# 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 Workg roup Members ..................................................3

2.2 Reduce the Monitoring Frequency for Grou nd 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 fo r 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-1

Appendix B: Second Six-Year Review of Na tional Primary Drinking Water Regulations -

Summary of Initial List of 22 Issues Identifi ed by Working Group ...................................B-1

Appendix C: Summary of the January 18 , 2008 Discussion on the Use of POU/POE

Devices ........................................................................................................................ ................ C-1

i

# EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008

October 2009



# List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AMG Alternative Monitoring Guidelines

ASDWA Association of State Dr inking Water Administrators

BAT Best Available Technology

CCR Consumer Confidence Report

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWS Community Water System

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution System

FR Federal Register

GWUDI Ground Water under the Direct Influence of Surface Water

HAA5 Haloacetic Acids

LCR Lead and Copper Rule

LT2ESWTR Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

mg/L Milligrams per Liter

MRL Method Reporting Limit

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation

NTNCWS Non-transient, Non-community Water System

OCCT Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OGC Office of General Counsel

OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

PN Public Notification

POE Point-of-Entry

POU Point-of-Use

PQL Practical Quantitation Limit

PWS Public Water System

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant

SNC Significant Non-Complier

TCR Total Coliform Rule

Stage 2 DBPR Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

TNCWS Transient Non-Community Water System

TSC Technical Support Center

TT Treatment Technique

ii

# EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008

October 2009



# iii 

# 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 revi ew 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 6 years, review and revise, as

appropriate, each national primary drin king water regulation promulgated under

this title. Any revision of a national pr imary drinking water regulation shall be

promulgated in accordance with this sec tion, except that each revision shall

maintain, or provide for greater, pr otection 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 de veloping a systematic approach, or

protocol, for the review of NPDWRs. EPA has applie d 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 ea ch 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 revisi ons (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), an d treatment techniques (TTs) co mponents of the NPDWRs, EPA

considers whether other regulatory revisions migh t be needed, such as system monitoring and

reporting requirements, as part of Six-Year Revi ew 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 NP DWR, as defined under section 1401 of SDWA 1 

# ; 2) Were “ready” for rulemaking – that is, the probl em 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 he alth 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 sect ion 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA, is “e ach national primary drinking

water regulation,” as defined under section 1401 of SDWA.

1

# 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 memb er States and primacy agencies. In the fall of

2007, ten member States agreed to particip ate and confer with EP A 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 poten tial 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 po ssible issues. ASDWA then asked States from the

workgroup to rank each of the issues as high, me dium, 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 identi fied 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 Sc ore” 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 mechanisms 2 

# , (2) outside

the scope of this Six-Year Review 3 

# , 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, EP A attempted to provide assistance during the

workgroup meetings by having Agency experts discuss so me 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 fo ur 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 conc ern with States during the course of the

workgroup meetings, offering direct technical assistance from laboratory experts at EP A’s Technical Support Center

(TSC) in Cincinnati, Ohio, and noting that TSC is a resource for any laboratory with questions regarding methods issues,

with contact inform ation 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 ra ised by the States (see Appendix B).

3 

# 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). Be cause the UCMR is not an NPDWR, as defined under

section 1401 of SDWA, it was therefore not wi thin the scope of the Six-Year Review.

2

# EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008

October 2009



# The following sections of this document provid e 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 consid ering some form of information or fact sheet.

Potential resolutions discussed by State workgrou p 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 m onitoring 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 requirement s 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 nitr ification within the distribution system may be a

growing issue 4 

# . And while the extent or cause has yet to be fully examined, there is some concern

that nitrification is occurring in water system s that have adopted chloramines as a disinfection

treatment option and potential ex ceedances above the MCL for nitra te/nitrite may go undetected at

the current sampling location 5



# .

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 system 6 

# . 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 togeth er with samples for disinfection byproducts under

the Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disi nfection 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 nitrit e and nitrate. See www.epa.gov/safewater/disinf ection/tcr/pdfs/whitep ape r_tcr_nitrif ication.pdf for

additional information on nitrification.

5 

# The health effects technical review identified new informatio n on developmental effects of ni trate 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 EP A will be able to determine the potential impacts on the

MCLG, MCL, and/or monitoring requ irements, and the most appropriate timing for any potential revisions.

