Slide 1

Ground Water RuleOverviewGround Water Rule WorkshopDepartment of Environmental ConservationSeptember 22-23, 2009

Dan Weber & Gloria CollinsRegulations TeamDEC Drinking Water ProgramDaniel.Weber@alaska.gov/907-269-7514Gloria. Collins@alaska.gov/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