Updates (Archived)

As reported by Alan Roberson, Director of Regulatory Affairs, AWWA, Washington DC:

Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) - M/DBP Rules
Arsenic Regulations | Radionuclides

September 28, 2000
FACA Holds "Marathon Meeting" on Proposed M/DBP Rules

The Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) that has been working on recommendations for these regulations wrapped up their negotiations with a marathon 16-hour meeting on September 6th. The final details of the two-part Agreement In Principle were hammered out in this marathon meeting. Part A of the Agreement includes regulatory requirements for the Stage 2 D/DPBR, the LT2ESWTR, unfiltered systems, and uncovered finished water reservoirs. Part B of the Agreement includes recommendations for EPA to develop microbial water quality criteria under the Clean Water Act and for a process to potentially develop a distribution system rule. The Agreement In Principle can be downloaded from AWWA's website at http://www.awwa.org/govtaff/govnew.htm.

The two-part Agreement In Principle, which will serve as the foundation for the proposed rules, is being circulated to all of the FACA organizations for their signatures by September 29th. AWWA leadership has voted to sign both parts of the Agreement, and it is anticipated that all FACA organizations with the exception of the National Rural Water Association (NRWA) will sign both parts. NRWA is anticipated to sign only Part A of the Agreement In Principle.

Major issues resolved at the September 6th meeting included: · Compliance timeframes-generally, large and medium systems have three years after promulgation (2005) to complete the Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) and the Cryptosporidium monitoring for bin classification. Large and medium systems then have an additional three years (2008-with an additional 2 year extension [2010] for capital improvements if approved by primacy agency) to comply with the 80/60 TTHM/LRAA at the revised compliance monitoring sites (based on the IDSE) and the specific bin treatment requirements. Small systems generally lag 1.5-2.5 years behind large and medium systems based on results of their initial E. coli monitoring as a potential surrogate for Cryptosporidium monitoring. · A new wrinkle resulting from the September 6th meeting was a requirement for all systems to meet 120/100 TTHM/HAA5 Location Running Annual Average (LRAA) at existing Stage 1 compliance monitoring sites three years after promulgation (2005-with an additional 2 year extension [2008] for capital improvements if approved by primacy agency). This addition was necessary to meet the statutory requirement of Section 1412 (b)(10) of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments that a rule become effective three years after promulgation (with an additional 2 year extension for capital improvements if approved by primacy agency). · Ongoing microbial monitoring-Seven years after the LT2ESWTR promulgation (2009), EPA will initiate a stakeholder process to review available microbial methods and the bin boundaries. Nine years after the LT2ESWTR promulgation (2011), systems will conduct a second round of monitoring, hopefully using a new and improved method. · Specific triggers for Ultraviolet Light (UV) treatment, microbial laboratory capacity, and the data management system were developed that would delay these regulations if the triggers are not met. · Breaking the Agreement into two parts so that all FACA organizations could sign Part A, which contains regulatory requirements for the Stage 2 D/DPBR, the LT2ESWTR, unfiltered systems, and uncovered finished water reservoirs. · Correction of significant deficiencies from sanitary surveys as a treatment technique violation was dropped from the Agreement.

EPA plans to take the Agreement In Principle and develop the preamble and regulation language for a proposed Stage 2 D/DBPR and LT2ESWTR in mid-2001. EPA still intends to meet their statutory deadlines to finalize these regulations by May, 2002.

What are the next steps? There are lots of other outstanding issues for finalizing these rules, such as drafting the multiple guidance manuals and the development of a validation protocol for Ultraviolet Light (UV) reactors. AWWA staff has met with EPA to start the discussion on the data gaps that need to be filled for the proposal and the guidance manuals. Based on this initial meeting, AWWA staff have started the development of an Action Plan for these issues (and others) to ensure implementation of these regulations is a success.