6 

# The monitoring framework su ggested by the workgroup is consistent with the monitoring requirements for six

nitrosamine compounds in the second Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Pub lic 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 distributi on system at the point of maximum residence time.

3

# 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 distribu tion 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-specifi c or national in scope. Although Texas provided

some monitoring data 7 

# , 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 Frequen cy for Ground Water Systems with

Historically Low Levels of Nitrate/Nitrite

Issue Description

The workgroup discussed the possibility of monitori ng relief for ground water systems with many

years of nitrate/nitrite results that were well be low 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 monito ring, and no water system can conduct nitrate

monitoring less frequently than annually 9



# .

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 mil ligrams per liter (mg/L), and the requirement that

all PWSs must monitor for nitrate at each EP TDS. The federal regulations required nitrate

monitoring to begin in 1993 at a quarterly frequency for community water systems (CWSs) and nontransient, 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 annu al monitoring (to occur in the quarter that

previously yielded the highest nitr ate 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 ha s also performed st udies and gathered

some data on nitrification in the distribution system.

8 

# 40 CFR 141.23(a)(2) states: Surface wate r systems shall take a minimum of one sample at every en try point to the

distribution system after any app lication of treatment or in the distribution sy stem at a point which is representative of

each source after treatment (hereafter called a sampling point ) beginning in the initial co mpliance period. The system

shall take each sample at the same sampling point unless co nditions make another sampling point more representative of

each source or treatment plant.

9 

# Note that the Federal regulation at 40 CFR 141.23(a)(1) an d (2), and 141.23(e) provide fo r more flexibility for reduced

nitrite monitoring. Systems were only required to monitor fo r nitrite once during the initial compliance period, or

between 1993 and 1995. Systems with analyt ical results that are less than on e-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.

4

# 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 regulato ry 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 me mbers suggested a reduced

monitoring frequency of 3, 6, or 9 years. Thes e 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 twoyear 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-ha lf 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 nonregulatory option for monitoring relief. States th at 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 ch emical monitoring schedule. States indicated that

they would prefer some type of regulatory revisi on for these ground water systems instead of using

the AMG.



# 2.3 Revise the Monitoring Requi rements 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-communi ty water system monitoring. In the case of

NTNCWSs, EPA requires monitoring for contaminan ts that pose a health risk from chronic

exposure (other than radionuclides). The workgrou p 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 concer ned 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 additi onal monitoring for TNCWSs, this is not an option

5

# 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 firs t option was to revise all contaminant rules to

include additional monitoring requirements for TN CWSs, as well as radionuclide monitoring for

NTNCWSs. The second option was to review existi ng regulated contaminants and include TNCWS

monitoring requirements based on the relative heal th 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 c ontaminants that pose chronic exposure risks and

can have acute effects at elevated levels potentia lly 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 suffi cient 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 St ate workgroup members pertains to the need for

clarification of PN requirements for fluoride. Alt hough 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 th rough 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 wi thin 12 months of the exceedance. The States

voiced concerns about (1) the confusion that occu rs 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 reque sted 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



# 7 

# References

USEPA. 1991. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic Organic Chemicals and

Inorganic Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregula ted Contaminants; National Primary Drinking

Water Regulation Implementation; National Second ary 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 Dr inking Water Standards. Federal Register. Vol. 68, No. 138, p. 42908.

July 18, 2003.

USEPA. 2003b. EPA Protocol for Review of Existing Nat ional 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 Drin king Water Regulations

(Updated). EPA Report 815-B-09-002. October 2009.

# Appendices

Appendix A: Review of Implementa tion 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 Janua ry 18, 2008 Discussion on

Issues Use of POU/POE Devices

8

# 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) Nebraska

Delaware New Jersey

Idaho New York

Minnesota Oregon

Missouri Texas

North Carolina



# EPA Offices

Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance (OECA) Office of Ground Water and Drinking

Water (OGWDW)

Office of General Counsel (OGC) Office of Policy, Economics, and

Innovation (OPEI)

