Program Manager's Message: Draft PFAS Rule Considerations

We finally reached the stage where EPA is nearing the completion of the process that leads to a new drinking water rule being added to the Safe Drinking Water Act to address per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS). This has been a long journey, and there is still a ways to go before a rule is in place and implemented. Several years ago two PFAS compounds, PFOA and PFOS, were part of the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3). We started working to address PFAS in drinking water in 2016 after we became aware of their presence in drinking water at several communities in El Paso County. Our efforts continued through the 2020 sampling project and today in implementing the updated PFAS health advisory EPA issued in June 2022.

EPA made the decision to regulate PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act in late 2021 and in March 2023 published a draft rule for public comment. The draft rule for PFAS establishes Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion (ppt) and a novel (at least within the Safe Drinking Water Act) Hazard Index approach to address four more PFAS compounds - PFNA, PFHxS, GenX and PFBS. Of these, PHHxS which is often associated with firefighting foam has been detected most often in Colorado. During its fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR5) testing EPA is again sampling for multiple PFAS compounds, so more of these may be addressed in future rule revisions. 

EPA indicated that after the public comment period on the draft rule, it anticipates finalizing the PFAS rule in early 2024. States typically have two years to adopt a final rule, and then the compliance date follows a year of initial monitoring. So the compliance date for this rule would be sometime in 2027 if the normal schedule is followed.

EPA structured this draft rule to model other chronic organic contaminants with quarterly monitoring and compliance based on a running annual average of those results. Reduced monitoring options are available. Violations of the MCL or Hazard Index would result in Tier 2 public notice. We support this approach as compared to a possible approach treating violations as an acute health risk warranting Tier 1 public notice.

There is a significant need for EPA guidance on this rule that addresses treatment design and conduction pilot studies, residual waste handling and disposal, reduced monitoring and the trigger level, public notice and communications and much more. This is very important to foster state implementation and water system compliance. 

We believe that there are many feasibility concerns associated with addressing PFAS contamination in drinking water generally, and these become even more challenging with MCL values set at the practical quantitation limit that many laboratories can reliably achieve. Although the laboratory Colorado has been using can get lower values than the MCLs, this one laboratory will not be able to serve all the water systems that need to test. Lab capacity could become a significant problem, and the turnaround time to obtain results could also become very slow.

This rule will also require significant new resources to implement. Colorado has been able to implement several new rules the last decade involving disinfection, water haulers, storage tanks, backflow prevention and cross connection control, and the revised total coliform rule without adding program resources for implementation. However, with this PFAS rule coming essentially at the same time as the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) and the Consumer Confidence Rule (CCR) revisions, the division must obtain additional resources to support maintaining primacy into the future.  

In addition to feasibility concerns with laboratory capacity and program resources, financial resources for water systems to secure compliance will also be needed. The State Revolving Fund and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law have provided a boost, but this will not be enough funding for all the needed projects. These funding sources help with initial design and construction activities, but do not help with the long-term operating and maintenance costs. For PFAS, residual handling and disposal costs are likely to be high, and these costs will need to be borne by water utilities and ultimately rate payers. Small systems will face special challenges with the costs and need for higher operator certification levels if treatment needs to be installed. 

As always, we will be engaging stakeholders in developing the PFAS rule for Colorado. Fortunately, we have many staff that are experienced with PFAS that understand the issues and challenges, and have been helping water systems address contamination. This will enable us to identify assistance, policy and training needs. We will strive to help water systems meet the requirements of the PFAS as best we can considering our funding and resource levels. Our goal will be to get as many systems as possible into compliance before the required deadline. I advise you to learn about the new draft PFAS rule and take steps to prepare your water system for it. If you have not yet collected PFAS samples from your system, I advise you to contact us and we will test your water for free. Getting in front of this now while funding is available is the best approach to keeping tap water safe for your customers. 

Thank you,

➽ Ron Falco, P.E. Safe Drinking Water Program Manager

Lessons Learned - Weld county legionella cluster

What Occurred?

