# Presentation: 242033

## PROPOSED GROUND WATER RULE

**US EPA**
**Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water**

**Notes:**
Purpose:	The purpose of this presentation is to provide an informative summary of the proposed Ground Water Rule to affected and other interested parties in EPA headquarters and regional offices, State programs, water systems, and the general public.  
Agenda:	The presentation is intended to be delivered in an approximately 1 hour time period, including questions and answers.Overview	2 minutesBaseline Information	4 minutesRegulatory Approach -- Introduction	3 minutesSanitary Surveys	9 minutesHydrogeologic sensitivity assessment	9 minutesSource water monitoring	9 minutesCompliance Monitoring / Corrective Action 	9 minutesQ&A 	10 minutesSchedule / For More Information 	5 minutes

## OVERVIEW

**Rule Development Background**
** ****SDWA Mandate**
** ****Public Health Risks**
**Baseline Information**
** ****Number and Size of Systems**
** ****Location of Systems**
** ****Existing State Requirements**
**Regulatory Approach**
**Rule Development Process**
**Guiding Principles**
**Applicability**
**Regulatory Provisions**

**Notes:**
This presentation is organized into four major areas:
The first part of the presentation will provide some general background information on the need for this rule and the efforts taken to date by EPA in the development of the proposed rule.
The second part of the presentation provides information on the number of ground water systems in the US, the number of people served by those systems, and the general distribution of ground water systems throughout the US.
Next, the presentation will describe EPA’s  approach to developing the proposed rule and the five major components of the rule itself (sanitary surveys; hydrogeologic sensitivity assessments; source water monitoring; corrective actions; and compliance monitoring).  
The presentation will also identify some of the specific policy and technical aspects of the proposed rule for which the Agency is seeking input from the public during the comment period.
Note: for this presentation, the rule components are described as they are proposed in the rule.  

## RULE DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND:SDWA MANDATE

**Subsection 1412(b)(8) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)**
**“****...promulgate national primary drinking water regulations requiring disinfection as a treatment technique for all public water systems, including surface water systems and, **_**as necessary**_**, ground water systems.”**
**and**
**“...****(as part of the regulations) promulgate criteria...to determine whether disinfection shall be required as a treatment technique for any public water system served by ground water.”**

**Notes:**
EPA’s current efforts to develop a targeted risk based Ground Water Rule are rooted in the statutory authority and mandate for the Ground Water Rule provided in the language of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (shown on the slide).  This language specifically addresses EPA’s responsibilities with respect to addressing the appropriate use of disinfection in ground water systems.
The 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments approached the disinfection requirements somewhat differently than the 1996 amendments.  In the 1986 amendments, all public water systems (including ground water) were to be required to install disinfection as a treatment technique, with the possibility of obtaining a variance from the requirement if it could be shown that disinfection was not needed to protect public health.
The 1996 amendments approach the disinfection requirement with more flexibility.  The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require disinfection as a treatment technique only as necessary for ground water systems.  Based upon this clarified authority in the 1996 amendments, EPA has been working with a number of interested stakeholders to develop a targeted, risk based strategy for addressing microbial contamination in public ground water systems.

## RULE DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND:PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS

**CDC Outbreak Data: 1971–1996**
**318 of 371 outbreaks associated with ground water systems**
**Of those 318 microbial outbreaks:**
**86% were associated with source water**
**11% were associated with the distribution system**
**3% were of unknown cause**
**Of those involving source water, just under half were systems practicing disinfection**

**Notes:**
Next, we turn our attention to the nature of the public health risks that this rule is intended to address.
The primary public health risk being addressed by the Ground Water Rule is the potential exposure to enteric viral and bacterial pathogens introduced to ground water by failed septic systems, leaking sewer lines, and from land discharge reaching wells used for public water supplies.
This slide provides a summary of information available from The Centers for Disease Control on reported waterborne disease outbreaks in the US.  It’s important to recognize that reported outbreaks in the CDC database probably represent only a small percentage of actual incidents due to limitations in the reporting system and the inherent difficulties in associating the disease with drinking water rather than other potential sources such as food.
However, the CDC data do indicate that hundreds of outbreaks have occurred in ground water systems in recent years, and that most of these are related to source water contamination.
Note that in almost half of source water contamination cases, the system involved was reported as practicing disinfection.  However, the disinfection treatment was either inadequate or was not in operation at the time.