A-1EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009Appendix B: Second Six-Year Review of NationalPrimary Drinking Water Regulations - Summary ofInitial List of 22 Issues Identified by Working GroupFindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional InformationMonitoringandReportingViolationsMore clearly distinguish betweenmonitoring and reporting violations sothat the actual significance of each typeof violation is known:Under the currentviolation tracking process, a water systemthat samples and reports the results a daylate looks as bad as a system that does notcollect any samples at all. This may haveramifications on the status of systems asSignificant Non-Compliers (SNCs). Theremay be a solution to this issue that does notrequire a regulatory change.21Outside the scope of thisreview effort; besthandled through technicalassistance.B-1EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional InformationChem/RadRules (Arsenicand UraniumMCLs)States would like assistance indetermining cost effective methods fordealing with chem/rad wastes:The newMCLs for arsenic and uranium are causingproblems for some verysmall systems (e.g.,< 50 connections). The problem is not inthe treatment, but in the disposal of thetreatment waste. This is a significantimplementation issue that has never beenadequately addressed by EPA.21Outside the scope of thisreview effort; besthandled throughguidance.EPA noted during workgroup discussions that manyguidance documents/training materials related totreatment/disposal costs have been developed for thearsenic and radionuclides regulations. The followingwebsites link to the various webcasts and/or other sourcesof information for these rules:www.epa.gov/safewater/dwa/rules.htmlwww.epa.gov//safewater/radionuclides/compliancehelp.htmlwww.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/compliance.htmlIn a follow up email, EPA provided a weblink(www.npdespermits.com/sparrc/) to a simulation toolentitled “Software Program to Ascertain RadionuclideResidual Concentrations (SPARRC).” This tool can beused to estimate quantities and concentrations of radiumand uranium in water treatment plant residuals (forselected treatment technologies using a mass balanceapproach). In this version, EPA also incorporated adisposal cost estimating tool for a few technologies inSPARRC, and included default unit costs based onnational average cost information. EPA has used availablecase study data to validate the mass balance calculationsand compared outputs with another radionuclide massbalance model. The users can estimate quantities and costsfor radionuclide-contaminated residuals given user-definedinputs for influent water quality and treatment operationparameters.B-2EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional InformationLT2ESWTRProvide regulatory relief for smallsystem cryptosporidium requirements:Early implementation of 40 CFR141.701(a)(4)(i) has shown that one sampleafter months and months of low readingscan trigger cryptosporidium monitoring bysmall systems. Some relief seemsappropriate.20Outside the scope of thisreview effort since theNPDWR was just revisedand published in 2006;best handled throughother mechanisms.Current Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water TreatmentRule (LT2ESWTR) offers flexibility. EPA has beencollecting data on turbidity,E. coli, and cryptosporidiumfor large water systems; thisinformation may help toevaluate monitoring requirements for small systems.Lead andCopper Rule(extend OCCTplan timeframe)Modify the Lead and Copper Rule toextend the optimal corrosion controltreatment (OCCT) plan submissiontime frame to 12 months and then allow18 months after that to install treatment:Very few systems have been able tocomplete the study and submit plans underthe existing timeframes.18Outside the scope of thisreview effort since theNPDWR was recentlyrevised and published in2007.EPA is currently evaluating issues for the long-termrevision effort and this item isbest handled by referring itto this effort.NitrateNitritemonitoringRevise current nitrate/nitritemonitoring requirements to moreappropriately reflect chloraminationconsiderations:Many water systems areadopting disinfection with chloramines as atreatment option to reduce levels ofdisinfection byproducts. Nitrification maybe an issue but currently source watermonitoring is the only requirement fornitrate and nitrite. A potential health impactcould go undetected. One State (Texas)noted that they were developing data onoccurrence in distribution systems but doesnot have these data yet.18Within the scope ofconsidering for thisreview effort; besthandled throughregulatory revision orclarification.Regulatory revision may be needed to change the locationof the sampling point for monitoring. Guidancecould alsobe considered as part of the solution; would needinformation/data to better understand the conditions thatlead to nitrification.See section 2.1 of this document for further discussion.B-3EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional InformationNonCommunitySystemMonitoringReview and revise, as appropriate,monitoring requirements applicable tonon-community water systems in lightof the potential health risks associatedwith each:NTNCWSs monitor for chroniccontaminants but TNCWSs do not. Theremay be instances where NTNCWSsmonitor too much, and TNCWSs do notmonitor enough (e.g., extremely high levelsof a “chronic” contaminant at a TNCWSmay pose an acute risk). Appropriatechanges could better utilize limitedresources and reduce public health risks. Inaddition, at least one State participant notedthat radionuclides need to be monitored atNTNCWSs.18Within the scope ofconsidering for thisreview effort; besthandled throughregulatory revision.Regulatory revisions would be needed to change theapplicability of monitoring requirements for NTNCWSand/or TNCWS.See section 2.3 of this document for further discussion.Chem/RadRules(RadionuclideRule)Some flexibility on monitoring andreporting should be provided to theextent it does not decrease public healthprotection. The data and informationused to support development of theradionuclide MCLs should also berevisited. The MCLs are too stringentcompared to the actual risks posed byradionuclides:Keeping up with quarterlyradium testing is very difficult. By the timesamples are collected, analyzed, reported,and data are analyzed, it is nearly impossibleto report violations to EPA by the requireddeadline. Additionally, the way the rule iswritten, all 4 analytes are required to be17Outside the scope of thisreview effort; theradionuclides rule waseffective in 2006 and it isnot clear that any changesin monitoring andreporting would clearlyimprove public healthprotection; best handledthrough othermechanisms.Note that EPA correspondence with commercial labsfound that counting time for radiums range from 10 to300 minutes (depending on radium species and samplevolume collected).Regarding MCLs, currently there is no new information toindicate that EPA could consider changes to the MCLs(and it would be considered backsliding to make MCLsless stringent since the MCLG is zero).B-4EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional Informationmonitored on possibly different frequenciestherefore precluding the ability to substitutethe alpha for the more expensive 226 anduranium in routine monitoring.AnalyticalMethodsRevise performance criteria for thehaloacetic acids (HAA5) analyticalmethod:The HAA5 method specified by40 CFR 141.131 gives erratic results. Whensamples are split between separate labsthere is little or no correlation between theanalytical results. State workgroup membersindicated that EPA’s own studies showedthat many labs could not produce accurateanalytical results.17Outside the scope of thisreview effort; besthandled through technicalassistance (see notesregarding in theAdditional Informationcolumn).Experts from EPA’s Technical Support Center discussedthis issue with the workgroup noting that EPA has notexperienced erratic results with the HAA5 method.As partof the quality assurance program for the InformationCollection Rule, laboratories were required to performanalyses of fortified samples and report the results to EPA.More than 80 laboratories around the nation participatedin that study providing percent recoveries for the 1,250samples that were fortified for HAA analyses. The datademonstrated that 80% of the HAA recoveries (in fortifiedfield samples) were within89% and 120% while 80% ofthe THM recoveries (in fortified field samples) were within87% and 114%. These data demonstrated that both HAAand THM results were equivalent and that they can bothbe determined accurately.EPA also provided a contact list of EPA personnel (atTSC and the Office of Research and Development), whoare familiar with the analytical methods for variouscontaminants.B-5EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional InformationLead andCopper RuleAmend the LCR to require PWSs thatfail to comply with reduced monitoringrequirements for lead and copper tapsampling (i.e., annual or tri-annualtesting) to return to their initialmonitoring requirements (6-monthtesting):They would then have tocomplete two consecutive 6-monthmonitoring periods with results below theaction levels before they would again beeligible for reduced monitoring. Currently,PWSs that fail to monitor during a reducedmonitoring period could go up to 6 yearswithout having to test for lead and copper.16Outside the scope of thisreview effort since theNPDWR was recentlyrevised and published in2007.EPA is currently evaluating issues for the long-termrevision effort and this item isbest handled by referring itto this effort. In addition, the reduced monitoring issuemay be handled best through enforcement actions.ProcessControlMeasurementClarify and expedite the procedures forapproving process control technologies:Process control technologies often utilizenew analytical methods for on-lineanalyzers and operational testing that aredifficult to get accepted. It is difficult todetermine what constitutes an acceptableadaptation of a “bench-top” technique.Since they are not analytical methodsassociated with an MCL, it is uncertainwhether the newly proposed, expeditedanalytical method approval process willhelp.16Outside the scope of thisreview effort; besthandled through technicalassistance.EPA noted during workgroup discussions that onlineresidual analyzers for chlorinewould need to go throughand be evaluated under the Alternative Test Procedures(ATP) process. EPA provided information and a contactperson for EPA’s Technical Support Center who coulddiscuss the ATP process for potential evaluation of onlineanalyzers.VariancesandExemptionsRuleStreamline and simplify the Varianceand Exemption (V & E) Rule:V & Escould be useful tools if the rule were revisedto make them less cumbersome, more16Outside the scope of thisreview effort; besthandled through othermechanisms.The process required for V&Es (other than the smallsystem variances) is specified by the statute (Sections 1415and 1416). The primacy requirement for States adoptingV&E requirements (other thanthe small system variances)B-6EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional Informationstreamlined, and with “less stringsattached.”is that they must be no less stringent than the statute.States already have flexibility to adopt whatever processthey want as long as it isconsistent with the statute (40CFR 142.10(d)(2)). It is unlikely that EPA can provide anymore flexibility on the process for V&Es.Point of Useand Point ofEntryRevise Best Available Technologies(BATs) for rules for which point-ofuse/point-of-entry (POU/POE) devicesmay be appropriate, but which are notspecifically listed as BATs (e.g.,nitrates):POU/POE are sometimesrecognized as BATs but they have not beenconsistently adopted in existing rules. Theremay be other situations where thistechnology could be effectively used as atreatment option and these need to berecognized.15Outside the scope ofthis review effort; besthandled through use ofexisting guidance andtechnical assistance.EPA noted that existing guidance includes:(1) “Small System Compliance Technology List for theNon-Microbial ContaminantsRegulated 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 DrinkingWater Systems”. Available at:www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsys/pdfs/guide_smallsystems_pou-poe_june6-2006.pdf.EPA has listed small system POU/POE devices for rulespromulgated since the 1996 SDWA Amendments. AnAugust 6, 1998 FR (63 FR 151) notice lists small systemdevices for rules promulgated before the 1996 SDWA.In addition, a separate discussion was held between EPAstaff, ASDWA, and State personnel who were interested inthe POU/POE topic. Notes from this meeting areincluded in Appendix C.ConsumerConfidenceReportsRevise the Consumer ConfidenceReport (CCR) to address a number ofcurrent implementation issues andconcerns, based on experiences inimplementing the rule over the pastseveral years:The amount of system andState resources allocated to the CCR issignificant with very limited return. A major15Outside the scope of thisreview effort since CCR isnot technically part of anNPDWR.B-7EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional Informationoverhaul of this rule is needed. Possiblechanges may include that the CCR is donein conjunction with and at the frequency ofthe sanitary surveys. A second option: TheCCR is an EPA report that is maintained byEPA through SDWIS/Fed and is availableelectronically or in hardcopy from EPA.System owners would be responsible foridentifying that the report is available andhow to receive a copy.FalsePositiveSampleResultsThe regulations should recognize thepotential for “false positive”measurement of phthalates and allowany relief from the burden ofunnecessary follow-up:This issue is mostcommon with phthalates, but othercontaminants can show up at very lowlevels (below the practical quantitation limit[PQL]/method reporting limit [MRL]) andtrigger additional monitoring and potentiallyincreased levels of treatment when therereally is no contamination in the watersystem but the result is a “false positive”.15Outside the scope of thisreview effort; besthandled through technicalassistance (see notes inthe AdditionalInformation column).EPA’s Technical Support Centerdiscussed this item withthe workgroup noting compounds such as phthalates canoccasionally be observed as false positives. EPA indicatedthat it is not difficult for laboratories to determine thesource of the contamination and eliminate it. The first stepis to determine if the contamination is the result ofsampling or sample shipmentand storage, or if it is alaboratory issue. The next stepor solution is to eithereducate sampling personnel about correct samplingprocedures or determine the specific step in the laboratoryprocedure that needs to be corrected.EPA also noted that the presence of contaminants at orabove the MCL needs to be taken seriously. Thepresumption of a “false positive” may in itself beincorrect, or the “false positive” portion of the result mayobscure the actual presence ofthe analyte in the sample.Using good laboratory and good sampling practices willgreatly reduce if not eliminate the problems associatedwith false positives, evenwith analytes such as thephthalates.B-8EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional InformationEPA indicated that States, PWSs or laboratories can alwayscall TSC if they are having problems with any EPAapproved methods. EPA provided a contact list of EPApersonnel (at TSC and the Office of Research andDevelopment), who are familiar with the analyticalmethods for various contaminants.B-9EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional InformationDefinition ofa publicwater systemRevise the definition of a PWS:Althoughthe definition of a PWS is in the SDWA, itseems that EPA could exercise reasonableflexibility in interpreting the statutorydefinition to alleviate the confusionbetween 25 people vs. 15 connections. Thedefinition states, “The term ‘public watersystem’ means a system for the provision tothe public of water