In November and December of 2022, the Weld County Public Health Department consulted with CDPHE about an unusual number of cases of Legionnaires Disease occurring in a relatively small area. There were five reported cases of the illness and case interviews were completed for four of the five affected people. Excerpt from the internal communications at the time:

"We have recently seen a notable increase in reported legionella infections in Weld County – five cases in the last 12 days. Of the three most recent cases, two live within two miles of each other and one lives within seven miles of the other two. We have not yet found any evidence of linked exposures."

In a situation where a cluster of illnesses is identified and there is a potential for the root cause of the illness to be drinking water, public health partners work with the Safe Drinking Water Program here at CDPHE to assess the likelihood/possibility that the drinking water is the root cause of the cluster (or waterborne disease outbreak).

What was the Response?

Based on initial interviews with the ill folks, the county determined that there appeared to be a lack of common exposures that are usually seen. Typically in a legionella outbreak, you may find that all infected people used the same recreation center hot tub or shop at the same grocery store that has vegetable misters running. 

The county and state epidemiologist group then reached out to the Safe Drinking Water Program staff to check the known addresses of the ill people to see if they were served by the same water system and if it was possible that a contamination event had occurred at that specific water system. We specifically were trying to determine whether there had been any service disruptions, major construction projects, water main breaks, or other events related to the water utilities that service these individuals' residential areas. 

The Safe Drinking Water Program then interfaced with water system operational staff to confirm whether there had been any water quality issues in these areas. Also, it was determined that these homes- while being in proximity to each other, were served by four different water providers. All providers demonstrated robust chlorine residuals and were able to show a lack of bacteriological contamination in their drinking water.

While the specific cause of this outbreak was never determined, public drinking water was eliminated as a source.

What can a water operator do to prepare for such an event?

If a cluster of illnesses occurs in your service area, you may be called upon to produce records of treatment and distribution system water quality in order to eliminate any potential that your drinking water caused the illnesses. 

Maintaining treatment plant records is standard procedure for most public water systems.  However, having a comprehensive distribution system microbial sampling that goes beyond the minimums of the total coliform rule is more rare. Consider developing water quality sampling starting with distribution system basic water quality parameters like chlorine residual, pH, turbidity and heterotrophic plate count. This will help provide assurance that your distribution system water quality is not the cause of a legionella outbreak. Also, water sampling for legionella can be done on a quarterly or semi-annual basis to provide further assurances to the public that the drinking water quality you provide to your customers is safe and relatively pathogen free. 

➽ Tyson Ingles, Lead Drinking Water Engineer

Coaches' Classroom: Asset Management

What is Asset Management - What’s in it for you? 

First off, you may be asking yourself, what exactly is an asset? Everything from your water source (maybe a reservoir or even a well) all the way to the valves, pipes, and storage tanks in your distribution system. Even your treatment chemicals, filters, and pumps. Don’t forget your operators, buildings, and office equipment. All of these are assets and they are essential to protecting public health and the environment. 

Asset management has many definitions but think of it as getting the most for your money. Through asset management, you will learn how to optimize the lifespan of your equipment and reduce water quality problems due to failing equipment. 

In fact, asset management is one important activity involved with developing adequate Technical, Managerial, and Financial (TMF) Capacity, and it is a best management practice that department inspectors are looking for during the sanitary survey process.

Asset Management Resources & Training Opportunities 

Every system has differences in equipment, environment, and financial capacity. Owners and operators must study and understand the specific assets that their system has. They must keep records and make plans in order to make sure their system is operating at its best now and in the future. Unsure how to pull together all of the critical information or where to get started? There are resources and people available to you. 

• The EPA provides numerous tools for both owners and operators to explain the benefits of asset management and ways to implement specific asset management practices for small systems. 
• The division’s Local Assistance Unit provides various free training opportunities, including Building Resilience in Your Water/Wastewater System, which covers asset management. Operators who participate can get up to 0.4 training units. 

If you still have questions after reviewing these tools and attending the free training, consider one-on-one assistance provided by the Local Assistance Unit. Click here to request a coaching visit (virtual or in-person options are available). 