July 31, 2000
Negotiations Continue on Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule (D/DBPR), Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)

On July 27-28th, the Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) held another meeting in the ongoing negotiations on the Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule (D/DBPR) and the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR). The FACA came to tentative agreement on several critical components for both rules which were incorporated on the fly into the draft "agreement in principle" that hopefully will be signed by all parties. However, time just simply ran out (even with the FACA meeting until 11 PM on the 27th), and there are still a few significant areas where consensus has not been reached that need to be worked out before the "agreement in principle" is signed. The last FACA meeting has been scheduled for 8 AM-8PM on Wednesday, September 6th. After the last FACA meeting, EPA will flesh out the agreement into preambles and regulatory language (as usual, the devil is in the details) for proposals for both rules in Spring, 2001. EPA still intends to meet the statutory deadline for the final rules of May, 2002.

STAGE 2 D/DBPR
The FACA has agreed on MCLs for TTHM/HAA5 of 80/60 as a Location Running Annual Average (LRAA) , i.e., each compliance monitoring sampling location has to comply with the MCL on a running annual average. Systems will conduct an initial distribution system evaluation (IDSE) with TTHM/HAA5 sampling every other month for one year to revise their compliance sampling locations.

At the July 27-28th meeting, the FACA agreed to the following four revised compliance sampling locations (paired samples for both TTHM/HAA5):

One at a representative average point (a current Stage 1 location);
One representative point with high HAA5 levels identified by the IDSE; and
Two representative points with high TTHM levels identified by the IDSE.

The FACA agreed that the bromate standard would remain at 10 ppb, noting that this standard could be reviewed as part of EPA's six-year review process. The FACA also agreed that EPA would develop guidance to address "significant" DBP peaks. EPA will also develop IDSE guidance, including how to use historical DBP and water quality data, as well as new monitoring data.

LT2ESWTR
The FACA has agreed to another round of microbial monitoring (2 years of monthly Cryptosporidium [using EPA Method 1623] and E. coli monitoring for surface water systems serving >10,000 people) that will be used to place systems in different "bins" based on an average Cryptosprodium level. Systems in the different "bins" will go to a "toolbox" of options for additional removal and/or inactivation credits. Small systems will hopefully be able to use E. coli as a surrogate for Cryptosporidium-their monitoring will be delayed until the surrogate analysis will be conducted on the large and medium system data.

At the June 27-28th meeting, the FACA agreed to a microbial framework for unfiltered systems that requires those systems to continue to meet the filtration avoidance criteria and provide 4 logs virus, 3 logs Giarida, and 2 logs Cryptosporidium inactivation. Inactivation requirements must be met using a minimum of 2 disinfectants.

The FACA agreed to recommend the development of national water quality criteria under the Clean Water Act for microbial pathogens for stream segments designated by states/tribes for drinking water use. The FACA also agreed to a process for development of a distribution system rule that will likely include revision of the Total Coliform Rule and some type of cross-connection control program requirements.

OUTSTANDING ISSUES
The monitoring and compliance timelines and correction of significant deficiencies in sanitary surveys are the two biggest issues left in the negotiations. However, everyone hopes that they can be resolved at the September 6th meeting.

Monitoring and compliance timelines-some FACA representatives have serious concerns about the availability of EPA Method 1623 for microbial monitoring, the database that will be used to collect this monitoring data, and the availability of ultraviolet (UV) light as a treatment technology. How to integrate these concerns into deadlines and/or milestones in the agreement that could delay these rules in the future is a topic for future discussion. Additionally, the entire compliance timeframe is very aggressive and these timelines could easily slip in the future.
Correction of significant deficiencies from sanitary surveys as a treatment technique violation-some FACA representatives have concerns about subjective judgements in sanitary surveys now becoming treatment technique violations.

The following more minor issues are also expected to be resolved at the September 6th meeting:

Small systems concerns include the timelines, the future distribution system rule, and the "backstop" E. coli numbers in the agreement.
Ongoing microbial monitoring-several FACA representatives want ongoing microbial monitoring to address degradation in the watershed in the future. These future monitoring requirements, along with how this future data would be used, and the potential for systems to be put into a different "bin" in the future are topics for future discussion.
Consecutive systems-how do the monitoring and compliance requirements translate to systems that purchase water from another system?