for human consumptionthrough pipes or other constructedconveyances, if such system has at leastfifteen service connections or regularlyserves at least twenty-five individuals.” Nopreference or guidance is given in the law asto where and when 25 people or 15connections apply. It would be reasonable,for instance, for EPA to clarify throughguidance that “service connections” applieswhere the PWS actually has individualconnections that can be counted (CWSs),and “persons served water” applies toPWSs without individual serviceconnections (TNCWSs, NTNCWSs,businesses, etc.). At least one Stateparticipant indicated thatit would be usefulto clarify what types of consecutive systemsare not covered by SDWA, and that thiscould require a change to section 300g ofAct.14Outside the scope ofthis review effort; besthandled throughguidance (see notes inthe AdditionalInformation column).Current guidance includes Water Supply Guidance memos(#12, 34, 66A, H3 and H18), available at:http://www.epa.gov/safewater/wsg/subject.html#interpretationB-10EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional InformationFluorideRevise PN requirements associated withboth the MCL and the SMCL to betterreflect the implication of violations ofeach; this may be “folded in” to anoverall effort to revise the MCL:a) TheNational Academy of Sciences (NAS) hasrecommended that the MCL be reviewed.b) There is some confusion between theMCL and the SMCL (secondary standard)and the appropriate public notificationrequirements for each level.14Outside the scope of thisreview effort; besthandled throughregulatory revision (seenotes in the AdditionalInformation column).While potential MCL changes are within the scope of SixYear Review, PN alone is technically outside the scope;however, if EPA decides tomake changes to the MCL,PN requirements (as well as any issues with the SMCL)will be considered. EPA is currently addressing the NASrecommendations to update the health assessment forfluoride and evaluate exposure sources (relative sourcecontribution).Guidance and assistance could also clarify confusionbetween MCL and SMCL and the PN requirements in theinterim.See section 3.0 of this document for further discussion.AlternativeTreatmentAllow bottled water tobe a compliancetechnology for appropriate rules andwith appropriate caveats:Some entitiesmay be able to justify the use of bottledwater as a viable method of resolving anMCL. Discussion regarding the proposedmodification of the bottled water languageis requested.13Outside the scope of thisreview effort; besthandled through guidanceand technical assistance.At the request of States, EPA held a listening session inDecember 2006 on the viability of bottled water as analternative compliance optionfor chronic contaminantsregulated under the SDWA. Themeeting aimed to identifywhat information and data would be needed for EPA toevaluate the efficacy of bottled water as an alternativecompliance option for NTNCWSs. In a February 2007follow up meeting, EPA and ASDWA agreed that currentState practices for the use of bottled water on a temporarybasis until the system returns to compliance are protectiveof public health and are being implemented in aresponsible manner.B-11EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional InformationChem/RadRules(Nitratemonitoring)Systems with a proven history of nitrateresults of less than one-half the MCL (orsome other trigger level) should beallowed to reduce nitrate monitoring:Indiscussions on Chemical MonitoringReform several years ago, EPA seemedfavorable to this. States have identifiedmany systems with more than 15 years ofnitrate data with no nitrate detections.Reducing this monitoring would be helpfuland would not decrease protection of publichealth.12Within the scope ofconsidering for thisreview effort; besthandled throughregulatory revision.Regulatory revisions would be needed to changemonitoring frequency for these systems. See section 2.2 ofthis document for further discussion.SanitarySurveysClarify applicability of sanitary surveysto various types of systems:Sanitarysurvey applicability was expanded to includeconsecutive systems but not specificallynoted in the regulations or special primacyrequirements.11Outside the scope of thisreview; effort besthandled through othermechanisms.The requirements for States to conduct sanitary surveysare found in the 40 CFR Section 142,10(b)(2) (generalprimacy requirement for all PWSs), 142.16(b)(3)(requirement for surface water and GWUDI systems) and142.16(o)(2)(groundwater systems). The CFR does not listany exclusion for PWSs that are classified as consecutivesystems. However, some small subset of consecutivesystems may be excluded from all the NPDWRs (includingthe sanitary survey requirements) under 141.3 (Coverage)and 142.3 (Scope). Public Water Systems excluded fromthese requirements must meet all of the conditionsoutlined in those sections including: Consists only ofdistribution and storage facilities (and does not have anycollection and treatment facilities); Obtains all of its waterfrom, but is not owned or operated by, a public watersystem to which such regulations apply: Does not sellwater to any person; and, Is not a carrier which conveyspassengers in interstatecommerce.B-12EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional InformationUndergroundInjectionControlLiquid waste generated by a drinkingwater