Slide 1
Ground Water RuleOverviewGround Water Rule WorkshopDepartment of
Environmental ConservationSeptember 22-23, 2009
Dan Weber & Gloria CollinsRegulations TeamDEC Drinking Water
[email protected]/907-269-7514Gloria.
[email protected]/907-269-3075
Introductions
Background information about GWR and its principal innovationsAs
compared to prior federal drinking water regulations, andAs
compared to current Alaska drinking water regulations affecting
GWS1Presentation OutlineSome facts about ground water systems
(GWS)The history of the Ground Water Rule (GWR)Current status of
GWR in Alaska, and Alaskas plans for adopting itCurrent Alaska
regulations concerning ground water systemsGeneral requirements of
the GWRSome facts about GWS
How did the GWR come to assume its present form? What is its
current status in Alaska? Will Alaska adopt the GWR?
Ill do those parts. Gloria will do:
Current Alaska regulations pertaining to GWS
General framework and main requirements of GWR2The Ground Water
UniverseAbout 85% of Alaska PWS are ground water systems (GWS).
Ground water PWS supply about 50% of the state population, and
about 90% of the population outside major cities.GWS tend to be
smaller PWS:Serve smaller populationsLess investment,
infrastructureMore often rural than urban
GWR applies to every ground water PWS in the United States
(definitions later)
145,000 GWS in the United States. Serve about 1/3 of
population.
In Alaska, close to 85% of our community and non-community PWS
are GWS. About 1,300-1,400 systems.
Supply about half of the states population, much larger
percentage of the population outside major cities.
GWS tend to be smaller, and often simpler, systems: smaller
average populations, less investment and infrastructure, may suffer
from a lack of (permanent) expertise. In other words, capacity
issues.3Distribution of GWS in Alaska
Darker areas have more GWS. Principally Southcentral,
Southwestern Alaska, and area around Fairbanks.4Systems Affected by
the GWRPublic water system (PWS) = federal definition, not state
(no Class C)PWS using ground water (but not GWUDISW)Consecutive PWS
receiving finished ground water from wholesale systemPWS mixing
untreated ground water with surface waterNot PWS mixing all ground
water and surface water before treatment Includes Community Water
Systems (CWS) Non-community Water Systems (NCWS)Size of population
served is irrelevantPWS, as used in GWR, means federal
definitionFederal and state definitions not the sameState
recognizes all federal PWS categoriescommunity and non-communitybut
has Class C, which falls outside federal definitionClass C remains
on books, not known whether it will ever be subject to any
provisions of the GWR
GWR applies to PWS using a GW source:Obviously, sole GW source
systems. (Distinguish GWUDISW, treated as surface water.)Also
applies to consecutive systems receiving GW from wholesale
systemApplies to systems mixing untreated GW with treated surface
water, but not to systems mixing GW with surface water prior to
treatment.
Includes all CWS and NCWS. Size irrelevant to whether rule
applies. But GWR is not inflexible about how it applies to
individual systems.
5Regulatory FrameworkSafe drinking water parameters in U.S. are
established nationallySafe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), originally
enacted in 1974National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 40
C.F.R. Part 141, promulgated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)Primacy agencies required to adopt and
enforce standards at least as stringent as federal onesAlaska
Drinking Water Regulations, 18 AAC Chapter 80DW standards set
nationally in U.S.By Congress in SDWABy EPA in National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations
SDWA envisions delegation of primacy, or enforcement authority,
from EPA to primacy agenciesstates, territories, Indian tribes,
usually just called states.
EPA requires states to show they can and will enforce standards
as stringent as EPA standards.
The state first adopts new standards by including them within
its own drinking water regulations, either in own words, or by
adoption by reference. Once it does that, it has interim primacy,
until its application for full primacy is approved by EPA. Until a
state as primacy, primacy remains with EPA region.
Return to this subject in later slide.6Origins of GWR,
1986-961986 SDWA wanted to require disinfection of all PWSs, ground
water as well as surface waterFirst version of GWR drafted in 1987,
required disinfection of all GWSTremendous stakeholder input on
draftStrong opposition, because: Draft rule assumed all GWSs were
fecally contaminated Cost of disinfection Regulatory burden of
implementing ruleDevelopment of rule slowed until 1996 SDWA
amendments
SDWA major amendments in 1986 and 1996.
1986 amendments driven by Congressional perception that EPA was
too slow enacting new safe drinking water standards.