May 26, 2000
Proposed Revision to Arsenic Drinking Water Standards

On May 24th, the EPA Administrator signed the proposed arsenic regulation. A pre-publication copy (335 pages) of the proposal is available on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/proposalfs.html. EPA's press release is also available on their website. The proposal signature generated a fair amount of media coverage (Associated Press, NY Times, SF Chronicle, and others) on Thursday, May 25th, but the media window (and their interest) has now closed.

The proposal should be published in the Federal Register next week. Once the proposal is published, then all of background documents (Technology & Cost Document, Regulatory Impact Analysis, etc.) should be available for review from the Drinking Water Docket (202-260-3027). This proposal will have a 90-day comment period, so comments will be due in late August.

This proposal would lower the arsenic regulation from the current standard of 50 ppb to 5 ppb. However, EPA is taking comments on other potential options for the revised standard-3 ppb, 10 ppb, and 20 ppb. In the past, AWWA has supported a revised standard no lower than 10 ppb (note that this is no lower than 10 ppb, which isn't the quite the same as 10 ppb).

AWWA's Arsenic Workgroup has already started working on AWWA's comments, but utilities need to start thinking about how this proposal might affect them, and how they might comment on the proposal. AWWA's comments will likely focus on the benefit-cost analysis, and treatment and residuals disposal issues. Health effects issues will be analyzed, but from a much broader perspective due to the arsenic health risks report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that was published last year. The NAS report is being the considered the "gold standard" for arsenic health risks.

The Arsenic Workgroup will be taking a hard look at residuals disposal issues, as it is likely that utilities will find difficulties in discharging residuals streams with relatively high arsenic levels to a sanitary sewer or a stream. This issue is likely one of the major differences between EPA's estimated costs and the recently released AWWARF/ACWA report on treatment costs (Cost Implications of a Lower Arsenic MCL - http://www.awwarf.com/research/as_mcl.htm). The Workgroup will also be looking closely at affordability at the local level, i.e., how rates might increase at a specific system due to installation of arsenic treatment. Additionally, the impacts to consumers at the poverty level, or near poverty, from these rate increases will be analyzed. The Arsenic Workgroup is also working to develop a spreadsheet that utilities could use to estimate their own treatment costs. This spreadsheet should be very useful in helping utilities develop comments on the proposal, and will be available through AWWA's Government Affairs Office by mid-June.

In the May 12th Federal Register (65 FR 30589), a meeting was announced of the Drinking Water Committee (DWC) of the Science Advisory Board to review the arsenic proposal. The DWC has been charged by EPA to answer five questions on health effects and treatment issues. One interesting issue is Question #3-Accounting for the Cardiovascular Health End Point-Is precautionary advice on use of low-arsenic water in preparation of infant formula appropriate given the available information? This is one of the first times that this issue has been addressed, and the DWC discussion should be interesting.

This proposed arsenic rule will likely impact many, many utilities, and it is important that EPA receive as many individual comments as possible from individual utilities (or even from individuals). The number of comments received is an indication to EPA on the level of interest from utilities. You can send your comments to EPA either as an organization or as an individual. In their comment response document, EPA is required to respond to every comment.

May 16, 2000
EPA Publishes Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for Balance of Radionuclides

EPA published the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for the balance of radionuclides (primarily alpha and beta emitters, radium, and uranium) in the Federal Register on April 21st. Comments on the NODA are due to EPA on June 20th. An electronic version of the NODA, along with links to the supporting documentation (which is important to developing an understanding of the NODA), can be found on EPA's Website at www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/pp/radnucpp.html .

The balance of radionuclides is an extremely complex regulation, due to the very nature of radiochemistry, and due to the different isotopes involved in the rulemaking. The NODA presents new health effects data and some limited new occurrence data, and makes some changes to the MCLs that were proposed in 1991 in conjunction with the proposed radon regulation. New occurrence data and new risk models suggest that radionuclides are much riskier than thought in 1991.