We all have the same goal in mind - the protection of public health and the environment, and with some thoughtful planning and communication, we can help ensure this happens. 

➽ Jessica Morgan, Facility and Operator Outreach and Certification Board Liaison

Small Utility Boards, Operators, and the Public: Collaboration for Safe Drinking Water

In the Fall 2009 issue of Aqua Talk, the division ran an article on how collaboration amongst small utility boards, operators, and the public helps ensure communities are provided with clean, safe drinking water. We thought it would be a good time to revisit this information and highlight its importance. 

A water board’s primary responsibility is to provide consistently safe drinking water to its community. There are various elements the board must implement to ensure that happens. 

• The water board must retain a Certified Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) that holds a certificate in a class equal to or higher than the class of the water system; 
• Foster a water system that is protective of its source water; 
• Employ treatment techniques appropriate to the quality of the raw water; 
• Prevent recontamination in storage takes and distribution lines; 
• Meet all regulatory monitoring and reporting requirements; 
• Provide consumers with water quality information; 
• Notify consumers of any health threats; and
• Obtain approval prior to the construction of new facilities.

Clear communication between the board, the ORC, and the state is a collaborative effort and is necessary to provide the community with clean, safe drinking water. Clear communication means establishing and maintaining well-defined duties and expectations, operation and maintenance manuals, standard operating procedures, well-organized records, and financial planning for future repairs, upgrades, and emergencies.  

A well-organized board of directors has established procedures for the recruitment, selection, and orientation of new members. The board should have a mission statement, bylaws, and personnel and procurement policies that are regularly updated. The board must protect its community by providing adequate liability insurance, financial procedures and oversight, and strategic planning. Boards should meet regularly, provide minutes of meetings, retain an organized file of copies of all system records, and continually monitor the performance of the water systems’ services and compliance records. 

Strategic planning is an approach that systematically shapes the future of a water system. It creates a framework for establishing goals, working towards those goals, and evaluating progress that can increase the water system’s efficiency and effectiveness. Strategic planning also helps ensure that the water system has the funds available to support ongoing repair and maintenance needs and to fund capital improvements, as necessary. The development of a strategic plan should be done in cooperation with the system’s operations staff, the board, and members of the community. Strategic plans are never “finished” and the board should make sure that it revisits its strategic plan at least annually.

A board should understand the basics of its water system’s facilities and equipment so it is able to make informed decisions and provide leadership that increases the system’s quality, efficiency, and sustainability. It is important to note that unless certified, board members should never attempt to operate the water system or make process control and/or system integrity decisions as those are reserved to the ORC. Only certified operators may perform operations, adjust the water system, or supervise the repair and replacement of system components. The board’s function is to ensure the water system has the required staff, equipment, guidance, and financial support. 

If you would like to receive water board training to help build your board's technical, managerial, and financial capacity please fill out a drinking water coach request form. 

Source: Water Board Basics for Small Water Systems in Colorado, Rural Community Assistance Corporation, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 

➽ Jessica Morgan, Facility and Operator Outreach and Certification Board Liaison

Storage Tank Findings

In this article, we continue our discussion of the Top 10 most frequently cited significant deficiencies and violations to raise awareness and help operators identify and correct issues before they become a potential health threat or citations in a sanitary survey. Coming in at #1 in the Top 10, storage tank significant deficiencies (F310 and T310) were the most common findings cited during sanitary surveys for the 2022 inspection year. Storage tanks can be used for treatment to achieve log inactivation by providing contact time, or in the distribution system to help with water demand and pressure (tanks in distribution are subject to the Storage Tank Rule). The most commonly discovered significant deficiencies with tanks are related to access hatches and vents.

Access Hatches:

All water storage tanks must have at least one access opening to allow for routine inspections and, if applicable, inspections required under the Storage Tank Rule (Section 11.28 of Regulation 11). The access opening must be designed to protect the tank from contaminants such as: surface water infiltration, stormwater runoff, insects, rodents, and birds.

