TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 1 of 20 Meeting Summary U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Total Coliform Rule / Distribution System Advisory Committee Meeting

July 30-31, 2008

Location : St. Gregory Hotel 2033 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20009

Draft Meeting Summary

Meeting Objectives/Desired Outcomes:

• Discuss and reach agreement on revisions to the Total Coliform Rule, including rule construct, monitoring provisions, system categories, trigger levels, investigation and corrective action, violations and public notification, etc;

• Discuss and reach agreement on prior ities and coordinatio n mechanisms for research and informatio n collection concerning di stribution systems; and

• Discuss ratification process for fin al agreement in principle.

I. Welcome, Introduction, Meeting Objectives and Agenda

Crystal Rodgers-Jenkins, the Designated Federa l Officer, opened the meeting and welcomed the members and meeting attendees to the eleventh m eeting of the Total Coliform Rule / Distribution System Advisory Committee (TCRDSAC). 1

Gail Bingham, the facilitator from RESOLVE, br iefly reviewed the objectives of the meeting, the meeting agenda, and the meeting materials. She referred the Committee to the current version of the Agreement in Principle (AIP) in the meeting folder that reflects the Committee’s discussions at the May and June plenary meetings and the July conference call. 2

II. May Meeting Summary

The Advisory Committee reviewed suggested ed its to the May meeting summary provided in

their binders. 3 They approved the summary of the May meeting of the TCRDSAC.

1 Please see Attachment A for the Total Coliform Rule / Distribution System Federal Advisory

Committee roster. Please see a ttachment B for a copy of the meeting agenda. Please see Attachment C for a list of the meeting attendees.

2 Please see Attachment D for the draft AIP that was included in the Committee’s binder.

3 Please see Attachment E for a copy of the May TCRDSAC meeting summary.TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 2 of 20 Meeting Summary III. Discussion of the Agreement in Principle

Over the course of the two-day meeting, the Advisory Committee discussed each section of the draft AIP included in the meeting materials and agreed to substant ive revisions for inclusion in the next version of the AIP, intended to address questions or concerns raised. The Committee also agreed to accept the existing language and propos ed edits in many sections of the draft AIP. All of these agreements are s ubject to review of the AIP as a whole and are shown in bold italics throughout the summary. The Committee also ma de minor edits to the AIP for grammar and consistency. All of the edits, both substantive and ed itorial, are reflected in the attached new

draft of the AIP. 4

In addition to agreement on language for the new version of the AIP, the Committee also agreed to include in this meeting summary statements elaborating its intent concerning specific components of the AIP. All of these comments are captured in italics in the summary.

1.0 Introduction The Advisory Committee reviewed the langua ge in Section 1 of the draft AIP.

The Advisory Committee agreed to the existing language with some editorial changes in Section 1.0 of the draft AIP.

2.0 General Agreements The Committee discussed Section 2.0 General Ag reements. Some members expressed concern that bullet 8, which discusses continued stakeholder involvement during the rulemaking process, could result in re-opening discussions of the pr ovisions in the AIP. They suggested changing

item 8 so that it reads as follows:

The TCRDSAC recognizes that federal rulemaking procedures may be lengthy and have broad national impact. It is important to assure that stakeholders, including in particular the TCRDSAC member organizations, understand the underlying analyses and rule framework reflected in the proposed rule and preamble at the time the rule is propo sed. The TCRDSAC believes that such understanding will allow them to be better representatives for the proposed rule when it is published, and better able to inform EPA’s effort to propose a rule that

“has the same substance and effect as the elements of the Agreement in Principle.”

A member of the Committee noted that the AIP already includes 15 othe r references to ongoing meetings between EPA and stakeholders and s uggested that EPA provide stakeholders with updates on the rulemaking process by holding a public meeting each year until the rule is published and/or reconvene the Committee before th e end of its charter. The Committee agreed

to continue the discussion of bullet 8 in Section 2.0.

4 Please see Attachment F for a copy of the draf t Agreement in Principle reflecting revisions made during the course of the July TCRDSAC meeting.TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 3 of 20 Meeting Summary The Committee also agreed to delete the followin g phrase from bullet 5 in Section 2.0: “the best available peer reviewed science and supporting studies”

3.0 Agreement in Principle on Revisions to the Total Coliform Rule Members of the Committee suggested several edits and additions to th e third paragraph of Section 3.0. They agreed to include the followi ng language in the new version of the AIP:

In concert with other rules promulgated by EPA under SDWA, the revised rule construct will better address the TCR objecti ves and enhance the multiple barrier approach to protecting public health, especia lly with respect to smaller groundwater systems. The RTCR [revised Total Coliform Rule] paradigm is designed to trigger systems with positive total coliform (TC)/E. coli (EC) monitoring results to assess the system and identify whether a sanitary defect (s) is (are) present and to correct such problems accordingly. This is an improv ement over the current TCR framework in that it takes a more proactiv e approach to identifying and fixing problems that affect public health.