## RULE DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND:PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS (cont.)

**Occurrence Studies**
**13 Independent studies**
**AWWARF study is the most comprehensive**
**448 wells sampled in 35 States**
**Hydrogeologically representative**
**Analyses of AWWARF study data indicate viral pathogens are detected in 4%–31% of wells**

**Notes:**
EPA has conducted a review and evaluation of 13 separate studies that provide information on the potential occurrence of specific pathogens or other indicators of fecal contamination of ground water systems. The majority of those studies are site-specific or of a limited geographic region.
The most comprehensive, representative study is the recently completed study sponsored by the American Water Works Associations Research Foundation (AWWARF).  
The AWWARF study tested public water supply wells for a number of contaminants, including bacterial and viral indicators.
In the AWWARF study, the number of contaminated wells depends on the indicator used.  For example, 21 out of 448 wells (4%) tested positive with the viral cell culture test, a test that detects enteroviruses that can actually cause an infection.  In comparison, 141 of the 448 wells (31%) tested positive for the presence of viruses with the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests, which test for the DNA/RNA of specific viruses (not necessarily infectious viruses). 

## BASELINE INFORMATION:NUMBER AND SIZE OF SYSTEMS

_**Percent Disinfecting**_

**CWS ****—**** 68%**

**NTNC ****—**** 28%**

**TNC ****—**** 18%**

**CWS—Community Water System**
**NTNC—Non-Transient Non-Community**
**TNC—Transient Non-Community**

**157,000 total ground water systems**

**Note: disinfecting systems may not be**
**achieving 4-log inactivation of viruses**

## BASELINE INFORMATION:NUMBER AND SIZE OF SYSTEMS (cont.)

**BASELINE INFORMATION:****NUMBER AND SIZE OF SYSTEMS (cont.)**

**0%**

**10%**

**20%**

**30%**

**40%**

**50%**

**60%**

**70%**

**80%**

**90%**

**100%**

**>10K**

**3.3K-10K**

**1K-3.3K**

**500-1K**

**101-500**

**<100**

**Percent of Population**

**Percent of Systems**

**System Size by****Population Served**

## BASELINE INFORMATION:LOCATION OF SYSTEMS

**4 states with fewer than 500 systems**
**10 states with 500–1,000 systems**
**31 states with 1,001–8,000 systems**
**5 states with more than 8,000 systems**

## BASELINE INFORMATION:EXISTING STATE REQUIREMENTS

**Disinfection**
**5 States require across-the-board**
**49 States require some disinfection. Almost all others require under certain conditions**
**Sanitary Surveys**
**49 States require under TCR rule**
**GAO Study suggests not sufficient**
**Well Construction and Siting**
**48 States have well construction standards and 47 have minimum setback distances from microbial  sources**

**Notes:**
An important piece of information that EPA considered was existing State regulations and/or policies for the protection of public health.
EPA found that a variety of regulatory approaches have been taken by the States.
Five States require all ground water systems to disinfect.  Almost all of the remaining States require disinfection under certain conditions, such as when a system repeatedly tests positive for coliform bacteria.
Most States perform sanitary surveys on ground water systems, most frequently on community systems.  49 States require sanitary surveys be performed under the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (Source: Environmental Law Reporter database).  However, findings indicate that these sanitary surveys often do not provide sufficient scrutiny of the inspected systems (Source: GAO Report, April, 1993).  The sanitary survey component of the Ground Water Rule is meant to improve certain aspects of these sanitary surveys, thus increasing their reliability.
48 States have specified well construction standards and 47 specify minimum setback distances from pollutant sources.
Taking into account these existing State requirements, EPA has proposed a targeted risk-based approach for the Ground Water Rule that builds on these existing State regulations/policies.  The proposed rule provides the flexibility to address individual state situations while still targeting the systems at highest risk of fecal contamination for disinfection “as necessary”.