Access Hatches - Common Significant Deficiencies to check for and correct if found:

• Improper use of gasketing or lack of gasket on the hatch lid 
• Infiltration of water, debris or dirt from the hatch
• Degrading or corroding hatch lids with pathway(s) for contamination
• Hatches with unsealed penetrations (bolts missing, unsealed openings for level sensors, etc.)
• Hatches flush with the ground or surface of the tank that can allow water, dirt or debris to enter the tank.

It is important to note that access hatches located outdoors or exposed to the elements must be fitted with a solid, water and insect tight, gasketed cover. It is recommended that the hatch overlap the framed opening, extend down around the frame, be hinged on one side, and have a locking device.

Below is a photo of an unsealed access hatch followed by a set of photos of a newly installed gasket. The supplier created a water and insect tight seal, effectively resolving the significant deficiency.

 

Below is a photo of a flush mounted hatch, which allows for potential contamination due to the lack of an overlapping framed opening. Note the channel on the interior of the hatch that can allow for water accumulation that can seep into the tank. These hatches are vulnerable to extreme weather conditions and contain potential points of failure. 

For additional discussion about flush mounted hatches - see our September, 2022 article.

Flush mounted hatches often contain drains, which frequently clog with debris, dust, dirt and insects. During heavy weather events, these clogged drains can cause water to pass through the gasket and leak into the storage tank, as seen below. 

The hatches above and below allow for insect activity and debris buildup close to or on the gasket, creating a potential for contamination. In the photo below, there are substantial spider webs surrounding the gasketed area of the hatch. 

Vents: 

Vents must be designed to protect the tank from contaminants such as: surface water, stormwater runoff, insects, rodents, birds, etc. All openings must be protected by a non-corrodible screen. Screens may not have openings that exceed 0.07 inches (typically 12 or 16 mesh screen). The screen must be installed within the vent at a location least susceptible to vandalism. The screen must be accessible for replacement. Vents must be designed for unobstructed air flow into and out of the tank.

Common Significant Deficiency to check for and correct if found (the following air vent conditions are not allowed):

• Storage tanks with unscreened, open construction between the sidewall and the roof
• Air vents that are not screened or that have damaged or blocked screens
• Air vents with screens with openings that exceed 0.07 inches (typically 12 or 16 mesh screen)
• Outdoor tanks with air vents that do not open downward or are not fully covered to protect from rainwater

Please keep in mind, the use of steel wool and/or stuffing steel wool into vents is not accepted as a proper form of screening a vent.

Below are photos of an interior tank lid that is improperly vented. The venting for these commonly found tanks function as a labyrinth preventing potential contaminants; however, the vent does not contain a mesh screen with openings that do not exceed 0.07 inches. With the addition of the mesh screen, the supplier now meets the requirement. Please note that indoor tanks must be vented and must be located at or above the highest point of the tank.

Vents on outdoor tanks must open downward. Downturned vents can be candy cane, mushroom style, or where no portion of the vent screen is visible from a horizontal position (e.g. vent in the side of a hatch assembly with louver protecting the vent). Any vent cover must overlap so that no horizontal pathway exists. Candy cane or downturned vents are allowed to have a visible screen (i.e. not covered) below the bottom of the vent opening as long as no direct horizontal pathway exists between the vent opening and the tank. When a mushroom type vent is used, the minimum opening distance must be measured from the lowest point on the vent cap to allow for air flow to enter the screened area. Integral vents on tanks (e.g., threaded cap on a polyethylene tank access lid) that do not have downturned screening are not allowed outdoors.

For outdoor elevated tanks, the vent elevation from the top of the roof should be a minimum of 24-inches above the top of the roof to prevent snow from clogging vents. The photos below show air vents on an outdoor tank that are screened but not downturned or fully covered to protect contamination from rainwater. 

