to be missed statutory deadlines.As yet unassigned (fluoride, acrylamide, epichlorohydrin, total chromium / Cr(VI))

Key

Proposal – no fillFinal – filledUncertain – cross hatchedUnique color for related regulatory actions

CCL4 Final(<10/2014) *

CCL4 Proposal(<6/2014)

eCCR Memo(1/2013)

UCMR3 Monitoring(1/2013 – 12/2015)

Round 2 LT2ESWTR Monitoring(4/2015 – 5/2021)

RTCR Effective(4/ 2016)

ClO4- Final

(>11/2015) 1

UCMR3 Final(5/2012)

LT2ESWTR Laboratory List Avail (12/2013)

Stage 2 DBPR & LT2ESWTR Compliant (4/2012 …..

Carcinogenic VOCs Proposal

(2014?)

LT-LCR Final(2017 – 2019?)

LT-LCR Stakeholder Process (10/2013 – mid/late 2014)

Carcinogenic VOCs Final

(>10/2015?)

ClO4- Proposal

(2/2013) 1

ClO4- Proposal

(early 2014?)

Six-Year 3 (12/2015)*

Stage 2 DBPR

• Transitioning to LRAA– Operational evaluations– MCL violations

20142010 2012 2016 2018

>100,000 pop(April 1, 2012)

Stage 2 DBPR(2006)

2020

Stage 1 DBPR(1998)

50,000 –99,999 pop

(Oct 1, 2012)

10,000 –49,999 pop

(Oct 1, 2013)

Start Stage 2 DBPR Compliance Monitoring

<10,000 pop(Oct 1, 2014)

Compliant with Stage 2 DBPR LRAA after 1 year.

Federal GuidanceShift to Stage 2 DBPR monitoring locations occurs regardless of two year extension for capital improvements.

Post-Six-Year Review Revision(Typical Schedule

2021)

Possible 2-year extensions for capital improvements

Future SDWA Regulations for DBPs

2010 2020

Six-YearReview

(Dec, 2015)

Will reviewStage 1 DBPR,Stage 2 DBPR, GWR, IESWTR,

LT1ESWTR, LT2ESWTR, etc.

• Change in regulation is not required.

• No statutory timeframe for action.• Any subsequent rulemaking

process typically >4 years in length.

• Any requirements unlikely to be effective within <7 yrs of 6-Year Review

Reg. Determinations

(late 2013 – early2014?)

Anticipated to consider two disinfection

byproducts –nitrosamines and

chlorate.

• If included regulation is a distinct possibility.

• Statutory timeline for rulemaking, 42 months

• Any requirements unlikely to be effective within <7 yrs of Reg. Det. 3

TODAY

UCMR2 NDMA Observations by System Class

SourceGW – Ground WaterSW – Surface WaterMX - Mixed

DisinfectantBlank – Disinfection not indicatedCL – Free ChlorineCA – Monochloramine

Sample LocationEP – Entry Point to Distribution SystemMR – Maximum Residence Time

Chlorine Chloramines Unknown

MRL

ng/

L

Source: Hrudey et al., Relative Contribution of Drinking Water to Total Nitrosamine Exposure , AWWA Webcast (2012)

UNITS:µg/d or %

Fristachi & Rice (2007) Hrudey et al. Model (means)

Infant Adult Infant0 – 0.5 yr

Adult20-49 yr

Intake D.W. 0.0013 0.0033 0.003 0.005

Intake diet 0.07 0.11* 0.04 0.06*

Total Intake 0.07 0.11* 0.04 0.06*

Endogenous 0 22.9 - 174 8 to 70 110 to 1000

Total Exposure 0.07 23 -174 8 to 70 110 to 1000

POE Avg Daily Dose

1.9% 0.002% to 0.01%

0.01% to 0.09%

0.001% to 0.01%

Proportion of Exposure (POE)Lifetime Avg.Daily Dose(LADD)

All Sources0.003% to 0.02%

Chlorinated SW

0.0002% to 0.001%

Chloraminated GW

0.0005% to 0.004%

Chloraminated SW

0.001% to 0.01%

Source: Hrudey et al., Relative Contribution of Drinking Water to Total Nitrosamine Exposure , AWWA Webcast (2012)

Opportunity for Risk Reduction?