## REGULATORY APPROACH: RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

**Workgroup Process established April 1997**
**SBREFA Consultations**
**Stakeholder Meetings**
**ASDWA Early Involvement Meetings**
**Draft Ground Water Rule Preamble**

**Notes:**
EPA put significant effort into getting input from stakeholders, affected parties and the public while developing this proposal.
Key activities in this process inclued the activities listed on this slide.  
The Agency technical work group for rule development began 3 years ago  and included all 10 EPA Regions, USGS, CDC, Navajo Indian Tribe, and 12 States (CA, MA, MN, OR, VA, NJ, IL, ME, NE, TX, WA, and NY).
SBREFA consultations were held to identify small business interests.  Over 20 small entity representatives from across the country were consulted in this process.
Stakeholder meetings were held in Washington DC, Portland OR, Madison WI, and Dallas TX.
EPA participated in three early involvement meetings sponsored by ASDWA in 1998 and 1999.
In February of 1999, EPA made available on the internet a draft of the preamble of the rule which resulted in eighty sets of comments.  Comments received included letters from 34 States, 25 local governments, and 10 trade associations.
The proposed rule reflects the valuable input received throughout the rule development process

## REGULATORY APPROACH:REGULATORY PROVISIONS

**REGULATORY APPROACH:****REGULATORY PROVISIONS**

**Source Water**
**Monitoring****         **

**Sanitary**** **
**Survey**

**Corrective Actions**

**Compliance**
**monitoring****         **

- Sewer Line

**Sensitivity Assessments**

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:RULE APPLICABILITY

**The Ground Water Rule applies to:**
**PWS that use ground water as the only source**
**The ground water sources for mixed source PWSs which do not receive treatment in compliance with Subpart H **
**The Ground Water Rule does **_**not**_** apply to:**
**Systems using ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) as a source**
**Private wells**

**Notes:**
The GWR applies to all public water systems using ground water as their only  source of drinking water.
The GWR also applies to the ground water sources in mixed source systems (systems which have both surface and ground water sources) which do not receive treatment in accordance with  the Surface Water Treatment Rule and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (Subpart H).
However, the rule does not apply to those systems using as a source ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) since these systems are already regulated (e.g., SWTR, IESWTR, etc.)
GWR provisions are not applicable to owners of private drinking water wells

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:SANITARY SURVEYS

**Purpose**
**A comprehensive examination of  a water system to identify potential sources of contamination **
**Scope**
**All ground water systems**
**Frequency**
**Every 3 years for CWS; 5 years for NCWS**

**Notes:**
The first major component of the rule is the requirement for States to perform sanitary surveys for all ground water systems.  
The purpose of a sanitary survey is to evaluate and document the capabilities of the water system’s sources, treatment, storage, distribution network, operation and maintenance, and overall management in order to ensure that safe water is supplied to consumers.
The first sanitary surveys for community systems under this rule are to be completed within 6 years of the rule’s publication date, and within 8 years of the rule’s publication date for non-community systems.
These surveys are to be completed again at least every 3 years for community systems, and every 5 years for non-community systems.
These provisions are meant to increase the reliability and functionality of a sanitary survey by addressing the deficiencies noted in the GAO report on sanitary survey practices.

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:SANITARY SURVEYS (continued)

**Eight Elements of a Sanitary Survey**
**Source**
**Treatment**
**Distribution system integrity**
**Finished water storage**
**Pumps, pump facilities, and control**
**Monitoring, reporting, and data verification**
**Water system management and operations**
**Water system operator compliance with State requirements**

**Notes:**
These sanitary surveys must address the eight elements set forth in the EPA / State Joint Guidance on sanitary Surveys (1995) prepared by EPA and ASDWA.  Specifying these eight elements is meant to ensure a comprehensive review of all groundwater systems.

