Non-community Water Systems Research Articles

Arsenic in drinking water poses a threat to public health world-wide. In March 2001, the EPA revised the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic in drinking water downward from 50 µg/L to 10 µg/L and required all U.S. small community water systems (CWSs) and non-community water systems (NCWSs) to comply by 23 January 2006. Much of the financial burden associated with complying with and maintaining this new drinking water MCL was shouldered by local community governments. For example, the Walker River Paiute Tribe operated a CWS on the Walker River Paiute Indian Reservation that needed upgrading to meet the new arsenic MCL. In collaboration with the Walker River Paiute Tribe, we conducted a study to assess whether reducing the arsenic concentration in drinking water to meet the new MCL reduced the arsenic body burden in local community members who drank the water. Installing a drinking water treatment to remove arsenic dramatically reduced both the drinking water concentrations (to below the current EPA MCL of 10 µg/L) and the community members’ urinary concentrations of total As, AsIII, and AsV within a week of its full implementation. Additional assistance to small water systems to sustain new drinking water treatments may be warranted.

Key TakeawaysIn the United States, all community and nontransient noncommunity water systems are required to submit an inventory describing the location and makeup of all service lines in their service areas.While the material can be designated as lead, galvanized requiring replacement, nonlead, or unknown, the last two designations require additional steps to be taken in the proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI).Some utilities have few or no lead service lines, and this inventory requirement, issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), may be burdensome to those utilities.This article demonstrates the methodology in EPA's proposed LCRI for verification of construction material, and an alternate validation procedure is proposed.

Proposed Drinking Water Standards for PFAS

LCRR Compliance Involves More Than Lead Service Lines

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, there are about 35,000 small community water systems (defined as serving fewer than 10,000 people) and another 105,000 noncommunity water systems that serve transient and workplace populations. Although these systems face most of the same challenges as larger water utilities, they generally have fewer resources to successfully address them. For the noncommunity systems especially, drinking water isn't usually even the principal reason they exist.

Trends in microbiological drinking water quality violations in the U.S. indicate that very small and transient non-community water systems bear a disproportionate burden exacerbated by recent regulatory changes.

The United States has a decentralized water network of nearly 170,000 public drinking water systems, with 54,000 community water systems serving more than 264 million people and the remaining 114,000 noncommunity water systems serving facilities like campgrounds and schools. There are more than 14,700 wastewater treatment facilities and 19,700 sewer collection systems, which are also decentralized. This decentralized system creates a number of stumbling blocks when individual utilities need to conduct benchmarking activities, develop performance measures, standardize data processes, or compare costs in order to determine whether the current infrastructure asset management practices are truly cost‐effective.

The risk characterization method employed by US EPA to quantitatively characterize the benefits of the Groundwater Rule (GWR) for drinking water computes person-to-person transmission intensity as the product of the number of primary illnesses and a static secondary morbidity factor. A population level infectious disease health effects model is used here to evaluate the implications of secondary transmission on exposures to viruses that are relevant to the GWR. These implications are evaluated via a hypothetical case study in which it is assumed that a tour group from a large population centre visits an outlying area that is served by a non-community water system with untreated or inadequately treated groundwater that is contaminated with a highly infectious virus. It is assumed that some of the exposed individuals become infected and then return home. Numerical simulations are used to estimate the subsequent number of additional infections and illnesses due to secondary transmission within the large community. The results indicate that secondary transmission could substantially impact the predicted benefits of the GWR depending on the suite of population dynamic elements and assumptions employed.

This article discusses a final agreement in principle reached by the Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Federal Advisory Committee (TCRDSAC) in response to two charges given it by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) that include the following: a revision of the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) to improve implementation while maintaining or improving public health protection and distribution system water quality; and, to determine what data should be collected, research conducted, and/or risk management strategies evaluated in order to more effectively inform the public about distribution system contaminant occurrence and associated public health risks. The agreement represents a commitment by the USEPA to prepare a proposed rule that reflects the substance and effect of the TCRDSAC's recommendations. It is also a promise by the other parties represented to not impede the revised rule proposal or subsequent promulgation and implementation as long as the revisions are consistent with the agreement. The article provides a sidebar that explains a reduced monitoring recommendation for both community and noncommunity water systems. A second sidebar lists assessment triggers, a third sidebar presents examples of sanitary defects, and a forth sidebar lists members of the TCRDSAC.