The Advisory Committee agreed to the existing la nguage with some proposed editorial changes in the remainder of Section 3.0 of the draft AIP.

3.1 Rule Construct The Advisory Committee reviewed and discussed a handout outlining a variety of options for the definition of a sanitary defect. 5 Some members expressed the view that, because of potential liability issues, the definition shou ld not be so broad as to include any vulnerability of any barrier for any type of contaminant. Other members stressed the impor tance of keeping the definition broad enough to include defects th at create a public health concer n, whether or not the concern is microbial in nature. The Committee agreed to the following revised definition of a sanitary

defect:

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

.

During the Committee’s discussion, there was recognition that the de finition of sanitary defects should reflect situations that pose a credible li nk between the problem a nd adverse public health consequences. The above definition of a “sanita ry defect” was intended to be broad enough to

facilitate corrective action w ithout absolute confirmation of cause and effect as such confirmation may be impossible or may significantly delay corre ctions that would address a sanitary defect that represents a potential threat to public health. Sim ilarly, the language is not intended to be so open to interpretation that co rrections are undertaken or required where the linkage between the defect and public health is tenuous.

5 A copy of the suggested definitions for sanitary defect is available from the Designated Federal

Official.TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 4 of 20 Meeting Summary The Committee also agreed that it is their intent that nothing in th e definition of sa nitary defects precludes conducting an assessment of every elemen t on the example checklists for Level 1 and

Level 2 assessments

. 6

The Advisory Committee agreed to the existing la nguage with some proposed editorial changes in the remainder of Section 3.1 of the draft AIP.

3.2 Analytical Methods

Some members of the Committee raised the concer n that in the future new analytical methods (e.g., non-culture based/PCR methods) could become available that might pr ovide faster results but that also could produce positive results from non-viable fragments of organisms. These members provided the following language to elaborate the intent of the AIP. Changes in analytical method performance that significantly change the specifi city/selectivity of method or other performance characteristics, such as re sponsiveness to inactivated and injured organisms, will warrant re-evaluation of the RTCR regulator y requirements prior to their introduction as approved methods.

The Advisory Committee agreed to the existing la nguage with some proposed editorial changes in Section 3.2 of the draft AIP.

3.3 Transition to New Rule At several times, the Committee discussed whether, on balance, the monitoring provisions in the RTCR were an improvement over the current TCR monitoring provisions. Generally, members characterized both the TCR and RTCR monitoring provisions as complex. Some members noted that transition to the RTCR would be greatly simp lified and require significantly less resources if the monitoring provisions remained unchange d and were combined with recommended assessment and corrective action provisions in th e RTCR. Other members viewed the RTCR as a whole package, with the monitoring provisi ons and the assessment and corrective action provisions together providing the incentives that are protective of public health. The Committee will continue this discussion at their next meeting.

3.4 Monitoring Frequencies (Baseline, Redu ced and Criteria for Reduced Monitoring) The Committee reviewed the proposed language for each of monitoring provisions for noncommunity water systems (NCWS) together with the equivalent provisions for community water systems (CWS) in order to keep the language for each as aligned as possible.

3.4.a.2 and 3.4.c.2 Transition to RTCR The Advisory Committee reviewed and discussed the new paragraphs suggested for Sections

3.4.a.2 and 3.4.c.2 Transition to RTCR in the draft AIP. A member of the Committee explained that the proposed language ensu res that after the compliance e ffective date of the RTCR, the primacy agencies will evaluate systems currently on reduced monitoring to determine whether or not their monitoring scheme is appropriate. The primacy agency will add this special RTCR monitoring evaluation to each sanita ry survey it conducts after the compliance effective date for

6 Copies of the Level 1 and Level 2 example check lists are available from the Designated Federal

Official.as long as the systems remain on reduced monitoring. During the discussion, members made the following clarifying points about th e proposed transition language:

• The monitoring evaluation by the primacy agency will not be based on or as detailed as the reduced monitoring criteria. Rather, this initial review wi ll look at overall data to see if it is appropriate to “g randfather” the monitoring pr ovisions is appropriate.

• Between the time when the RTCR is published and the compliance effective date (three years later), systems on monthly monitoring co uld petition the primacy agency to have their monitoring reduced.

Following the discussion, the Advisory Committee agreed to the existing language with some proposed editorial changes in Sections 3.4.a.2 and 3.4.c.2 of the draft AIP.

3.4.a.3 and 3.4.c.3 Reduced Monitoring Requirements

TCRDSAC members discussed the criteria for NCWS on quarterly monitoring to qualify for annual monitoring (Section 3.4.a.3) and CWS on monthly monitoring to qualify for quarterly monitoring (Section 3.4.c.3).

