Facility Operator Certification

Investigations of operator misconduct complaints

The Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Board adopted revisions to Board Procedure 16-2, Operator Misconduct Investigation and Disciplinary Action Adjudicatory Hearing Procedures in April. The revisions provide additional guidance regarding Water Quality Control Division investigations of possible misconduct by water and wastewater facility operators. They also describe the division’s approach to escalating from a division informal reprimand to a division recommendation of formal disciplinary action by the board.

Background 

In Board Guidance 16-1, the board established that it is neither practical nor desirable for all instances of operator misconduct to result in formal disciplinary action. A division investigation is needed to determine whether a violation of law or regulation occurred, and if so, whether the operator’s behavior rises to the level of formal disciplinary action.

Specific allegations

The revisions clarify that an investigation of operator misconduct is limited to the specific allegations against an operator. The division’s task is not to examine the operator under a microscope to see if any possible infraction might be found. Rather, the investigation must determine whether or not there is evidence to support the claim against the accused operator.  

Considerations

When there is evidence of operator misconduct, the division considers the following factors before deciding whether to resolve the issue informally or recommend formal disciplinary action of the board: 

• The gravity of the incident(s) at issue, including the level of risk posed to the public health and environment.
• The operator’s degree of control over the incident(s).
• The operator’s attitude during and after the incident(s), including the operator’s willingness to cooperate with the division during the investigation.
• The division also considers whether correction through training, instruction and/or coaching might be effective.

Informal Action

When a complaint can be resolved informally, the division notifies the operator, and possibly the operator’s supervisor, of the division’s findings through an informal letter of reprimand. The division may suggest alternatives to the questionable behavior or recommend training or coaching to improve the operator’s knowledge and skills. The investigation will remain open and confidential for up to three years. If there is evidence of a repeat or escalation of the behavior during that time, the division will request that the board take formal disciplinary action against the operator. Division informal action does not affect an operator’s standing. 

Recommendation of formal disciplinary action

Only the board has the authority to formally reprimand an operator, or to suspend or revoke the operator’s certificate. The division requests formal board action for severe offenses, as well as repeat or escalated problematic behavior. The board follows procedures detailed in Board Procedure 16-2 when responding to a division request for formal board action. While division informal action is confidential, the board’s disciplinary action decisions (formal reprimand, certificate suspension or certificate revocation) are made in open meetings and are posted on the board’s webpage for three years.

➽ Nancy Horan, Local Assistance Unit

Manganese - Health Advisory

Manganese health advisory and Colorado public water utilities.

Many water professionals do not realize that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a public health advisory for manganese in the year 2004. The language in the advisory may be alarming to the public and speaks of possible developmental effects in children (especially bottle-fed infants) if the water contains high levels of manganese and too much is consumed by users. The language sounds similar to the warnings issued about lead poisoning. The message in the advisory states that if the total manganese concentration exceeds 0.3 mg/L in the finished water, then infants under 6 months should not consume the water. The message also states that if the manganese exceeds 1.0 mg/L, then nobody should consume the water. 

Even though there is a health advisory limit for manganese, it is not regulated under state regulations and the regulations do not mandate a maximum manganese level in the drinking water. Per Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Regulation 11), manganese is a secondary contaminant meaning that systems are not required to test for manganese like they are required to test for primary contaminants (e.g. e.Coli). Manganese is not 
regulated and there is no mandated maximum manganese level for drinking water. 

The secondary maximum contaminant level for manganese in Regulation 11 is 0.05 mg/L. Any samples tested above this concentration, could result in colored water. Because manganese typically oxidizes and makes the water discolored, it is considered a nuisance chemical by public water utilities and is typically removed.

There are many groundwater wells in Colorado and elsewhere that have high levels of manganese. These wells may be regularly used for drinking water on a backup basis. They might be treated with chemicals that keep the manganese from turning the water brown, but do not remove the manganese.

In January of 2019, it was discovered that the Town of Empire was serving water from a backup well that contained manganese greater than 2.0 mg/L. The town, in consultation with our department, decided to issue a warning to users to not drink the water given the 2004 health advisory and the health threat. This was the first time the CDPHE has worked with a system to issue a Tier 1 Public Notice due to the 2004 manganese health advisory. Currently, the town is evaluating whether to install treatment on this source or seek a lower manganese source as a backup water source. 

Questions you might have

• Why did the department decide to issue public notice on a 2004 health advisory?