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:SANITARY SURVEYS (continued)

**States must identify significant deficiencies**
**State must have corrective action authority**
**Systems must fix significant deficiencies or apply treatment**

**Notes:**
An important aspect of the Sanitary Survey component of this rule, as proposed is that States have the flexibility to specify the defects that should be considered significant deficiencies.  These may include defects in design, operation and maintenance that cause or have the potential to cause fecal contamination (e.g., improper well construction, improper treatment plant operation, distribution system defects, etc.).
States will often identify significant deficiencies during sanitary surveys.  However, States may identify significant deficiencies for a system at any time. 
Systems must fix those deficiencies or apply treatment within 90 days.

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:HYDROGEOLOGIC SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT

**Purpose**
**To identify sensitive sources that will be required to perform routine monitoring**
**Scope**
**Non-disinfecting ground water systems **
**Frequency**
**One-time assessment**

**Notes:**
The second major component of the Ground Water Rule, as proposed,  is the hydrogeologic sensitivity assessment.  For systems not currently achieving  4-log (99.99%) inactivation or removal of viruses, States must perform a one-time hydrogeologic sensitivity assessment.
These assessments must be completed by the State within 6 years of the final rule for community systems and 8 years for non-community systems.
These assessments must also to be conducted for new ground water systems prior to their beginning to provide water to consumers.
The objective or purpose of these assessments, is to identify systems that are at high-risk of fecal contamination for further monitoring.

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:HYDROGEOLOGIC SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT (continued)

**Two key components of a hydrogeologic assessment:**** **
**State determines whether a system’s wells are located in a sensitive aquifer type (karst, gravel, or fractured bed rock)**
**State determines whether a hydrogeologic barrier is present that protects wells in a sensitive aquifer type**** **
**States may use information collected through the SWAPP for the hydrogeologic sensitivity assessment**

**Notes:**
The hydrogeologic sensitivity assessment are conducted by the States or their authorized representatives, not by the systems.  The assessments have two key components:
The first is to determine whether the system is located in karst, gravel, cobble or fractured bed rock aquifer -- all of which have been recognized as having the potential to transmit fecal contamination long distances over a short period of time.  A State has the flexibility to add additional aquifer types to those listed if the State considers them to be associated with an increased potential for fecal contamination.
For the second assessment component, a State may determine whether a system in a sensitive aquifer might has a hydrogeologic barrier in place that would mitigate the potential high risk due to aquifer type alone.  A hydrogeologic barrier is a physical, chemical, or biological factor (or combination) that would prevent the movement of pathogens into the source water.  States have the flexibility to determine what constitutes a hydrogeologic barrier.
Systems with sensitive wells will be required to perform  routine monitoring. 
States may use information collected in the Source Water Assessment and Protection Program (SWAPP) to assist in evaluating hydrogeologic sensitivity, thus reducing the burden on States to gather information for the hydrogeologic sensitivity assessments.

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:SOURCE WATER MONITORING

**Two types of source water monitoring requirements:**
**Routine source water monitoring**
**Triggered source water monitoring**

**Notes:**
The third key component of the proposed Ground Water Rule is the source water monitoring requirement.  There are two types of source water monitoring:
The first is the routine monitoring for systems that have been identified as hydrogeologically sensitive.  Routine source water monitoring is designed to determine if the system might have a fecal contamination problem
The second type of source water monitoring is “triggered” by a positive sample for total coliform in the distribution system of an undisinfected ground water system.  Triggered monitoring is designed to complement the distribution system monitoring already conducted under the Total Coliform Rule.

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:ROUTINE SOURCE WATER MONITORING

**Purpose**
**To determine if a sensitive source has fecal contamination**
**Scope**
**Hydrogeologically sensitive sources**
**Frequency**
**Monthly for at least one year**
**Begin 1 month after being notified that source is sensitive**

**Notes:**
The purpose of routine source water monitoring is to determine whether  sensitive wells are showing any signs of fecal contamination.
Monthly source water samples must be tested for a fecal indicator (E. coli, coliphage, or enterococci) as specified by the State.
If a system completes a year of monthly sampling with no positives found, the State has the discretion to reduce or eliminate the monitoring.  
At the State’s discretion, the monthly monitoring can be reinstated.
If a system conducting routine monitoring finds a sample positive for any of the fecal indicators, it must notify the State and initiate corrective action.
Note that the system can apply to the State for a waiver for the corrective action if 5 repeat samples taken within 24 hours of the initial source water positive show no fecal positives.