The major components of the NODA include:

EPA's incorporation of a MCLG of zero for all radionuclides, as proposed in 1991; EPA's rational for maintaining the 1976 gross alpha MCL of 15 pCi/L (to include radium-226 and exclude uranium and radon); EPA's rational for maintaining the 1976 current MCL of 5 pCi/L for combined radium-226 and 228; EPA's rational for maintaining the 1976 beta particle and photon radioactivity MCL of 4 mrem/year; As proposed in 1991, EPA is considering a NPDWR for uranium at 20 ug/L. Taking costs and benefits into consideration, EPA will take comment on uranium at 40 ug/L as well as at 80 ug/L; As proposed in the 1991 rule, EPA will require separate monitoring for radium-226 and radium-228; The beta/photon screening level will be changed, as proposed in 1991; The regulatory options EPA is considering for the Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems (NTNCWSs), such as schools, factories, etc.; A request for public comment on whether (1) to maintain the current distribution system monitoring because of inconsistencies with the point of entry monitoring scheme and compositing, or (2) implementing the entry point monitoring Standardized Monitoring Framework (SMF) scheme "with minor technical revisions."

One of the most significant issues in the NODA is that the combined radium-226 and -228 MCL will stay at 5 piC/l, as opposed to being raised to 20 piC/l as proposed in 1991 (due to the cost-benefit inclusion of the radon proposal). Some water systems that had radium levels between 5 and 20piC/l that had been "in limbo" since the 1991 proposal now have to carefully analyze their treatment options. The ultimate disposal of ion exchange regenerant brines containing radium is an issue that will need careful analysis in order to understand local disposal options.

Another significant issue in the NODA is how to best regulate Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems (NTNCWSs). These are systems that don't serve a specific community, but served a fixed population every day, such as a remote school or factory. EPA is proposing several regulatory options for NTNCWSs: Requiring NTNCWSs to comply with the MCLs (the traditional approach); Requiring NTNCWSs to monitor for radiounuclides and post notices of exceedances (but the MCLs would not apply); NTNCWSs would excluded from radionuclides regulations; A targeted approach using one of the above options, where targeting would be based on the results of small community water system radionuclide occurrence.

AWWA is planning to encourage EPA to use its discretionary authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to use benefit-cost considerations in the determination of the uranium MCL. AWWA is also concerned about the monitoring costs for each radium and uranium isotope. Understanding the monitoring requirements for this regulation will be very difficult for most systems, especially small systems.

AWWA's Radionuclides Technical Advisory Workgroup (TAW) met on April 24-25th and began its process of comment development. AWWA strongly encourages all of its members to submit their own comments to EPA on all proposed regulations, in addition to the extensive comments submitted by AWWA. The number of comments received by EPA indicates the level of interested by the utilities in each regulation. Based on the number of inquiries received at AWWA's Government Affairs Office, we know that there is a high level of interest/concern regarding this regulation. Utilities must speak out now on this important issue!

Comments need to be received by EPA by June 20th. Comments (an original and three copies) should be sent to:

W-00-12 Radionuclides Rule Comments Clerk
Water Docket (MC-4101)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460

EPA also accepts comments electronically if you get in a time crunch in developing your comments. You can submit comments as an individual (which still count) if you have difficulties getting comments developed through your organization. Electronic comments can be submitted to ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII, WP6.1, or WP8 file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by the docket number W-00-12 and must be submitted by midnight June 20th.