• What is a health advisory and why do we use it to make public notification requests?

To explain the above questions, it is helpful to look at the cases of harmful algae in Toledo, Ohio and the case of PFAS, also known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, south of Colorado Springs. 

The EPA started to encourage states to work with systems to notify the public of health threats even on unregulated contaminants at the start of 2014. This practice led to a public notification in Toledo, Ohio for drinking water in August 2014. This was due to a toxic algal bloom that affected almost half a million drinking water customers. In May 2016 a public notice was also issued when it was discovered that as many as 60,000 people south of Colorado Springs were drinking water above the health advisory for PFAS. In both of these cases, the contaminants in question could potentially lead to permanent health impacts from a relatively short term exposure. Public notice events were deemed necessary given the EPA guidance and the evidence at hand. These cases set a precedent for proper response to health advisories. CDPHE follows the guidance of the EPA to require public notification if one of the following three specific pollutants are above the health advisory limits: manganese, microcystins and PFAS. 

Our department recommends that water systems test their raw and finished water manganese levels regularly and ensure that installed treatment techniques are capable of adequately removing manganese in order to avoid incidents such as the ones described above. We are willing to assist water systems with technical guidance, loans, or other aid in helping communities understand the public health risks and need to remove manganese from the drinking water. Our department  expects public water systems to keep us informed of any high manganese results from the drinking water and to consult with the us on best courses of action case-by-case. 
More broadly, we are committed to keeping water systems informed of the shifting climate of public health advisories and to work with systems to find the best solutions. CDPHE does have authority to require a Tier 1 Public notice in “situations with significant potential to have serious adverse effects on public health as a result of short-term exposure, as determined by the Department either in Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations or on a case-by-case basis” Regulation 11 section 11.33(2)(a) and will utilize that authority if  needed to ensure that the public is aware of that kind of situation. Working together with water systems to make the public aware of health threats is critical to maintaining public trust.

CASE 1: Harmful Algal Toxins - Microcystin

In August 2014, the City of Toledo, Ohio issued a “DO NOT USE” public notice for their drinking water because of the presence of a toxin in the water called microcystin. The City had detected about 1.6 parts per billion (ppb) of this toxin in their finished drinking water. At the time, the World Health Organization had a published a lifetime (long-term) exposure limit of 1.0 ppb. The toxin is a byproduct of blue-green algae decay and has been known to cause the death of dogs and other animals through liver failure after ingestion of the toxin while swimming in lakes or reservoirs. While little was known about its short term effects in humans, many swim beach and lake closures have occurred as a preventive measure in the midwest over the years due to the presence of the toxin. 

In 2015 the EPA weighed in on the legitimacy of Toledo’s “DO NOT USE” advisory by publishing values called ‘health advisory’ values stating that water over the health advisory numbers represented levels that were a threat to human health even with short term exposure. Contaminants with health advisory limits may not be regulated contaminants but they are still contaminants deemed by the EPA to have a significant public health threat based on toxicological evidence. In this case limits of 1.6 ppb for adults were set while the limit was set at 0.3 ppb for all under 6 years old. By establishing health advisory limits for microcystin, the EPA essentially endorsed the City of Toledo’s decision to issue an immediate “DO NOT USE” advisory. The Health Advisory document reiterates that once levels of toxins are detected in the finished water above a certain level, the only recourse and safest course of action is for the public water system and the corresponding state and local agencies to warn all users that the water is unsafe to drink. 

CASE 2: Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs)

Similarly in Colorado in 2016, the presence of PFAS was detected in the drinking water of three large utilities south of Colorado Springs (Security, Widefield, and Fountain) at levels that caused concern. These substances are likely a result of fire training areas spraying aqueous film forming foam (AFFF); a firefighting foam that contains PFAS. Over many years of using the foam in training, it may have entered the Widefield aquifer and impacted the drinking water sources for those three cities.

Prior to May 2016, the levels measured in the drinking water were considered a concern but not unsafe. This was because they were below the EPA’s interim health advisory at the time. In May 2016 the EPA modified the health advisory and lowered the number to 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) or parts per trillion (ppt). Most of the drinking water coming from wells in the Security/Widefield/Fountain area were then above the new health advisory. Therefore, the CDPHE, local health department, and the public water systems issued public notification recommending that people consider an alternate source of water.  