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:TRIGGERED SOURCE WATER MONITORING

**Purpose**
**To determine if a TC positive sample is caused by source water contamination**
**Scope**
**Systems that do not disinfect **
**Frequency **
**Triggered by a total coliform positive sample **
**Must sample source water within 24 hours**

**Notes:**
Triggered monitoring is initiated in any ground water system not currently achieving 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses when a total coliform positive sample is collected in the distribution system under the Total Coliform Rule.
Systems with a total coliform positive sample in the distribution system are required to perform fecal indicator analyses on their source water within 24 hours.    
EPA believes that a total coliform positive sample in the distribution system, followed by a fecal indicator positive sample in the source water is indicative of a serious contamination problem.
When triggered monitoring results in a fecal indicator positive in source water, the system must provide immediate notification to the State and initiate corrective action.
NOTE: The Ground Water Rule requirement for source water monitoring is designed to complement the distribution systems monitoring already conducted under the Total Coliform Rule. 

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:SOURCE WATER MONITORING METHODS

**Fecal indicator analytical methods  -- specified by the State**
***E. coli***
**Coliliert test****	**
**Colisure test**
**MI agar**
**m-ColiBlue24 test**
**E*Colite test**
**Enterococci**
**Multiple tube technique**
**Membrane filter technique**
**Enterolert**
**Coliphage**
**EPA method 1601**
**EPA method 1602**

**Notes:**
As part of the proposed rule, EPA has identified three categories of fecal indicators (E. coli, coliphage, and enterococci) that the States may use for routine and triggered monitoring. 
E. coli and enterococci are bacteria and coliphage are viruses.  All are commonly found in fecally contaminated waters.
States have the flexibility to choose the appropriate indicator for monitoring within their jurisdiction.
In addition, the proposed rule identifies several specific tests that the State may select from when specifying its specific monitoring requirements.  
The methods available are identified in this slide.  The coliphage sampling methods have recently completed round robin testing and should be commercially available by the effective date of the rule.  
All testing must be performed by State certified labs.
All samples for testing will be subject to a 30 hour maximum holding time.

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:CORRECTIVE ACTION

**Purpose**
**To protect public health by eliminating or preventing exposure to pathogens**
**Scope**
**Systems with significant defects **
**Systems with source water which tests positive for fecal  indicators**
**Frequency**
**Corrective actions must be completed within 90 days or on a State approved schedule**

**Notes:**
The fourth major component of the Ground Water Rule, as proposed, is the corrective action requirement.
The purpose of corrective action is to protect public health by eliminating or preventing exposure to pathogens.  
Corrective action is required when a significant deficiency is identified or a source water sample is positive for a fecal indicator. 
The specific action or actions to be taken will depend on the particular circumstances at hand.  Systems required to take corrective action must consult with the State to determine what actions or combination of actions should be carried out.
The corrective action must be completed as soon as possible and no later than 90 days after written notification from the State.  The State may extend the 90-day deadline if the State determines additional time is necessary for capital improvements.  

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:CORRECTIVE ACTION (continued)

**Corrective action approaches include:**
**Correct the significant deficiency**
**Eliminate the source of contamination**
**Provide an alternative source of water**
**Provide treatment that reliably achieves 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses**

**Notes:**
As noted before, the corrective action chosen will depend on the circumstances surrounding the identified problem(s).
Systems and States have the flexibility to determine the most effective means of correcting the problem(s).
The specific action will likely fall into one of the four main categories shown on this slide:
Correct the significant deficiency
Eliminate the contamination source
Provide an alternative water source
Treat (disinfect) to reliably achieve 4-log inactivation of viruses
4-log removal or inactivation of viruses is defined as a 99.99% reduction.
States have flexibility in determining the criteria for demonstrating 4-log removal.  For example, States could use criteria such as the calculation of CT values (chlorine dose and contact time) to determine compliance with the 4-log requirement.