Please note there are resource online to assist water systems in the operation and maintenance of storage tanks:

• Section 11.28 (Storage Tank Rule) of Regulation 11 outlines the requirements for the proper operation of storage tanks.
• The Storage Tank Rule webpage provides templates and instructions for both periodic and comprehensive tank inspections. 
• Drinking Water Policy DW010 provides general definitions of basic drinking water terms, as well as common findings defined as sanitary defects. 
• Chapter 7 of the State of Colorado Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems contains specific requirements for the design, construction and amendments of water storage tanks.

The supplier is responsible for complying with  Section 11.28 (Storage Tank Rule) of Regulation 11. Please note that if an inspector identifies any of these issues during a sanitary survey and they have not been previously identified as sanitary defects with a written corrective action schedule, they will be cited as significant deficiencies. If sanitary defects were identified by the supplier during a Storage Tank Rule periodic or comprehensive inspection but are not under a corrective action schedule or were not fixed in accordance with a corrective action schedule, a violation of the Storage Tank Rule may be cited during the sanitary survey.  It is highly recommended that the supplier’s inspection documentation include pictures of the “before” and “after” corrections for each sanitary defect.

Prior to making any alterations to tank venting the department recommends that the supplier consult with an engineer or a professional with expertise in potable water storage tanks to ensure that the tank’s venting capability is not compromised. Alternatively, the supplier can check with the manufacturer of the storage tank to see if any limitations exist for the component in need of alteration or repair. 

➽ Connor Clarke, CWP, Field Services Section

EPA Requirement to Address Cybersecurity in Sanitary Surveys

The US EPA Office of Water issued a memorandum, “Addressing PWS Cybersecurity in Sanitary Surveys or an Alternate Process” on March 3, 2023 to all State Drinking Water Administrators requiring cybersecurity evaluations during each sanitary survey. The EPA definition of sanitary survey is “an onsite review of the water source, facilities, equipment, operation, and maintenance of a PWS for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy of such source, facilities, equipment, operation, and maintenance for producing and distributing safe drinking water.” In Colorado, CDPHE conducts sanitary surveys of all public water systems (PWS) every 3 years for community systems and every 5 years for non-community systems. Colorado has been engaged with the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) over the last year and with EPA’s issuance of the Memo, we are reviewing the newly published requirements and the below information summarizes what we know so far.

What systems are impacted?  

From the March 2023 EPA memorandum, cybersecurity evaluations must be included in the sanitary surveys for all PWSs that use industrial control system technology as part of the operation of the water system. In the EPA guidance document, “Evaluating Cybersecurity During Public Water System Sanitary Surveys” it states that industrial control systems include not only Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems, but also Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs). Colorado does have some small transient water systems that are limited to a basic well and chlorinator, but the vast majority of PWSs in Colorado have industrial control systems in place.

What is being required?

In a nutshell, Colorado will be required to include cybersecurity as part of the sanitary survey process for all PWSs with industrial control system capabilities or establish a program outside of the sanitary surveys that is no less stringent than federal regulations and involves identifying and addressing significant deficiencies in cybersecurity. EPA outlined three options for conducting the assessments:

1. PWS self assessments/third party assessments followed by a sanitary survey
2. State conducted assessments during the sanitary survey
3. An alternative program that meets the requirements. 

EPA recognizes that flexibility will be needed and states may choose one or more options to best meet their needs. For cybersecurity, EPA considers significant deficiencies to include the absence of a practice or control, or the presence of a vulnerability, that has a high risk of being exploited, either directly or indirectly, to compromise an operational technology used in the treatment or distribution of drinking water. The Colorado Primary Drinking Regulations (Regulation 11), Section 11.3(72) defines a significant deficiency as: any situation, practice, or condition in a public water system with respect to design, operation, maintenance, or administration, that the state determines may result in or have the potential to result in production of finished drinking water that poses an unacceptable risk to health and welfare of the public served by the water system. Water systems have to either fix significant deficiencies and violations no later than 120 days after the date of the inspection letter or request a corrective action plan (CAP). If the water system does not fix a significant deficiency by 120 days or an approved CAP schedule, a violation (type 45 violation) requiring Tier 2 public notice occurs. 

When is this taking effect?