1986 amendments required EPA to adopt rule requiring
disinfection of all PWS, GW as well as surface water. Following
year, EPA circulated a draft proposal to this effect.
Tremendous stakeholder opposition to universal disinfection
Almost 150,000 GWS, so cost and regulatory burden would have
been very high.
Development of rule slowed
EPA caught between legislative rock and DW industry hard
place.
In 1996, Congress removed the legislative rock with new
amendments to the SDWA.
1986 SDWA requirement shows that concern about public health
risks of supposedly pure ground water have been around for a long
time. (Reference Cindys presentations.)
7Development of GWR, 1996-20061996 SDWA amendments adopted
risk-targeted approach to ground water issues:Identify GWS at risk
of fecal contaminationRequire corrective actions, of which
disinfection would be only one possibilityThis put the GWR on
different rule development track:Identify technically feasible
risk-identifying strategiesStakeholder meetings to evaluate
feasibility, costs, and state regulatory structures and
capabilitiesDraft of proposed GWR published in 2000Controversies
over indicator organisms delayed consensusFinal rule promulgated
11/22/06
In 1996, Congress went back to drawing board, told EPA to handle
GW risks by developing regulations as necessary to protect public
health. Wording gave EPA plenty of latitude.
EPA adopted risk-targeted approach: identify GWS at risk of
contamination and require corrective actions. Disinfection one
possible corrective action.
Targeted originally benign in meaning, meant to emphasize shift
from across-the-board disinfection requirement to selective one
focusing on the GWS at risk
EPA first identified technically and financially feasible
risk-targeting strategies, then stakeholder meetings
Draft GWR published in 2000.
Delay over target organisms/indicator organisms.
Final rule promulgated in 2006.8Principal Differences Between
Proposed and Final RulesHydrogeologic Sensitivity Analyses (HSAs)
and routine source water monitoring not mandatory; changed to
targeted monitoring
Targeted language dropped; now called assessment water source
monitoring, assessment source monitoring, or assessment
monitoringGWR proposed in 2000 wanted states to do HSAs of all GWS
to identify those relying on sensitive aquifers, and then require
such systems to do regular source water monitoring.
HAS = detailed, individualized study of an aquifer, usually but
not always requiring field work.
States told EPA they didnt have the resources to do that many
HSAs; would have to just require all GWS to do source water
monitoring.
That defeated the whole risk-targeted approach EPA had been
trying to follow.
EPA forced to abandon requirement for universal HSAs, and
replace with the concept of targeted monitoring, which permitted
states to use a broader range of data sources to determine which
GWS were at risk.
Again, the term targeted was intended to emphasize selectivity.
Unfortunately, it morphed into phrase targeted systems, which
conveyed the idea that the states would begin witchhunts for GWS to
impose source water monitoring on them.
EPA recognized that the term had become a public relations
liability, and dropped it in its final version of the GWR.
At this point, stand back and take long historical view of how
we got GWR:20 years to develop23, if you count from the 1986 SDWA
mandate to the 2009 GWR compliance dateLong time even by EPA
standardsBroad and deep public health protections envisioned at one
timeuniversal disinfection, universal HSAsabandoned in favor of
more flexible alternatives (no value judgment)9Where to Find the
GWRMost of it is added as Subpart S to 40 C.F.R. 141, consisting of
sections 400 through 405.Other changes at: 141.21 (Total Coliform
Rule)141.153 (Consumer Confidence Report Rule, also at Subpart O,
Appendix A added health effects language for fecal
indicators)141.202 and 141.203 (Public Notice, also at Appendix B
to Subpart Q, added health effects language for fecal indicators
and GWR TT violations)40 CFR 142, National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations Implementation (specification of primacy requirements
for GWR)
Copy of GWR as published in Federal Register is included in
binders.
Many other resources provide guidance about the GWR, will be
mentioned during various presentations.
10Gaps Filled By GWRBefore GWR, no federal rule existed that
requiredMicrobiological monitoring of ground water sourceCorrective
action if fecal contamination is found in ground water
sourceCorrective action if sanitary survey finds significant
deficiencyGWR protects public health by providing for all
threeAlaska already has provisions addressing all threeEPA
specifies three major respects in which the GWR fills gaps in
federal regulation of GWS:
No provision actually requiring micro monitoring of GW. GWS had
to do TCR sampling in distribution systems, but no federal rule
required source water testing. GWR provides for source water
testing on selective basis, either because of inherent
vulnerability of aquifer, or because +TC result triggers cascade
leading to regular source water monitoring.