## REGULATORY PROVISIONS:COMPLIANCE MONITORING

**Purpose**
**Ensures reliable disinfection treatment (4-log inactivation or removal of viruses)**
**Scope**
**Systems that notify the State that they currently achieve 4-log inactivation**** **
**Systems that select disinfection as a corrective action**
**Frequency**
**Continuously for systems serving 3,300 or more  people**
**Daily for systems serving 3,300 or fewer people**

**Notes:**
A fifth component of the Ground Water Rule, as proposed, is compliance monitoring, which is designed to demonstrate the reliability of disinfection treatment.
The purpose of compliance monitoring is to address concerns regarding the reliability of disinfection practices.
All systems notifying the State that they currently have treatment achieving 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses and systems that implement such treatment as a result of the Ground Water Rule must perform compliance monitoring.
Systems with chemical disinfection serving more than 3,300 people must monitor continuously and maintain the required disinfection residual continuously .  The system must use continuous monitoring equipment fitted with an alarm.
Systems with chemical disinfection serving 3,300 or fewer people must monitor and maintain the required disinfection residual everyday that the system serves water to the public.  The system must take daily grab samples.
All size systems with UV disinfection must monitor irradiance continuously.
Systems with membrane filtration must operate the process in accordance with State specified criteria.

## REQUEST FOR COMMENTS

**To facilitate EPA’s ability to respond to individual comments****  **
**Indicate what you support as well as what you disagree with**
**Cite, when possible, the paragraphs or sections in the proposal or supporting documents you are commenting on**
**Use a separate paragraph for each issue discussed**
**Please describe any assumptions you have used and provide copies of any technical data to support your comments**

**Notes:**
 EPA is anticipating a significant number of comments on this proposal.  While it is not required that commentors follow these guidelines, it will make the task of responding to the comments much easier.  

## REQUEST FOR COMMENTS

**Public comments on the Rule should be sent to:**
**	****By regular mail to:**
**	****EPA’s Drinking Water Docket #W-98-23**
**	****1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW**
**	****Washington, DC  20460**
** **
**	****or via e-mail to:  ow-docket@epa.gov**
**The public comment period ends August 9, 2000  **

**Notes:**

EPA encourages all interested parties to submit comments on the proposed rule.
EPA will consider all comments received and revise the rule as necessary. 
Please submit an original and 3 copies of comments and any supporting materials, including references.
Comments may be submitted in either hard copy (written) or electronic format.
NO FACSIMILIES (faxes) will be accepted
Comments must be postmarked by the last day of the comment period.

## SCHEDULE

**May 10, 2000 Proposed Rule**
**90 day public comment period ending August 9, 2000**
**Fall 2000 Final Rule**
**Fall 2003 Effective date of the Rule**

**Notes:**
The Ground Water Rule was proposed on May 10, 2000 and EPA anticipates that it will be made final in late November 2000.
Again, EPA encourages all interested parties to submit comments on the proposed rule during the designated comment period.  EPA will consider all comments received and make any necessary revisions prior to publication of the final rule.
Effective date will be 3 years from publication of the final rule.  This is the date when ground water systems must begin to comply with the GWR. Compliance schedules for specific components of the rule (notably sanitary surveys and hydrogeologic assessments) were discussed in previous slides.

## FOR MORE INFORMATION

**Website:  http://www.epa.gov/safewater/gwr.html**
**EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline: **
**   ****1-800-426-4791**
**- ****Eric Burneson, burneson.eric@epa.gov or 202-260-1445**
**- Tracy Bone, bone.tracy@epa.gov or 202-260-2954**

**Notes:**
Additional information on the GWR as well as other drinking water issues is available from EPA.

## Slide 29