Clean Compliance History . Members of the Committee discussed whether the definition of a clean compliance history should include “no Leve l 1 triggers.” Some members expressed the view that including a Level 1t rigger in the definition would exclude too many systems from qualifying for reduced monitoring. They also commented that a Level 1 trigger would not be a violation. Other members, noting that only five percent of systems hit a Level 1 trigger in a given 12-month period, felt it was important to retain stricter criteria fo r qualifying for reduced monitoring. These members also noted that on ce a system had qualified for reduced monitoring, then it would take two Level 1 triggers in a rolling 12 months to lose reduced monitoring privileges.

The Committee agreed to include Level 1 trigge rs in the definition of a clean compliance history.

Cross Connection Control Program . The Committee discussed the two proposed options in the draft AIP for the cross connection control progr am requirement under the fourth bullet (“Meet one of the following requirements”) of th e reduced monitoring requirements.

The Committee agreed to include the language in the first option, “A cross connection control program, as approved by the primacy agen cy,” in the new version of the AIP.

Disinfection Residual . The Committee discussed the two proposed options in the draft AIP for the disinfection residual requirement under the fourth bullet of the reduced monitoring requirements. The Committee expressed a prefer ence for the more general language in option two, and agreed to clarify in the meeting summary that this option includes maintaining disinfection residual throughout the distribution system . The Committee agreed to the following language in the new draft of the AIP:

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 5 of 20 Meeting SummaryThe system must maintain continuous disinfection entering the distribution system and a residual in th e distribution system in accordance with the criteria specified by the primacy agency.

The Committee also agreed to include the following language from option one in the new

version of the AIP:

The system must maintain at least a 4-l og inactivation of viruses each day of the month based on daily monitoring as speci fied in the GWR (with allowance for a 4-hour exception)

During the discussion, a member of the Committee clarif ied that it is acceptable to use ultraviolet technology to reach 4-log inactivation of viruse s only if a system has no distribution system.

The Advisory Committee agreed to the existing la nguage with some proposed editorial changes in the remainder of Sections 3.4.a.3 and 3.4.c.3 of the draft AIP.

3.4.a.4 Increased Monitoring Requirements and 3.4.c.4 Return to Baseline Monitoring Requirements

The Committee discussed the increased mon itoring requirements for NCWS (Section 3.4.a.4) and the return to baseline monitoring requirements for CWS (Section 3.4.c.4) that result from any of the events listed in these sections. In order to ensure more seri ous consequences than a monitoring violation for systems that consistently fail to take routine samples, the Committee agreed to the following language for the f ourth bullet in each of these sections:

System has two routine monitoring viol ations in a rolling 12-month period for systems on quarterly monitoring and one routine monitoring violation for systems on annual monitoring

The Advisory Committee also agr eed to the existing language with some proposed editorial changes in the remainder of Sectio ns 3.4.a.4 and 3.4.c.4 of the draft AIP.

3.4.a.5 Requirements for Returning to Baseline Quarterly or Reduced Annual Monitoring and 3.4.c.5 Requirements for Returni ng to Quarterly Monitoring A Committee member proposed that the requirements for returning to baseline or reduced monitoring following a period of time on increased monitoring be the same as the requirements for qualifying for reduced monitoring fo r NCWS and CWS (Sections 3.4.a.3 and 3.4.c.3 respectively) for simplicity of implementation. Based on discussion, the Committee agreed to:

• Match criteria language from 3.4.a.3 to that for 3.4.a.5

• Delete Section 3.4.c.5.

The Advisory Committee also agr eed to the existing language with some proposed editorial changes in the remainder of Section 3.4.a.5 of the draft AIP.

3.5 Repeat Monitoring

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 6 of 20 Meeting SummaryThe Advisory Committee discussed several aspect s of the repeat monitoring provisions in the RTCR. The Committee began by reviewing the propos ed language, in the last paragraph of this section, intended to avoid continuous rounds of repeat sampling. One member noted that primacy agencies usually advise systems to st op taking repeat samples after the first round and focus instead on fixing the problem. Another me mber stressed that the language in this paragraph also should take into consideration la rge systems, which might stop taking repeats in one part of the system but need to take repeat samples in other parts of the system if there is exceedance of a trigger. Based on this disc ussion, the Committee agreed to the following language for the last paragraph of Section 3.5:

After a trigger is reached, additional rounds of repeat sampling are not required.