EPA has stated that the memorandum was effective as of the date of publication, however, states will need time to build the capacity to implement the requirements. Colorado does not have the capacity to implement these requirements as part of the sanitary survey process during this current inspection year or the upcoming inspection year starting in October 2023. Colorado is evaluating the best path forward for our state at this time in coordination with CDPHE leadership, other states and ASDWA.

What can systems do in the meantime?

All PWSs with industrial control system capabilities should assess their cybersecurity programs with an established method if they have not already done so. EPA guidance recommends that self assessments be conducted with established methods such as those from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the American Water Works Association (AWWA), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), or International Society of Automation/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISA/IEC). The PWS should implement measures recommended from any assessment to ensure continued production and distribution of safe drinking water. Depending on the approach CDPHE takes, the self assessment reports may be required to be submitted to the inspector prior to the sanitary survey in the future for determination of potential significant deficiencies. 

Additional resources can be found: 

• EPA water sector Cybersecurity website
• EPA’s Water Security Assessment Tool
• EPA's Water Sector Cybersecurity Evaluation Program where PWSs can coordinate with EPA on cyber security assessments 
• EPA’s cybersecurity training schedule
• CDPHE’s Water Security Toolbox
• CISA Cyber Threats to W/WW website
• CISA Free Cyber Hygiene Services (including assessments and evaluations) 
• DHSEM Cyber Services Roadmap

Colorado recognizes that PWSs are among the  targets of malicious cyber activity and is committed to partnering with water suppliers on this issue going forward. Many large utilities have robust cybersecurity programs in place. Many small to medium size systems will need to build cybersecurity capacity. If you have any questions or concerns as we determine the implementation path, we’d like to hear from you. Please contact either Heather Young at heather.young@state.co.us or Cameron Wilkins cameron.wilkins@state.co.us of the WQCD Field Services Section. For cybersecurity training resources, please contact Kyra Gregory at kyra.gregory@state.co.us.

➽ Heather Young, PE, CWP, Field Services Section Manager

➽ Cameron Wilkins, PE, Field Unit II Manager

Updates coming to the Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control Policy - Policy 7

Our October 26, 2022 posting on the Aqua Talk blog announced our stakeholder process for proposing updates to the Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control Rule within Regulation 11 - section 11.39 (BPCCC rule). 

From November 2022 to January 2023, stakeholders engaged with the Water Quality Control Division to develop a draft, updated BPCCC rule which will be considered by the Water Quality Control Commission in the August 2023 rulemaking hearing. A summary of the effort to date is located on our website. The division believes the proposed updates to the rule will equivalently protect public health while making the rule more implementable. The division would like to thank all the stakeholders that engaged during that process for the thoughtful feedback and helping to craft a better rule.

During the outreach, multiple comments were received both in December and January about needing to provide better clarity within the BPCCC policy (Policy 7) in order to make the proposed changes to the rule more optimal and to help water systems know how the division will interpret some of the language in the rule. The division agreed with stakeholders that Policy 7 needs to be updated concurrently with the proposed rule update as the rule and the policy work very closely together. 

Save the date: April 20, 2023 at 2:00 PM.

The division intends to continue the stakeholder engagement process with an initial stakeholder meeting outlining the potential updates needed to the BPCCC Policy 7. The meeting will be held on 4/20/23. The division intends to utilize working groups in several key topic areas to assist in writing the policy updates. We would like to complete most of this work prior to the August rulemaking hearing. 

The topic areas will include, but are not limited to: extension requests, expanding examples on eliminating cross connections, clarifying system surveying and rounding issues, and annual reporting templates, as well as other minor edits.  

We would like feedback from the stakeholder community whether there are other areas that need to be updated within the policy and are hopeful you can participate. The division will provide a comment form on our website in mid-April for stakeholders to submit BPCCC Policy update ideas to us. Also, if you know of other professionals that can contribute to this process, please share this article and our BPCCC website with them. Sign up for stakeholder updates here to be notified of all the latest developments. 

➽ Tyson Ingles, PE, Lead Drinking Water Engineer

➽ Clayton Moores, PE, Field Unit I Manager