Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants · Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants 4 • The...

Regulatory Status ofEmerging Contaminants

2Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

Total Regulated Contaminants, 1976 - Current

3Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

Water and WastewaterRegulation

Water and WastewaterRegulation

Commercial RegulationCommercial RegulationEPAEPA

FDAFDA

EPAEPA

EPAEPA

EPAEPA

EPA & FDAEPA & FDA

Avenues for Federal Regulation

4Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

• The contaminant may have an adverse effect on humanhealth;

• The contaminant is known to occur or there issubstantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur inpublic water systems with a frequency and high enoughconcentration to be of public health concern;

• In the sole judgment of the Administrator, a regulationof such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunityfor health risk reduction for persons served by publicwater systems.

Safe Drinking Water Act:Criteria for Selecting New Regulations

5Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

CCL UCMRRegulatory

Determination

NoDetermination

“Other” Inputs

6Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

EPA CCL Process

7Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

EPA CCL Process

~7,500 Contaminants

8Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

EPA CCL Process

~7,500 Contaminants

561 Contaminants

9Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

EPA CCL Process

~7,500 Contaminants

561 Contaminants

Draft CCL3:93 Chem + 11 Microb.Contaminants

(1 Pharmaceutical; nosteroids)

10Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

EPA CCL Process + Politics

~7,500 Contaminants

561 Contaminants

Final CCL3:106 Chem + 10 Microb.Contaminants

(12 Pharmaceuticals; 9Steroids)

11Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

• Perchlorate

• Chlorate

• Chromium (VI)

• VOCs

• Nitrosamines/NDMA

• Perfluorinated Chemicals

Where Does the EPA Currently Stand?

12Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

EPA is moving towards regulating contaminants by group

Advantage:

– “Treatment Technique” credit could theoretically beprovided for “log removal” for certain groups

Disadvantage:

– Could over- or under-represent (regulate) certain highpriority / high toxicity compounds (?)

Groups that appear most likely for potential regulation:

– Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

– Nitrosamines

– Perfluorinated compounds

Proposed or Potential Regulations (orContaminants of Concern)

13Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

• Algal Toxins

• Emerging DBPs

• Other contaminants like MCHM (West Virginia)?

– Not likely

• Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products?

– Not likely

“Crystal Ball” Future Contaminants

14Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

The DBP Iceberg

14

HalogenatedCompounds

Non-halogenatedCompounds

ICR Compounds

50 MWDSC DBPs

~700 Known DBPs

THMs, THAAs

DHAAs

Courtesy of Dave Reckhow, UMass Amherst

15Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

• Much debate in scientific community about the toxicityand public health relevance of emerging DBPs– Concern about chloramine-related DBPs vs. chlorine-related

DBPs

• Ideas have been floated at conferences:– Find and apply a better surrogate than THMs and HAAs?

– Total Organic Halide (TOX) instead of THMs and HAAs?

– Regulate more toxic DBPs (iodo- and bromo- compounds)?

– Force GAC across all treatment plants as a TT?

• STAGE 3 DBP RULE—currently on the table fordiscussion at EPA…

Emerging Disinfection Byproducts

16Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Reg Det 3 Final(<12/2015)1

Proposed Rule(s)(<12/2017)1

2019

Final Rule(s)(<1/2018)1

Final FluorideRecommendation,

HHS

RTCR Effective(4/2016)

ClO4-

Proposal(2014-15?)

ClO4-

Final(2017?)

Reg Det 3Proposal

Note (2): As yet unassigned (acrylamide, epichlorohydrin, total chromium / Cr-6)

CarcinogenicVOCs Proposal

(2015-16?)

CarcinogenicVOCs Final(2017-18?)

Six-Year 3(2016)

Six-Year 3Proposal

(2016)

Note (1): EPA can propose a rule at the same time as it makes a determination to regulate. This would truncate the rule timeline forany given contaminant by 2 years.

Round 2 LT2ESWTR Monitoring(10/2014 – 10/2017)

LT-LCRFinal

(Winter2017)

UCMR3 Monitoring(1/2013 – 12/2015)

CCL4Proposal(2014?)

LT-LCRProposal(2015 –2016?)

New RuleCompliance

2022 andBeyond

17Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

• Their plate is very full!

• Currently looking at >7-9 year process from proposal topromulgation and enforcement

• UCMR3 data adds 3-5 years to this timeline

• Looking at 10-12 years for long-term changes

• CCL4 Due in 2014/2015

• UCMR4 Due in 2015– Opinion: Algal Toxins, Microbial Contaminants likely

• Carries us through ~ 2025– Additional contaminants beyond 2025 difficult to predict

EPA’s Regulatory Time Line

18Regulatory Status of Emerging Contaminants

History has proven that regulatory burden is primarilyborne by Utilities

– CWA TMDL Program: regulation of point sources prior to regulationof elusive non-point sources

Lack of articulated coordinated agency strategy

The cumulative impact of multi-agency regulation issignificant to municipalities and industries that bear thecost burden of regulation

DPR and IPR may open the way for state regulation ofemerging contaminants

Summary