The Committee also agreed to delete the following phrase from the firs t sentence of the first paragraph following the list of principles: “only routine positive TC samples require a repeat sample”

The Committee also discussed the new proposed language for a third bullet in the second paragraph of this section, which would allow very small NCWS (e.g., those with only one sampling tap) to take less than three repeat sa mples, with approval of the primacy agency. Some members argued that taking three repeat samples (as opposed to one) from the same tap would provide no new information. Another memb er, pointing to data that showed that 40 percent of systems with one service connection did not have positive results on all three repeat samples, expressed the view that taking three samples, or the volume equivalent to three samples, is necessary to be tter identify the problem.

Based on this discussion, the Committee agree d to delete the proposed new third bullet, “Very Small non-community systems with limited dist ribution piping, especially those serving a single building, may have the number of repeat samples reduced with approval of the primacy agency.”

The Committee also agreed that it is their intent that one of th e three repeat samples for very small ground water NCWS can be taken at the source and will count as a GWR sample.

The Committee also agreed to add the following phr ase to the end of the fi rst paragraph after the list of principles:

with possible exceptions allowed under Section 3.7 Sample Siting Plans.

The Advisory Committee agreed to the existing language with proposed editorial changes in the remainder of Sectio n 3.5 of the draft AIP.

3.6 Additional Routine Monitoring

With one minor edit, the Committee also agreed to the existing language and proposed edits in the remainder of Sectio n 3.6 of the draft AIP.

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 7 of 20 Meeting Summary3.7 Sample Siting Plans Members of the Advisory Committee discussed a nd made revisions to the bulleted list of recommendations in Section 3.7. They deleted se ntences in bullets c and d because they were

redundant or covered in other sect ions, and moved a sentence in bul let e to the list of principles at the beginning of the section.

With these and other minor edits, the Committe e also agreed to the existing language and proposed edits in the remainder of Section 3.7 of the draft AIP.

3.8 Assessments

3.8.a Purpose The Committee discussed the example checklists fo r Level 1 and Level 2 assessments that were prepared earlier by the Assessment and Corrective Action subgroup.

Members agreed that the AIP should include la nguage describing the elements and level of scope and effort for the assessm ents, and to attach as append ices the example Level 1 and

Level 2 assessment checklists. The appendices will be clearly labeled as “examples.”

One member suggested that the elements and sc ope should take into account different system sizes and types. Other members noted that each state would develop specific checklists, based on the elements in the AIP, appropriate for the different systems they oversee. EPA will also develop guidance on the assessments.

Based on this discussion, a group of member s developed the following language, and the Committee agreed to include it in Section 3.8.a of the AIP:

Minimum elements of both Level 1 and 2 assessments:

1. Identify inadequacies in sample sites, sampling protocol, and sample processing,

2. Identify atypical events that may affect distributed water quality or indicate that distributed water quality was impaired

3. Changes in distribution system maintenance and operation that may affect distributed water qu ality including water storage

4. Where appropriate (e.g., small gro undwater systems) source and

treatment considerations that bear on distributed water quality

5. Review existing water quality monitoring data

The RTCR should provide for:

1. The primacy agency tailoring specific assessment elements to the size and type of system

2. The PWSs tailoring their assessment activities based on the characteristics of the distribution system.

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 8 of 20 Meeting SummaryWorking with stakeholders, EPA should develop guidance that reflects the above elements and principles an d include example checklists and instructions for assessments at various system sizes and types.

During the discussion of assessment checklists, on e member expressed a preference for the more descriptive Level 2 assessment checklist, and suggest ed that this checklist be used for both Level

1 and Level 2 assessments. Another member re sponded that every primacy agency will revise the example checklists and will likely use the more detailed checklist to train operators to do

both Level 1 and Level 2 assessments.

One member noted that there would be opportunities for the States and others to provide further input on the checklists: the States, as co-regulators , will participate in future modifications to the checklists; and the guidance EPA writes for the as sessments will be put out for public comment. The AIP, with appendices, also will be avai lable on EPA’s website. Although it is not a requirement, it is EPA’s practice to publis h agreements in the Federal Register.

3.8.b.2 Level 1 Assessment Timeframe Members of the Advisory Committee discussed the proposed 30 day timeframe from point of notification of a trigger event to the completion of a Level 1 assessment and corrective action (if needed) and submission of the Assessment Report. One member expressed the view that it should not take 30 days to complete the simple checklist for a Level 1 assessment. Another member responded that a shorter timeframe for Le vel 1 than for Level 2 assessments may make a Level 1 assessment appear more urgent than a Level 2 assessment, when the latter could be triggered by an acute MCL violat ion. Others also noted that larger, more complex systems would need 30 days to complete a Level 1 asse ssment. In order to convey its intent, the Committee agreed to add the following sent ence to the beginning of Section 3.8.b.2:

The PWS will complete a Level 1 assessm ent as soon as practicable after notification of their monitoring results.