For more information, call or send email to:
J. Alan Roberson, P.E. Director of Regulatory Affairs
American Water Works Association
1401 New York Ave. NW, #640
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 628-8303
Fax: (202) 628-2846
Email: aroberso@awwa.org



Inside H2Onews: Suez water subsidiary ditches $574 million contract Sixty reservoirs inspected following vandalism	Updates (Archived) As reported by Alan Roberson, Director of Regulatory Affairs, AWWA, Washington DC: Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) - M/DBP Rules Arsenic Regulations \| Radionuclides September 28, 2000 FACA Holds "Marathon Meeting" on Proposed M/DBP Rules The Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) that has been working on recommendations for these regulations wrapped up their negotiations with a marathon 16-hour meeting on September 6th. The final details of the two-part Agreement In Principle were hammered out in this marathon meeting. Part A of the Agreement includes regulatory requirements for the Stage 2 D/DPBR, the LT2ESWTR, unfiltered systems, and uncovered finished water reservoirs. Part B of the Agreement includes recommendations for EPA to develop microbial water quality criteria under the Clean Water Act and for a process to potentially develop a distribution system rule. The Agreement In Principle can be downloaded from AWWA's website at http://www.awwa.org/govtaff/govnew.htm. The two-part Agreement In Principle, which will serve as the foundation for the proposed rules, is being circulated to all of the FACA organizations for their signatures by September 29th. AWWA leadership has voted to sign both parts of the Agreement, and it is anticipated that all FACA organizations with the exception of the National Rural Water Association (NRWA) will sign both parts. NRWA is anticipated to sign only Part A of the Agreement In Principle. Major issues resolved at the September 6th meeting included: · Compliance timeframes-generally, large and medium systems have three years after promulgation (2005) to complete the Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) and the Cryptosporidium monitoring for bin classification. Large and medium systems then have an additional three years (2008-with an additional 2 year extension [2010] for capital improvements if approved by primacy agency) to comply with the 80/60 TTHM/LRAA at the revised compliance monitoring sites (based on the IDSE) and the specific bin treatment requirements. Small systems generally lag 1.5-2.5 years behind large and medium systems based on results of their initial E. coli monitoring as a potential surrogate for Cryptosporidium monitoring. · A new wrinkle resulting from the September 6th meeting was a requirement for all systems to meet 120/100 TTHM/HAA5 Location Running Annual Average (LRAA) at existing Stage 1 compliance monitoring sites three years after promulgation (2005-with an additional 2 year extension [2008] for capital improvements if approved by primacy agency). This addition was necessary to meet the statutory requirement of Section 1412 (b)(10) of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments that a rule become effective three years after promulgation (with an additional 2 year extension for capital improvements if approved by primacy agency). · Ongoing microbial monitoring-Seven years after the LT2ESWTR promulgation (2009), EPA will initiate a stakeholder process to review available microbial methods and the bin boundaries. Nine years after the LT2ESWTR promulgation (2011), systems will conduct a second round of monitoring, hopefully using a new and improved method. · Specific triggers for Ultraviolet Light (UV) treatment, microbial laboratory capacity, and the data management system were developed that would delay these regulations if the triggers are not met. · Breaking the Agreement into two parts so that all FACA organizations could sign Part A, which contains regulatory requirements for the Stage 2 D/DPBR, the LT2ESWTR, unfiltered systems, and uncovered finished water reservoirs. · Correction of significant deficiencies from sanitary surveys as a treatment technique violation was dropped from the Agreement. EPA plans to take the Agreement In Principle and develop the preamble and regulation language for a proposed Stage 2 D/DBPR and LT2ESWTR in mid-2001. EPA still intends to meet their statutory deadlines to finalize these regulations by May, 2002. What are the next steps? There are lots of other outstanding issues for finalizing these rules, such as drafting the multiple guidance manuals and the development of a validation protocol for Ultraviolet Light (UV) reactors. AWWA staff has met with EPA to start the discussion on the data gaps that need to be filled for the proposal and the guidance manuals. Based on this initial meeting, AWWA staff have started the development of an Action Plan for these issues (and others) to ensure implementation of these regulations is a success. July 31, 2000 Negotiations Continue on Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule (D/DBPR), Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) On July 27-28th, the Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) held another meeting in the ongoing negotiations on the Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule (D/DBPR) and the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR). The FACA came to tentative agreement on several critical components for both rules which were incorporated on the fly into the draft "agreement in principle" that hopefully will be signed by all parties. However, time just simply ran out (even with the FACA meeting until 11 PM on the 27th), and there are still a few significant areas where consensus has not been reached that need to be worked out before the "agreement in principle" is signed. The last FACA meeting has been scheduled for 8 AM-8PM on Wednesday, September 6th. After the last FACA meeting, EPA will flesh out the agreement into preambles and regulatory language (as usual, the devil is in the details) for proposals for both rules in Spring, 2001. EPA still intends to meet the statutory deadline for the final rules of May, 2002. STAGE 2 D/DBPR The FACA has agreed on MCLs for TTHM/HAA5 of 80/60 as a Location Running Annual Average (LRAA) , i.e., each compliance monitoring sampling location has to comply with the MCL on a running annual average. Systems will conduct an initial distribution system evaluation (IDSE) with TTHM/HAA5 sampling every other month for one year to revise their compliance sampling locations. At the July 27-28th meeting, the FACA agreed to the following four revised compliance sampling locations (paired samples for both TTHM/HAA5): One at a representative average point (a current Stage 1 location); One representative point with high HAA5 levels identified by the IDSE; and Two representative points with high TTHM levels identified by the IDSE. The FACA agreed that the bromate standard would remain at 10 ppb, noting that this standard could be reviewed as part of EPA's six-year review process. The FACA also agreed that EPA would develop guidance to address "significant" DBP peaks. EPA will also develop IDSE guidance, including how to use historical DBP and water quality data, as well as new monitoring data. LT2ESWTR The FACA has agreed to another round of microbial monitoring (2 years of monthly Cryptosporidium [using EPA Method 1623] and E. coli monitoring for surface water systems serving >10,000 people) that will be used to place systems in different "bins" based on an average Cryptosprodium level. Systems in the different "bins" will go to a "toolbox" of options for additional removal and/or inactivation credits. Small systems will hopefully be able to use E. coli as a surrogate for Cryptosporidium-their monitoring will be delayed until the surrogate analysis will be conducted on the large and medium system data. At the June 27-28th meeting, the FACA agreed to a microbial framework for unfiltered systems that requires those systems to continue to meet the filtration avoidance criteria and provide 4 logs virus, 3 logs Giarida, and 2 logs Cryptosporidium inactivation. Inactivation requirements must be met using a minimum of 2 disinfectants. The FACA agreed to recommend the development of national water quality criteria under the Clean Water Act for microbial pathogens for stream segments designated by states/tribes for drinking water use. The FACA also agreed to a process for development of a distribution system rule that will likely include revision of the Total Coliform Rule and some type of cross-connection control program requirements. OUTSTANDING ISSUES The monitoring and compliance timelines and correction of significant deficiencies in sanitary surveys are the two biggest issues left in the negotiations. However, everyone hopes that they can be resolved at the September 6th meeting. Monitoring and compliance timelines-some FACA representatives have serious concerns about the availability of EPA Method 1623 for microbial monitoring, the database that will be used to collect this monitoring data, and the availability of ultraviolet (UV) light as a treatment technology. How to integrate these concerns into deadlines and/or milestones in the agreement that could delay these rules in the future is a topic for future discussion. Additionally, the entire compliance timeframe is very aggressive and these timelines could easily slip in the future. Correction of significant deficiencies from sanitary surveys as a treatment technique violation-some FACA representatives have concerns about subjective judgements in sanitary surveys now becoming treatment technique violations. The following more minor issues are also expected to be resolved at the September 6th meeting: Small systems concerns include the timelines, the future distribution system rule, and the "backstop" E. coli numbers in the agreement. Ongoing microbial monitoring-several FACA representatives want ongoing microbial monitoring to address degradation in the watershed in the future. These future monitoring requirements, along with how this future data would be used, and