treatment technology that isrecognized by EPA to be a BAT shouldbe exempted from the UndergroundInjection Control (UIC) requirements orat least establish specificcriteria/standards within the revisedUIC Rule for all States to adopt for thesecircumstances:Some States areinterpreting the UIC Class V Rule definitionof Sanitary Waste to include “WaterTreatment Liquid Waste” (i.e., spentbackwash water), thusmaking it verydifficult to secure a discharge permit forthis type of liquid waste into on-site septicsystems. However, at least one State notedthat it did not agree with these exemptions,and their State would classify it as anindustrial waste requiring a permit; thisState also indicated that the federalstandards that apply to the quality ofinjected waste is pretty specific.10Outside the scope of thisreview effort; besthandled through othermechanisms.UCMRAllow for water system “opt out” fromthe UCMR for certain specifiedcircumstances:States are concerned aboutinstances under the UCMR (both UCMR 1and 2) in which there is no likelihood of acontaminant being present in a watersystem. That situation is very tough onStates that are required by State law toevaluate all SDWA-required laboratory9Outside the scope of thisreview effort; besthandled through technicalassistance.Technically, UCMR is not an NPDWR. However, EPAnoted that UCMR does allow for State waivers and Statescan always call EPA if they needclarifications or technicalassistance.B-13EPA – OGWDWConsideration of Other RegulatoryRevisions for Six-Year ReviewEPA-815-B-09-008October 2009B-14FindingsWithin or Outside theScope of this Six-YearReview EffortIssue1DescriptionStateWorkgroupPriorityScore(Issue best handled throughregulatory revision, guidance,technical assistance, othermechanisms)Additional Informationsamples for all PWSs under their feesystem. Since this situation applies to a fewStates, it does not get much attention.However, when States are spendingresources testing for a contaminant thatcannot possibly be there, they have a hardtime making the case to elected officials andoperators that they should participate inUCMR monitoring.VOCdetectionsafter paintingstorage tanksVOC detections after painting storagetanks:Some systems in Texas are havingincreases in volatile organic compound(VOC) detections due to freshly paintedwater storage tanks. Minnesota has also hadproblems with newly installed plasticcoatings.Not scoredsince this itemwas addedlater inworkgroupdiscussions.Outside the scope of thisreview effort; besthandled through technicalassistance.Regardless of the source, EPA noted during theworkgroup meetings that this would still be a detection ofa VOC. Systems may need guidance or technicalinformation on how to avoid VOC contamination after atank 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 possibleimplementation-related issues. ASDWA then asked States on the workgroup to rank each of the issues as high, medium, or low priority. Eightworkgroup 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 inthe “Priority Scoring” column.

# EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008

Octo ber 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 13 th 

# ) 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 experi ences have states/systems had in this regard that

might shed light on this question?

 NITRATE AND POU DEVICES: Can/should POU de vices 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, plea se 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 backdr op 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 th at 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 towa rd 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 th at 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 an y 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 allo ws 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-1

# EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008

October 2009



# C-2 

# Decree with the PWS to require and track their mo vement toward 100% participation. While no time

is set forth in the state’s guidance for such incrementa l 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 requ ired. 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 ther e are POU technologies that will work in removing

nitrates, but that none has yet been listed in a ru le 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 ni trate levels for at-risk populations and the fact that

POU devices typically only protect a single tap. Kemp ic and Rourke noted that, in the absence of such

a component being in place, POU devices for nitra te removal should not be allowed. That caveated

prohibition was what was intended by the brief me ntion 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 ex plained 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 anot her 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 st ate 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 so mething of a two-edged sword: on the one hand, it

disallows inappropriate uses of POU devices and help s 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 emba rking on a regulatory solution. Changes to

guidance (or new guidance) is a less high bar – provid ed 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 disc ussion would be shared with the State-EPA Six

Year Implementation Workgroup fo r their further consideration.