3.8.b.3 Description of a Level 1 Assessment Members then discussed the following proposed sentence: “If the primacy agency deems the self-assessment insufficient, it will consult wi th the PWS and require appropriate additional assessment, if necessary.” (This sentence was orig inally proposed for the previous section, Level 1 Assessment Timetable.) Some members argue d that since failure to do assessment and corrective action is a violation, pr imacy agencies must have the ab ility to evaluate whether each was properly done and to consult with system s about any appropriate additional actions necessary to avoid the violation. Other members st ressed that the Level 1 assessment is intended to be system driven and suggested that the system be told to re do the assessment if it is deemed insufficient. One member noted that systems th at fail to do Level 1 assessment and corrective action are likely to trigger a Level 2 assessment. One member, while supporting the right of the primacy agency to review assessment reports, ques tioned the need for language to that effect in

the AIP. Another member reminded the Committee that without specific language in the AIP, EPA would have no authority to act where it has primacy.

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 9 of 20 Meeting SummaryBased on this discussion, the Committee agreed to add the following sentence to the AIP at the end of the first para graph of Section 3.8.b.3:

If the primacy agency deems the self-a ssessment report insufficient, it will

consult with the PWS.

Some members expressed concern that because th is sentence is less sp ecific than a similar sentence for Level 2 assessments (see discussion in next section), the implication might be that the primacy agency can only consult with a PWS a bout an insufficient Level 1 assessment. As a result, the Committee agreed to the following:

It is the intent of th e Committee, as described in the sec ond paragraph of Section 3.9, that there will be dialogue between the PWS and primacy agency if the Level 1 Assessment Report is deemed insufficient, and that, if necessary, the primacy agency will require the PWS to take additional action. The dialogue or consultation will include elements that are within the scope of a Level 1 assessment.

With regard to the concept of a “reset” after a Level 1 trigger, the Committee discussed at what point the primacy agency will determine that the PWS identified and corrected the cause of the Level 1 exceedance. Based on the discussion, th e Committee agreed to include in the next version of the AIP the following sentence at the end of the last paragraph in Section 3.8.b.2:

Upon completion and submission of th e Assessment Report by the PWS, the primacy agency will determine if there is a likely reason that the Level 1 samples were TC positive and establish that the system has corrected the problem.

3.8.c.3 Description of a Level 2 Assessment The Committee then discussed proposed language for Level 2 assessments, similar to the language discussed and agreed upon for the Leve l 1 Assessment. The Committee agreed to include the following sentence at the end of S ection 3.8.c.3 in the new version of the AIP:

If the primacy agency deems the Level 2 a ssessment report insufficient, it will consult with the PWS and, if necessary, provide assistance or require appropriate action.

With these and other minor edits , the Committee agreed to the ex isting language and proposed edits in the remainder of S ection 3.8 of the draft AIP.

3.9 Corrective Action The Advisory Committee discussed the language in the last paragraph of Section 3.9 Corrective Action. Members agreed to revise and expand this paragraph as follows:

For corrections not completed by the time of submission of the assessment report, the system and primacy agency sha ll agree on a schedule to complete the

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 10 of 20 Meeting Summaryremaining corrective action(s). The system shall notify the primacy agency when it has completed each corrective action.

The Committee agreed to the existing language an d proposed edits in the remainder of Section 3.9 of the draft AIP.

3.10 Documentation (Recordkeeping) Members agreed that the intent of the Committee is that the language in this section does not preclude submission of Assessment Reports to the primacy agency.

3.11 Violations and Public Notification Requirements The Advisory Committee agreed to the follo wing additions and ed its to Section 3.11:

In the third bullet under principles:

• Replace “Unlike the current TCR, a confirmed TC-positive sample” with: “Two TC-positive samples (or greater than 5 percent as appropriate)”

In 3.11.a, under Routine Monito ring and Reporting Violation:

• Change “all of the” to “every”

In the Example RTCR Violations table:

• Add a third bullet under TT Violation: “Failure to correct sanitary defects according to agreed upon schedule.”

• Rewrite the second bullet under routine m onitoring violations consequences to

read: “No less than monthly monitoring if PWS has monitoring violations in 2 of 4 quarters (for systems on quarterl y monitoring), or misses its required annual sample.”

The Committee agreed to delete the appendix with examples of significant monitoring failures

.

With these and other minor edits , the Committee agreed to the ex isting language and proposed edits in the remainder of S ection 3.11 of the draft AIP.

3 .12 Operator Training and Certification During the Advisory Committee’s discussion of operator training and certification, one member suggested that the Committee recommend a certific ation program for treatment plant operators and distribution system operators. Other members preferred to leave the language in this section unchanged. One member, acknowledging the im portance of qualified system operators, suggested addressing this issue th rough other vehicles than the AI P. This member noted that EPA is working with the Associat ion of State Drinking Administrators and in discussions with

the National Rural Water Association about th e proper training of sy stem operators.