• Chlorate Risk

– EPA Pesticide Program identified drinking water as primary source of exposure

– OPP risk assessment based on thyroid effect in rats

• Associated with use of

– Chlorine dioxide

– Hypochlorite

Chlorate

• Contribution from hypochlorite is not insignificant

– Formed during manufacture

• Bulk and

• On-site generation

– Formed during bulk supply transport

– Formed during storage

• Monitoring ongoing in UCMR3

• Control removal of transition metal ions by

– Purchasing filtered hypochlorite solution

– Using low metal ion concentration feed water for OSG systems

• If using OSG hypochlorite use low-bromide salt

• Dilute stored hypochlorite solutions upon delivery

• Store hypochlorite solutions at lower temperatures

• Control the pH of stored hypochlorite solutions at pH 11-13

• Use fresh hypochlorite solution when possible

Source: Hypochlorite—An Assessment of Factors that Influence the formation of Perchlorate and Other Contaminants, AWWA/WaterRF, 2010.

Managing Chlorate Formation

Link to Hypochlorite Assessment Toolhttp://www.awwa.org/resources-tools/water-knowledge/hypochlorite-assessment-model.aspx

Strontium

• Average concentration range in freshwater in U.S. is 0.3-1.5 mg/L

• Present in sedimentary rocks

• Heath reference level – 4 mg/L

• Anthropogenic sources include – Milling and processing of

strontium– Burning coal– Land application of phosphate

fertilizers

Sources: NIRS, 1984-86.

Round 2 LT2ESWTR

20142010 2012 2016 2018

>100,000 pop(April 1, 2012)

LT2ESWTR(2006)

2020

IESWTR(1998)

LT1ESWTR(2002)

60,000 –99,999 pop

(Oct 1, 2012)

<10,000 pop& 10,000 –49,999 pop

(Oct 1, 2013)

Start LT2ESWTR Treatment Technique Compliance

<10,000 popIf monitored for Cryptosporidium

(Oct 1, 2014)

Round 2 Memo to States on Lab

Approval(Sept 2012)

EPA Method 1623.1

(Jan 2012)

50,000 –99,999 pop(Oct, 2015)

10,000 –49,999 pop(Oct, 2016)

<10,000 popIf monitored for Cryptosporidium

(Oct 1, 2019)

10,000 –49,999 pop(Oct, 2017)

>100,000 pop(April, 2015)

Round 2 Lab Approval Process Operational

(2013)

Preliminary Review Decision

(Dec 2014)

Start LT2ESWTR Round 2 Monitoring

Location Type

N Total

NBinned

N (%) with Any Detected

Cryptosporidium

N (%) Bin 1

N (%) Bin 2

N (%) Bin 3

All 1542 1162 576 (50%) 1079 (93%) 83 (7%) 0

GWUDI 118 80 19 (24%) 78 (98%) 2 (2%) 0

SW 1325 997 505 (51%) 921(92%) 76 (8%) 0

Source Type Variable

99 85 52 (60%) 80 (94%) 5 (6%) 0

SW-FS 438 324 224 (69%) 275 (85%) 49 (15%) 0

SW-RL 578 446 168 (38%) 432 (97%) 14 (3%) 0

SW-uncertain

309 227 113 (50%) 214 (94%) 13 (6%) 0

Source: LT2ESWTR Round 1 Monitoring DCTS Data and Calculated Bin Results (2012)

Round 1 LT2ESWTR ObservationsSystems >10,000 pop.