the potential for systems to be put into a different "bin" in the future are topics for future discussion. Consecutive systems-how do the monitoring and compliance requirements translate to systems that purchase water from another system? May 26, 2000 Proposed Revision to Arsenic Drinking Water Standards On May 24th, the EPA Administrator signed the proposed arsenic regulation. A pre-publication copy (335 pages) of the proposal is available on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/proposalfs.html. EPA's press release is also available on their website. The proposal signature generated a fair amount of media coverage (Associated Press, NY Times, SF Chronicle, and others) on Thursday, May 25th, but the media window (and their interest) has now closed. The proposal should be published in the Federal Register next week. Once the proposal is published, then all of background documents (Technology & Cost Document, Regulatory Impact Analysis, etc.) should be available for review from the Drinking Water Docket (202-260-3027). This proposal will have a 90-day comment period, so comments will be due in late August. This proposal would lower the arsenic regulation from the current standard of 50 ppb to 5 ppb. However, EPA is taking comments on other potential options for the revised standard-3 ppb, 10 ppb, and 20 ppb. In the past, AWWA has supported a revised standard no lower than 10 ppb (note that this is no lower than 10 ppb, which isn't the quite the same as 10 ppb). AWWA's Arsenic Workgroup has already started working on AWWA's comments, but utilities need to start thinking about how this proposal might affect them, and how they might comment on the proposal. AWWA's comments will likely focus on the benefit-cost analysis, and treatment and residuals disposal issues. Health effects issues will be analyzed, but from a much broader perspective due to the arsenic health risks report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that was published last year. The NAS report is being the considered the "gold standard" for arsenic health risks. The Arsenic Workgroup will be taking a hard look at residuals disposal issues, as it is likely that utilities will find difficulties in discharging residuals streams with relatively high arsenic levels to a sanitary sewer or a stream. This issue is likely one of the major differences between EPA's estimated costs and the recently released AWWARF/ACWA report on treatment costs (Cost Implications of a Lower Arsenic MCL - http://www.awwarf.com/research/as_mcl.htm). The Workgroup will also be looking closely at affordability at the local level, i.e., how rates might increase at a specific system due to installation of arsenic treatment. Additionally, the impacts to consumers at the poverty level, or near poverty, from these rate increases will be analyzed. The Arsenic Workgroup is also working to develop a spreadsheet that utilities could use to estimate their own treatment costs. This spreadsheet should be very useful in helping utilities develop comments on the proposal, and will be available through AWWA's Government Affairs Office by mid-June. In the May 12th Federal Register (65 FR 30589), a meeting was announced of the Drinking Water Committee (DWC) of the Science Advisory Board to review the arsenic proposal. The DWC has been charged by EPA to answer five questions on health effects and treatment issues. One interesting issue is Question #3-Accounting for the Cardiovascular Health End Point-Is precautionary advice on use of low-arsenic water in preparation of infant formula appropriate given the available information? This is one of the first times that this issue has been addressed, and the DWC discussion should be interesting. This proposed arsenic rule will likely impact many, many utilities, and it is important that EPA receive as many individual comments as possible from individual utilities (or even from individuals). The number of comments received is an indication to EPA on the level of interest from utilities. You can send your comments to EPA either as an organization or as an individual. In their comment response document, EPA is required to respond to every comment. May 16, 2000 EPA Publishes Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for Balance of Radionuclides EPA published the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for the balance of radionuclides (primarily alpha and beta emitters, radium, and uranium) in the Federal Register on April 21st. Comments on the NODA are due to EPA on June 20th. An electronic version of the NODA, along with links to the supporting documentation (which is important to developing an understanding of the NODA), can be found on EPA's Website at www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/pp/radnucpp.html . The balance of radionuclides is an extremely complex regulation, due to the very nature of radiochemistry, and due to the different isotopes involved in the rulemaking. The NODA presents new health effects data and some limited new occurrence data, and makes some changes to the