3.15 Primacy Provisions The Advisory Committee reviewed and discu ssed proposed language in Section 3.15 Primacy Provisions, and suggested severa l changes and additions.

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 11 of 20 Meeting SummaryTo ensure that EPA has authority to fully implement the RTCR where it has primacy, the Committee agreed to add the following bullet to th e list of principles at the beginning of the

section:

The RTCR should be written to make sure that when EPA is the Direct Implementation authority, the Agency ca n fully implement all aspects of the

rule.

The Committee agreed to change bullet 1 on Sample Siting Plans to read as follows:

Sample Siting Plans - primacy agencie s would describe how they review and revise sample siting plans per 40 CFR 141.21(a).

The Committee also agreed that it is their intent that the state pr ocedures for reviewing sample siting plans in the primacy applications be consiste nt with the provisions in Sections 3.5 (Repeat Monitoring), Section 3.6 (Additional Routine Monitoring), 3.7 (Sample Siting Plans) and other relevant sections of the RTCR.

The Committee discussed bullet 5 of Section 3.15, which addresses the right of states to have requirements more stringent than federal require ments. Some members expressed concern that this provision would encourage st ates to keep some or all of the current TCR provisions rather than adopting the provisions in the RTCR. One member suggested adding language to encourage adoption of the RTCR appr oach. Others noted that from a federal perspective, states can adopt statutes that are stricter than federa l statutes; some states, however, do not allow more stringent requirements.

Several members of the Committee suggested that the language in Sect ion 3.15 be revised to refer to the authority granted st ates in the SDWA to have re quirements more stringent than federal requirements. A few me mbers agreed to develop proposed language for the Committee’s

further consideration.

The Committee will also consider whether the final language for this provision should be in

Section 3.15 or earlier in the AIP, in Section 2.0.

3.16 Optimizing Distribution System Integrity Committee discussed and suggested several edits to Section 3.16 Optimizing Distribution System Integrity. They agreed that the new vers ion of the AIP should read as follows:

The TCRDSAC encourages the devel opment of national and regional distribution system optimization partnersh ip(s) that focus on protecting the integrity of drinking water quality once it is delivered to the distribution system. The purpose of the partnership should be to inform and inspire proactive systems to implement best management practices that emphasize protection of public health. These partnerships, com posed, for example, of representatives from utilities, communities, academia, and regulatory organizations could develop continuous improvement programs that encompass water distribution

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 12 of 20 Meeting Summaryoptimization principles and practices for system design, operations, and maintenance. These partnerships will fost er continuous review of distribution system issues and should define excellenc e in distribution system operation in terms of processes, systems, procedur es, as well as measures, and encourage voluntary program participation of all dr inking water utilities regardless of system size. The optimization partnersh ip should encourage voluntary program participation of all drinki ng water utilities regardless of system size.

The TCRDSAC recommends that the optimization partnership develop language that recognizes best management practices and other measures for enhancing the integrity of distribution sy stems, or provide enhanced protection for the water in the distribution system and public health. These practices could

include:

1. Disinfectant residuals sufficient to afford protection in the distribution

system
2. Approved cross-connection control and backflow prevention programs,

and

3. Other practices that contribute to a multiple-barrier approach, such as frequent regular inspection of system components.

During the discussion of Section 3.16, one member emphasized that there are other state run associations that also promote and support the goals of optimizi ng distribution system integrity. The Committee agreed that it is their intent to promote best management practices for optimizing the design, operations, and maintenance of distribution systems wherever it happens.

3.17 Other The Advisory Committee discussed and made revisions to each of the subsections in Section

3.17 as indicated below.

3.17.a Cross Connection Control Practices

The Committee made several additions to the lan guage in Section 3.17 and agreed to include the following language in the new version of the AIP:

The TCRDSAC recommends that EPA and primacy agencies reference and compile existing requirements, guidan ce, and other information on cross connection control practices from EPA, st ates, and other relevant parties with the aim of having a single, complete resource library available to the public.

3.17.b Performance Measures The Committee discussed suggested revisions to Section 3.17.b and agreed to include the following in the new version of the AIP:

The TCRDSAC recommends that EPA develop goals and performance measures for the RTCR in parallel with the rule d evelopment. The measures should be aimed at evaluating the rule's long-term effectiveness. The data for the measures should be based on impr oved collection and categorization of

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 13 of 20 Meeting Summarycompliance data from both state and na tional perspectives, per the examples given in Section 3.17e.

The TCRDSAC recommends that EPA conduc t a review of the effectiveness of the RTCR using a stakeholder process. This review can be conducted in accordance with the Agency’s exis ting Six Year Review process

.