WA

MT

ID

WY

NV

CA

UT

CO

AZNM

NE

KS

OK

TX

SD

ND

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

MS AL

WI

IL

MI

MI

INOH

PA

WVVA

KY

TNNC

SC

NY

VT

ME

NH

MACT

RINJ

DE

MD

DC

GA

FL

AK

HIPR

OR

2 4 1

21

2

1

1

1

1

1

11

1

3

2 4

1

11

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

5

3

2

6

9

22

5

1

3

4 1

12

,5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Schedule

1

2

3

4

Pop. Served*

>100,000

50-99,000

10-49,999

<10,000

No. Utilities

15

23

72

41

* Including wholesale

Round 1 LT2ESWTR Systems in Bin 2 Systems >10,000 pop.

LT2 Round 1 Cryptosporidium MS Recovery by Laboratory

Number MS Samples Processed

Re

co

ve

ry

50 Labs, n=3320 (11 results off-scale)2 1

10

15 6 1 8

12

196 8 8 7

64 4

10

29

16

38

126

90 9

91

13

26

29 6 9

79

79

45

16

14 6

152

36

180

36

155

153

14

39 5

202

337

58

60

34

642

24

120

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

db

ase

v3

m

s0

05

Source: LT2 Round 1 Monitoring DCTS Data and Calculated Bin Results (2012)

LT2ESWTR Laboratory Performance

Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR)

• Revised Total Coliform Rule proposed July 14, 2010– Based on 2008 Agreement in

Principle (AIP)

• Final rule published February 13, 2013– Effective April 1, 2016

• Shift in focus – No longer, just, monitoring and

notification – Rather, monitoring triggers an

assessment and potential corrective action(s)

– Take a look at example assessment forms

A defect that could provide a pathway of entry for microbial contamination into the distribution system or that is indicative of afailure or imminent failure in a barrier that is already in place.

40 CFR 141.2

New Treatment Technique

• Non-acute MCL violation for total coliforms under the 1989 TCR is replaced under the RTCR by a coliform treatment technique.

• Presence of total coliforms is used as an indicator of a potential pathway of contamination into the distribution system.

• A potential pathway of contamination into the distribution system is unexplored and/or uncorrected.

• A system neglects to perform the prescribed assessment or corrective action within schedule

– 30 days

– State approved schedule

Framework Violation occurs when:

• Routine TC+ and repeat EC+

• Routine EC+ and repeat TC+

• System fails to take all required repeat samples following a routine EC+

• System fails to test for EC when any repeat sample is TC+

E. coli MCL Violation (Tier 1 PN)

• Any system fails to – Conduct a required

assessment within 30 days of notification

– Correct any sanitary defect found within 30 days or as scheduled

Coliform Treatment TechniqueViolation (Tier 2 PN)

Violations

• Federal guidance has been delayed by budget and priorities

– Assessment and correction

– State implementation

– Small system

State Implementation

Issues in State Rule Development

• Replace old TCR with revised TCR framework

• Describe assessment expectations• Describe who conducts assessments

Make sure you and primacy agency

are on the same page.

Type CA NV

CWS 3,088 214

NTNCWS 1,591 122

TNCWS 3,319 244

Total 7,998 580

Number of Systems Impacted

State Adoption Process(Illustratory Schedule, * are fixed dates)

20152013 2014 2016 2017

Request for an Extension

Complete Primacy Package

Tentative Schedule for

Rule Approval

RTCR Effective

EPARTCR FR(Feb. 13,

2013)

SDWIS NextGen Operational(Sept, 2014)

Submit Draft Primacy Package

Primacy Approval(Feb. 13,

2015)

Tentative Determination

(≈ 90 day)

Primacy Approval(Feb. 13,

2017)

Determination(≈ 90 day)

State

Early / Pre-Implementation

State Migration to SDWIS NextGen

Complete (Sept, 2015)

State Rulemaking Process

??? Guidance / Outreach ???

**

*

*

Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act

• Public Law 111–380 signed January 4, 2011

• Users must comply by January 4, 2014

• EPA guidance is limited.