MCLs that were proposed in 1991 in conjunction with the proposed radon regulation. New occurrence data and new risk models suggest that radionuclides are much riskier than thought in 1991. The major components of the NODA include: EPA's incorporation of a MCLG of zero for all radionuclides, as proposed in 1991; EPA's rational for maintaining the 1976 gross alpha MCL of 15 pCi/L (to include radium-226 and exclude uranium and radon); EPA's rational for maintaining the 1976 current MCL of 5 pCi/L for combined radium-226 and 228; EPA's rational for maintaining the 1976 beta particle and photon radioactivity MCL of 4 mrem/year; As proposed in 1991, EPA is considering a NPDWR for uranium at 20 ug/L. Taking costs and benefits into consideration, EPA will take comment on uranium at 40 ug/L as well as at 80 ug/L; As proposed in the 1991 rule, EPA will require separate monitoring for radium-226 and radium-228; The beta/photon screening level will be changed, as proposed in 1991; The regulatory options EPA is considering for the Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems (NTNCWSs), such as schools, factories, etc.; A request for public comment on whether (1) to maintain the current distribution system monitoring because of inconsistencies with the point of entry monitoring scheme and compositing, or (2) implementing the entry point monitoring Standardized Monitoring Framework (SMF) scheme "with minor technical revisions." One of the most significant issues in the NODA is that the combined radium-226 and -228 MCL will stay at 5 piC/l, as opposed to being raised to 20 piC/l as proposed in 1991 (due to the cost-benefit inclusion of the radon proposal). Some water systems that had radium levels between 5 and 20piC/l that had been "in limbo" since the 1991 proposal now have to carefully analyze their treatment options. The ultimate disposal of ion exchange regenerant brines containing radium is an issue that will need careful analysis in order to understand local disposal options. Another significant issue in the NODA is how to best regulate Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems (NTNCWSs). These are systems that don't serve a specific community, but served a fixed population every day, such as a remote school or factory. EPA is proposing several regulatory options for NTNCWSs: Requiring NTNCWSs to comply with the MCLs (the traditional approach); Requiring NTNCWSs to monitor for radiounuclides and post notices of exceedances (but the MCLs would not apply); NTNCWSs would excluded from radionuclides regulations; A targeted approach using one of the above options, where targeting would be based on the results of small community water system radionuclide occurrence. AWWA is planning to encourage EPA to use its discretionary authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to use benefit-cost considerations in the determination of the uranium MCL. AWWA is also concerned about the monitoring costs for each radium and uranium isotope. Understanding the monitoring requirements for this regulation will be very difficult for most systems, especially small systems. AWWA's Radionuclides Technical Advisory Workgroup (TAW) met on April 24-25th and began its process of comment development. AWWA strongly encourages all of its members to submit their own comments to EPA on all proposed regulations, in addition to the extensive comments submitted by AWWA. The number of comments received by EPA indicates the level of interested by the utilities in each regulation. Based on the number of inquiries received at AWWA's Government Affairs Office, we know that there is a high level of interest/concern regarding this regulation. Utilities must speak out now on this important issue! Comments need to be received by EPA by June 20th. Comments (an original and three copies) should be sent to: W-00-12 Radionuclides Rule Comments Clerk Water Docket (MC-4101) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20460 EPA also accepts comments electronically if you get in a time crunch in developing your comments. You can submit comments as an individual (which still count) if you have difficulties getting comments developed through your organization. Electronic comments can be submitted to ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII, WP6.1, or WP8 file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by the docket number W-00-12 and must be submitted by midnight June 20th. For more information, call or send email to: J. Alan Roberson, P.E. Director of Regulatory Affairs American Water Works Association 1401 New York Ave. NW, #640 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 628-8303 Fax: (202) 628-2846 Email: aroberso@awwa.org	This month: 2004 North American Environmental Field Conference and Exposition 10th Underground Construction Technology International Conference & Exhibition
Copyright © 2000-2004 Perot Systems Government Services. Legal Info \| Text-Only Browsers \| Site Map Questions or comments? Please contact us at webmaster@drinkingh2o.com. This page was last updated on January 14, 2004 .