No mandatory corrective action even if a GW source were known to
be fecally contaminated. Considering that most GWS dont practice
disinfection, a major gap in coverage.
No federal requirement that significant deficiencies in sanitary
surveys actually be corrected. Existing regs allowed states
latitude to define significant deficiencies and determining what
followup was appropriate. GWS restricts state latitudestill can
define significant deficiencies, but must institute corrective
action within specified time frame.
But this is just federal regulationsmany states, including
Alaska, already addressed these gaps, to some extent, in their own
regulations. Alaska addresses all threerefer to Glorias
presentation.
Theme of workshop: many if not most GWS already doing much of
what GWR requires. Some changes, but no revolution.11GWR
Implementation TimelineFinal rule published in Federal Register:
11/8/06Promulgation date: 11/22/06Compliance date: 12/1/2009First
deadline for state adoption: 11/22/08Second deadline for state
adoption: 11/22/10Alaskas adoption timeframe (obtain primacy)Before
state primacy, GWR implementation shared between EPA and Drinking
Water Program per MOU:State activities: Public education, data
collection and management, compliance assistanceEPA activities:
NOVs and subsequent enforcement actions
Go down bullets on slide.
Most GWS in Alaska are already doing much of what GWR provides,
by virtue of state regs. They will continue doing those things, and
reporting to state. Some may require adjustments, in which their
assigned specialist or engineer will guide them.
MOU between state and EPA governs pre-primacy period: read
bullets on slide
If you have questions about GWR compliance, contact the
specialist or engineer you usually work with.
12Ground Water Rule Overview (contd.)Where we are: Current
Drinking Water (DW) Regulations and Ground Water System
Requirements18 AAC 80.035, Disinfection of non-surface water
source18 AAC 80.400-425, Coliform bacteria requirements (TCR)18 AAC
80.430, Sanitary Surveys (TCR)Other requirements related to GW
Systems in 18 AAC 80Where we are going: Ground Water Rule
BasicsEPAWho? ApplicabilityWhy? PurposeWhat? How? Key
provisionsWhen? Compliance DatesWhat? How? (Part 2) Other
RequirementsGround Water Rule and State Discretion
13Thanks, Dan. Now that weve learned the history and have an
idea of the timeframe for certain GW Rule event, lets spend a
little more time on the present and see where this is headed in the
future. In other words, where are we now, and where are we
going?
Well do that by starting off with a summary of where the DW
Program is currently with its regulations that relate to Ground
Water systems, and where the program is headed with this new rule.
As this Overview presentation now continues, it is intended to
provide a structural framework for this; the information Im giving
is not exhaustive, but is in the nature of a summary. However, the
presentations that follow will provide the more detailed
explanations. 13Current DW Regulations and Ground Water System
RequirementsWhere are we right now?
Summary of key points inrelevant regulations for Ground Water
Systems (GWSs)
14So.where are we right now? What are the main DW regulations
that can affect a Ground Water system?14Current DW Regulations and
GW Systems (contd.)18 AAC 80.035, Disinfection of non-surface water
system:GW system required to install/maintain continuous
disinfection when the following conditions apply:If needed to
protect public health and eitherDW Program is aware of sanitary
defect;System is in violation of Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
for total coliforms; ORDW Program determines high potential for
violating MCL for total coliforms.
15Our current regulations have a requirement relating to when a
GW system is required to install or maintain disinfection. Please
note that one of the criteria is that public health needs to be
protected; and, theres at least one other condition that must also
be present: sanitary defectViolate MCL for total Coliforms; or High
potential for exceeding MCL for total coliforms.;
15Current DW Regulations and GW Systems (contd.)(18 AAC 80.035,
contd.)If disinfection is required:Daily monitoring requirements
for disinfectant residualMaintain a detectable residual
disinfectant level in distribution systemReport monitoring results
to DW Program
NOTE: Disinfection treatment in current DW regulations for GW
systems might not meet treatment requirements of the GW RuleCheck
with the DW Program
16Also, if disinfection is required by DW Program, there are
some specific requirements regarding disinfectant residualsdaily
monitoring, maintaining a detectable level in distribution system,
and reporting the monitoring results to DW Program.