3.17.c Consolidation of Sanitary Survey Requirements The Committee discussed the pr oposed language for Section 3.17.c.

The Committee agreed that since the suggested prov ision would affect other rules, it is more appropriate that EPA and the states discuss the issue as part of the Six Year Review process. Given the important role of sa nitary surveys in determining monitoring requirements under the RTCR, the Committee agreed to include the following language in Section 3.17.c of the new

version of the AIP:

The TCRDSAC recommends that EPA, in cooperation with states, develop minimum qualifications and a standardi zed training program for sanitary surveyors, and evaluate the need for certification.

They also agreed to change the title of this section to “Sanitary Surveyors.”

3.17.d Release of RTCR Gui dance and Training Materials The Committee reviewed the proposed language fo r Section 3.17.d. One member stated that it would not be possible for EPA to release gui dance materials within 3 months of rule promulgation; however, it would be possible to begin now to de velop and prioritize a schedule

for the release of these materials. Based on this information, the Co mmittee agreed to the following language for section 3.17.d:

The TCRDSAC also recommends that EP A release guidance documents as expeditiously as possible, with the highes t priority documents developed first. EPA will develop a plan which includes a list of the guidance manuals and schedule. The TCRDSAC recommends that EPA discuss the development plan

with interested stakeholders.

3.17.e SDWIS Modifications The Advisory Committee discussed the timet able for upgrading SDWIS State and SDWIS

Federal to accommodate the RTCR. One member stre ssed that it is important to begin this work as early as possible in the rulemaking process. A nother noted that while the work to set the stage for the upgrade could begin immediat ely, it would take at least a year after rule promulgation to complete the process.

The Committee also discussed expa nding the language in this s ection to provide more detail about the upgrade to SDWIS and to allow for stak eholder input into the process. Based on this discussion, the Committee agreed on the following language for Section 3.17.e:

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 14 of 20 Meeting SummaryThe TCRDSAC recommends within 18 mont hs of final rule promulgation EPA release an upgrade to SDWIS St ate and SDWIS Fed to accommodate monitoring data, tracking, compliance dete rminations and reporting of all rule related requirements, as appropriate. This SDWIS upgrade release will occur

in concert and consistent with the Tr ading Partner Agreement with states through ASDWA for the provision of contaminant monitoring and related meta data to EPA. This new upgrade shall have improved collection and categorization of compliance data from both state and national perspectives (e.g., different data elements for E. co li violations and Treatment Technique

violations as shown in the violatio ns table in Section 3.11. The TCRDSAC recommends that EPA engage stakeh olders as part of the information requirements planning process.

With these and other minor edits , the Committee agreed to the ex isting language and proposed edits in the remainder of S ection 3.17 of the draft AIP.

4.0 Agreement in Principle on Research and Information Collection; 4.1 Research and Information Collection Partnership; and 4.2 Recommended Priorities for Research and

Information Collection The Advisory Committee discussed the research and information collection provisions of the draft AIP and made the following agreemen ts related to the draft AIP:

4.1.a Purpose and Governance The Committee agreed to change the language in the first sentence of this section to read:

The TCRDSAC recommends that a Re search and Information Collection Partnership (RP) be formed to in form and support the drinking water community in developing future national risk management decisions pertaining to drinking water distribution systems.

4.1.c Research and Informati on Collection Priorities The Committee discussed whether or not to add a paragraph in this sectio n that would instruct the Research Partnership (RP) to develop draft performance measures (as described in Section 3.17.b Performance Measures) for the RTCR that w ould include an evaluation of the improved compliance data (as described in Section 3.17.e SDWIS Modifications). The Committee decided

not to add the sentence to this section, but rather to include these concepts in the relevant

subsections of Section 3. 17 of the draft AIP.

The Committee agreed that the fo cus in the research and inform ation section of the AIP should be to evaluate on-going research on monitori ng methods, sampling meth odologies, relationships between indicators and pathogens, etc ., as stated in the last paragr aph of this section, and to use this information to optimize its research a nd information collection agenda. One member suggested that as SDWIS is update d and more data is collected on E. coli occurrence, the information could help the RP target its effort s to better understand public health risk. Another

member noted that it would 2015 at the earliest before this type of information from the RTCR would be available; the RP may have completed its work by then.

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 15 of 20 Meeting Summary4.2.c Approach to Identifying Research and Information Collection Needs The Committee agreed to reinsert, following th e second paragraph of this section, the two bullets with more detailed descriptions of the cross-cutting issues for Public Health assessment and Fate and Transport.

4.2.d Specific Priorities The Committee agreed to add the following phrase at the end of the first sentence in this section:

and that this grouping be used to pr ioritize analytical fr amework development.

With these changes, other minor edits, and deletions to reduce redundancy, the Committee agreed to the existing language and proposed ed its in the remainder of Sections 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2 of the draft AIP.