– Draft FAQs

• Use and sale of non-compliant pipes and fixtures is illegal

…‘lead free’ means—‘‘(A) not containing more than 0.2 percent lead whenused with respect to solder and flux; and‘‘(B) not more than a weighted average of 0.25 percentlead when used with respect to the wetted surfaces ofpipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures.

Public Law 111–380

FAQs available at http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/lead/index.cfm

Aspects of LCR in Revision

• Sampling– Criteria for inclusion in

sample pool– Sampling protocol

• Lead service line replacement provisions– Mandatory replacement

requirement– Public education

• Increase system attention on optimized corrosion control– Actions triggered by

exceeding action level– More extensive ongoing

evaluation

• Appropriate education about health risks associated with copper

• Incorporating Public Law 111–380, “Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act’’EPA is initiating a

stakeholder process

>20%

<5%

10 – 20%

5 – 10%

<20,000

20,000-100,000 >300,000

100,000-300,000

Number of Connections Which are Lead

Estimated Number of Lead Service Lines(Based on 1990 Weston and EES - All Lead Service Lines))

Perchlorate – Setting an MCLG and MCL

Source: National Cost Implications of a Potential Perchlorate Regulation, Malcolm Pirnie, 2008

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

4 6 12 18 24

Tota

l NP

VB

illi

on

s

Potential MCL (ppb)

Total NPV - 3% Interest Rate

90th Percentile

Median

Nationwide cost small but very high costs for impacted communities

• EPA responding to SAB (2013) recommendations for MCLG based on physiologically based pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamicmodeling approach

Regulated– Benzene– Carbon tetrachloride– 1,2-dichloroethane– 1,2-dichloropropane– Dichloromethane– Trichloroethylene

(TCE)– Tetrachloroethylene

(PCE)– Vinyl chloride

Unregulated– Aniline– Benzyl chloride– 1,3-butadiene– 1,2,3-

trichloropropane (TCP)

– 1,1-dichloroethane– Nitrobenzene– Methyl-oxirane– Propylene glycol– Urethane

Second Six-Year Review concluded that MCLs for TCE and PCE should be revised.

Carcinogenic VOCs

• Lower TCE/PCE MCLs would likely remove some of the eight unregulated CCL3 VOCs

• TCP is the biggest concern amongst the eight unregulated CCL3 VOCs

Source: Potentially Regulating Volatile Organic Compounds as a Group, EE&T, 2011

Carcinogenic VOCs

Continue to Manage TCE & PCE

– Current MCLs at 5 μg/L

– MCLG set at zero; analytical method could drive MCL to 1 μg/L or 0.5 μg/L

Defining “VOC”

– “Volatile” and “carcinogenic”

Analytical methods

– EPA Method 524.3 picks up 4 of the 8 unregulated

Occurrence

– Limited occurrence data due to lack of methods

– Different chemical uses yield different occurrence patterns

– Determining co-occurrence is challenging

Treatment

– Packed Tower Aeration (PTA) doesn’t work for all chemicals in group

Carcinogenic VOCs

Fluoride

• EPA analysis suggests level DWEL around 1 ppm

• CDC has proposed but not finalized a new single point value optimal fluoridation level of 0.7 ppm

• CDC guidance on operating tolerance about that 0.7 ppm target when fluoridating is in agency review.

• EPA has not indicated when it would propose revising Fluoride MCL and SMCL

• AWWA is currently revising M4 Water Fluoridation Principles and Practices

Items We Did Not Get To

• Hexavalent Chromium (see other talks at conference)

• Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (see other talks at conference)

• Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (compliance required)

• Executive Order on Cybersecurity• Pesticide General Permit (compliance required)

• Integrated Planning of Clean Water Act Compliance Requirements (now available)

• Definition of Waters of the United States• Electronic Reporting (SDWA and CWA)• Cyanotoxins• UIC – Exempted Aquifers• UIC – Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells

Questions?

Contact Information:

Steve Via

American Water Works Association

1300 Eye Street, NW, Suite 701W

Washington, DC 20005

p. (202) 326-6130

e. svia@awwa.org