Special NOTE: Disinfection treatment might not meet GW Rule
treatment requirements. If you have any questions about this,
please check with DW Program.16Current DW Regulations and GW
Systems (contd.)18 AAC 80.400-425, Coliform bacteria requirements
(Total Coliform Rule):Routine monitoringApproved sampling sites in
distribution systemConsecutive system monitoring/reporting
provisions as determined by DW ProgramMonitoring frequency for
total coliforms depends on population served dailyWaiver on sample
collection times may be granted for remote PWSs under specified
conditions
1717Current DW Regulations and GW Systems (contd.)(18 AAC
80.400-425, contd.)Site plan for sampling, approved by DW
ProgramRepeat monitoring: If routine sample is total coliform
positive, there are repeat sample requirements
1818Current DW Regulations and GW Systems (contd.)18 AAC 80.430,
Sanitary Surveys: Required for all PWSs, including GW systemsEight
components (EPAs Enhanced Sanitary Survey)Deficiencies3
levelsPublic notice requirements when lack of compliance
1919Current DW Regulations and GW Systems (contd.)Other
requirements in 18 AAC 80 relevant to GW systems:Analytical Methods
(laboratory analyses)Consumer Confidence Reporting (CWS)Public
NotificationReporting and Recordkeeping2020Ground Water Rule
BasicsWho?Why?What? How?When?
In other words,Where are we going?
2121Ground Water Rule Basics (contd.)Who?
Applicability
22Does this apply to my water system? Or does this apply to the
water system I do work for or provide services for?22Ground Water
Rule Basics (contd.)GWR applies to
PWS using 100% GW source
Consecutive system receiving GW
System using mixed surface/GW if GW not going through same
treatment process as surface water
2323Ground Water Rule Basics (contd.)Why?
Purpose
2424Ground Water Rule Basics (contd.)Protecting Public Health
EPAs Multi-Barrier Approach for drinking water systems:A variety of
protective programs including1. Source water protection 2.
Treatment and treatment redundancy3. Monitoring using certified
laboratories 4. Appropriately certified operators, and 5.
Mechanisms to educate members of the public about water quality and
inform them of any violations
2525Ground Water Rule Basics (contd.)Primary purpose of GWR:
Protect Public HealthIdentify GWSs at risk of fecal
contaminationMonitoring of source water for GWSRequiring Sanitary
Surveys and Identifying Significant Deficiencies for GWSCorrective
Action requirements for GWS
2626 Ground Water Rule Basics (contd.)What? How?
Key Provisions
2727Ground Water Rule Basics (contd.)Key provisions of GWRSource
Water Monitoring (no 4-log treatment
requirement)TriggeredMonitoring & Reporting 1
AssessmentAssessment MonitoringCompliance Monitoring (4-log
treatment requirement)Monitoring & Reporting 2; Treatment
TechniquesSanitary Surveys of all GWSsSanitary Surveys Corrective
Actions for Significant Deficiencies and Fecal
ContaminationMonitoring & Reporting 1 & 2; Treatment
Techniques; Sanitary Surveys; Additional Rule Requirements
** Underlying FactorsEpidemiology; Well Construction Issues
2828 Ground Water Rule Basics (contd.)
Overview of Corrective Action ProcessActivated when there is
primarily 1. Evidence of source water fecal contamination; or 2. A
significant deficiency (from sanitary survey)
2929Ground Water Rule Basics (contd.)When?
Key Compliance Date
3030Ground Water Rule Basics (contd.)GWR Primary Compliance
DateDecember 1, 2009: A. PWS to notify DW Program if doing 4-log
treatmentB. PWS to begin1. Compliance monitoring (4-log
treatment)2. Source water monitoring (no 4-log treatment) a.
Triggeredb. Assessment3. Corrective action requirement, if needed
to addressa. Fecal indicator-positive samples b. A deficiency (from
sanitary survey)
3131Ground Water Rule Basics (contd.)What? How? (Part 2)
Other Requirements
3232Ground Water Rule Basics (contd.)Other
RequirementsAnalytical Methods (laboratory analyses)Consumer
Confidence Report (CWS)Public Notification/Special NoticeReporting
and Recordkeeping
3333Ground Water Rule and State DiscretionGWR flexibilityDW
Program decides discretionary itemsWhich fecal indicator to use?
Choice of 3:EnterococciColiphageE. coli (Alaska s first choice of
indicator)Descriptions of significant deficienciesProtocols for
determining 4-log treatment technique achievement3434Ground Water
Rule Overview SummaryFacts about Ground Water SystemsHistory of
Ground Water RuleStatus of Ground Water Rule in AlaskaCurrent
Drinking Water Regulations and Ground Water System
RequirementsGround Water Rule BasicsEPAGround Water Rule and State
Discretion
35Ground Water BasicsCheck out the Ground WaterFlow Model in the
lobby
3636