Summary of Cases

In both of the above cases, the contaminants in question have a potential to have a permanent health consequence from a relatively short term exposure. Therefore, public notice events were deemed necessary given the EPA guidance and the evidence at hand. An acute public notice would not necessarily be required for a contaminant that was a chronic cancer risk, as those risks are incurred over long term exposure time frames. For chronic issues, public education would be necessary but could be rolled out to inform the public in a less alarming manner.

➽ Tyson Ingels, lead drinking water engineer

Budget update

2019 Budget and Services Update

In August 2017 I had the unfortunate duty of reducing Safe Drinking Water Program staff and service levels to avoid a budget crisis. Staff and service reductions directly raise public health risks. The main cause for this problem is that over the last several years funding levels for the program have been relatively flat while program costs rise. This inverse relationship between program revenue and expenses is not sustainable in the long-term. At the time, projections showed that not addressing the financial shortfall would result in severe staff and service level reductions by the end of 2018. The service reductions impacted the entire program and involved some key activities including lead and unregulated contaminants. We were successful in avoiding a budget crisis in 2018. In fact, we saved even more money than originally projected. Additionally, in 2018 Colorado’s funding increased significantly for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program with support from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. Our federal DWSRF grant rose from about $14 million in 2017 to $22 million in 2018. This increase happened for two reasons:

1. Congress decided to raise the national grant from about $863 million to $1.13 billion. Colorado’s share or percentage of the capitalization grant increased from about 1.7 percent to 2.0 percent as a result of the 2015 Drinking Water Needs Survey.
2. Fortunately, Congress elected to maintain the higher funding level in 2019 as well. This could change in the future, so we are not counting on that increase as permanent. However, the increase in Colorado’s grant percentage will stay in place for four years, which is great news!

With these funding changes we made progress in restoring program services beginning in July 2018 and should be able to restore services to 2016 levels later in 2019. Our 2016 staffing levels were still significantly short of the state’s resource needs based on the model developed by the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) and EPA. Additionally, that model did not account for the additional pressures on program resources that resulted in the aftermath of Flint, Michigan’s problems with lead and national issues with unregulated contaminants particularly per- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

Unless the increased funding is sustained, our long-term problem is not solved, but our financial situation is not as dire for the next few years. However, program resources issues associated with lead, PFAS, manganese and other unregulated contaminants plus new rules like perchlorate and the new lead rule plus demands for new services like direct potable reuse still need to be addressed. We appreciate the conversations and support we had from stakeholders discussions that occurred in 2017 and 2018 and will continue to provide updates in the future, especially as options emerge to address this funding problem.

  

➽ Ron Falco, Safe Drinking Water Program Manager

Colorado Certified Water Professionals

Growing pains of the new CCWP Program

This year has been a busy time for the new Colorado Certified Water Professionals (CCWP) Program. On March 1, 2019, the new CCWP Office opened its doors to assist operators with any certification needs. The new CCWP team anticipated a fully functional operator portal to help them manage their responsibilities. However, some key operations of the CCWP Portal were delayed. 

Therefore, the CCWP team identified the following priorities for March and April:
1) issue certificates to the operators who had passed exams in January and February; and
2) evaluate and approve renewal applications for certificates expiring in March, April and early May.

To accomplish this work without the portal, the CCWP team developed creative processes to manage collection of data using Google Forms and receipt of payments using a secure online payment site. The team exerted considerable effort to process applications within their target of 10 business days to ensure that operators were not adversely impacted by the transition to the new system. At the same time, the CCWP team did a fair amount of troubleshooting as minor issues with the CCWP Portal were identified and fixed.

At the beginning of May, the CCWP Portal began to accept applications for approval to sit for exams, for certificate renewals, for certificates by reciprocity and for review of courses for training unit approval. Despite having to resolve a few more bugs in the new portal, the staff at the CCWP Office did an admirable job reviewing applications in a timely fashion and issuing certificates through the CCWP Portal. Approved candidates for certification by examination have begun to schedule and take tests through the program’s new exam administrator.

The CCWP team is grateful to operators and other stakeholders who encouraged the CCWP Office staff and demonstrated patience during the transition to the new CCWP Program.

For more information about the CCWP program, or to access the new CCWP Portal, please visit the new Colorado Certified Water Professionals website.

Contact

CCWP Office

info@coloradocwp.com

719-225-7339

➽ Nancy Horan, Local Assistance Unit