V. Public Comment

No members of the public offered comment at this meeting.

VII. Next Steps

The facilitators will revise the AIP and di stribute the new version to TCRDSAC members following the meeting.

The Advisory Committee will meet via conferen ce call on September 3, 2008 at 1 PM Eastern. The Committee also will meet in pers on on September 18-19, 2008 in Washington, D.C.

NOTE: This document was prepared by the facilitators for consideration by the Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Advisory Committee and does not constitute a product of the Committee. The Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Advisory Committee is a federal advi sory committee chartered by Congress, operating under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C., App.2). The Committee provides advice to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on revisions to the Total Coliform Rule (TCR), and on what

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 16 of 20 Meeting Summaryinformation about distribution systems is needed to better understand the public health impact from the degradation of drinking water quality in distribution systems. The findings and recommendations of the Committee do not represent the views of the Agency, and this document does not represent information approved or disseminated by

EPA.

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 17 of 20 Meeting SummaryTCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 18 of 20 Meeting Summary Attachments

Attachment A – TCRDSAC roster* Attachment B – Meeting agenda* Attachment C – List of meeting attendees Attachment D – Draft Agreement in Princi ple in meeting folder for the TCRDSAC* Attachment E – May TCRDSAC meeting summary* Attachment F – New Draft Agreement in Princi ple for the TCRDSAC based on discussions at June meeting

* The meeting presentation and other documents may be found online at http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/disinfection/ tcr/regulation_revisions_tcrdsac.html

.Attachment C

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Total Coliform Rule / Distribution System Advisory Committee Meeting July 30-31, 2008

Meeting Attendees

Karl Anderson, U.S. EPA Ali Arvanaghi, U.S. EPA Sarah Bahrman, U.S. EPA David Baird, National Rural Water Association* Pamela Barr, U.S. EPA* Jeremy Bauer, U.S. EPA Gail Bingham, RESOLVE Eric Bissonette, U.S. EPA Manja Blazer, IDEXX Erica Brown, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies* Joan Brunkard, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Gary Burlingame, Philadelphia Water Department Jimmy Chen, U.S. EPA James Cherry, City of Virginia Beach Public Utilities Sean Conley, U.S. EPA Laura Cummings, PVWC Joanne Dea, U.S. EPA Cynthia Dougherty, U.S. EPA* Patti Fauver, Environmental Council of States* Michael Finn, U.S. EPA Kathy Grant, RESOLVE Tom Grubbs, U.S. EPA Yu-Ting Guilaran, U.S. EPA Trish Hall, U.S. EPA Christine Maloni Hoover, Na tional Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates* Chuck Job, U.S. EPA Dan Kroll, HACH Homeland Security Technologies Mark LeChevallier, National Association of Water Companies* Debbie Lee, RESOLVE Clint Lemmons, U.S. EPA Frank Letkiewicz, The Cadmus Group, Inc. Audrey Levine, U.S. EPA Maria Lopez-Carbo, U.S. EPA Gary Lynch, National Association of Water Companies* Erica Martinson, Water Policy Report Harvey Minnigh, Rural Commun ity Assistance Partnership* Ed Moriarty, U.S. EPA Russell Navratil, County of Henrico, VA John Neuberger, Council of State an d Territorial Epidemiologists*

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 19 of 20 Meeting SummaryAttachment C

TCRDSAC Meeting July 30- 31, 2008 Page 20 of 20 Meeting Summary Eva Nieminski, Utah Department of Environmental Quality Darrell Osterhoudt, Association of St ate Drinking Water Administrators* Jim Purzycki, American Back flow Prevention Association Graciela Ramirez-Toro, CECIA-IAUPR Stig Regli, U.S. EPA J. Kevin Reilly, U.S. EPA Alan Roberson, American Water Works Association* Crystal Rodgers-Jenkins, U.S. EPA Ken Rosenfeld, National League of Cities* Kenneth Rotert, U.S. EPA Sharon Roy, Centers for Dis ease Control and Prevention Rick Sakaji, East Bay M unicipal Utility District Tom Schaeffer, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies John Scheltens, AWWA Nicole Shao, U.S. EPA Jerry Smith, Association of Stat e Drinking Water Administrators* Tim Soward, IntelliTech Vanessa Speight, Malcolm Pirnie David Spenard, National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates* Scott Summers, University of Colorado at Boulder Jim Taft, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators Lynn Thorp, Clean Water Action* Lesley Vasquez-Coriano, U.S. EPA Steve Via, American Water Works Association Bob Vincent, National Environmental Health Association* David Visintainer, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies* Paul Whittemore, National Rural Water Association* Mae Wu, Natural Resources Defense Council* Yvonne Yuen, U.S. EPA