This article discusses the second Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR2) that will require a national sampling of water utilities to monitor for 26 high‐priority unregulated contaminants, including perchlorate. The UCMR2 features an assessment monitoring component that would have 3,910 public water systems look for 11 priority chemicals using six well‐established analytical methods. The rule also includes a screening survey that would have 1,122 systems monitor for 15 other targeted chemicals using specialized and less commonly used methods. Scheduled for promulgation by August 2006, the rule would apply to community water systems (CWSs) and nontransient‐ noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs). The article discusses the US Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) selection method for the 26 chemicals, the USEPA's request for a second monitoring for perchlorate, and possible additions to the final screening survey. Assessment monitoring process is described, along with the screening survey and state participation.

This column discusses the US Environmental Protection Agency's cornerstone report for constructing a plan to address the critical investment need to upgrade the nation's aging water and wastewater infrastructure. Called the 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (DWINS), the report concludes that the nation's 55,000 community water systems (CWSs) and 21,400 not‐for‐profit noncommunity water systems (NCWSs) will need to spend at least $150.9 billion over the next 20 years to pay for projects eligible for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) assistance to ensure delivery of safe drinking water. This report forms the basis for revising the formula that determines how much each state receives in annual federal grants to capitalize their DWSRFs for the next four years. Besides identifying a total needs figure for the next 20 years, the 1999 DWINS report breaks the numbers down into current and future needs, needs by size and type of system and by type of infrastructure improvement, needs to achieve and maintain compliance with existing and forthcoming SDWA regulations and by individual states and territories as well as American Indian and Alaska Native communities.

ABSTRACT The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) of the Department of Transportation is required to identify areas that are unusually sensitive to environmental damage in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline accident, in accordance with pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. Section 60109). Accordingly, workshops were held with regulatory agencies, pipeline operators, and the public during which a process was developed to identify “unusually sensitive areas” (USAs) for drinking water resources. This process, which has been adopted by RSPA, consists of first identifying environmentally sensitive drinking water resources and other primary concerns, and then applying the following five filtering criteria to determine which of the drinking water source locations should be USAs:, Filter Criterion #1. If the public water system is a Transient Noncommunity Water System (TNCWS), the water intakes shall not be designated as USAs. Filter Criterion #2. For Community Water Systems (CWS) and Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWS) that obtain their water supply primarily from surface water sources, and do not have an adequate alternative source of water, the water intakes shall be designated as USAs. Filter Criterion #3. For CWS and NTNCWS that obtain their water primarily from ground water sources, where the source aquifer is identified as a Class I or Class IIa, as defined in Pettyjohn et al. (1991), and do not have an adequate alternative source of water, these wells shall be designated as USAs. The wellhead protection area for each well will be used to define the area of the USA. Filter Criterion #4. For CWS and NTNCWS that obtain their water primarily from ground water sources, where the source aquifer is identified as a Class IIb, IIc, III, or U, as defined in Pettyjohn et al. (1991), these wells shall not be designated as USAs. Filter Criterion #5. For CWS and NTNCWS that obtain their water primarily from ground water sources, where the source aquifer is identified as a Class I or Class IIa, as defined in Pettyjohn et al. (1991), and the aquifer is designated as a sole source aquifer, these wells are also USAs, an area twice the wellhead protection area shall be designated as a USA.

This article discusses highlights of the Guidelines for the Certification and Recertification of Operators of Community and Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems, which establish minimum national standards for developing, implementing, and enforcing state operator certification programs.

This month's question asks whether to wait to update certification until the new requirements are issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). USEPA is going to specify minimum standards for operators of community and nontransient noncommunity water systems. These standards will be developed in cooperation with the states, who will have two years to adopt and implement the guidelines from February 1999 when the guidelines are due to become final. If utilities wait until these rules go into effect, they may have to start at the beginning of the certification process. On the other hand, if operators decide to get recertified immediately, they may get credit for the time, study, and previous level of certification that they had.

At its October 1997 meeting, the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) completed its formal recommendations to the US Environmental Protection Agency on the minimum guidelines for operator certification. These recommendations will affect every community water system (CWS) and every nontransient, noncommunity water system (NTNCWS) in the United States that serves 25 or more people or 15 or more service connections. Under these guidelines, every CWS and NTNCWS will require at least the oversight of a certified operator. This article discusses the NDWAC recommendations for establishing minimum national guidelines for operator certification, while giving states maximum flexibility to administer and implement the program. Since forty‐nine states already have some sort of operator certification program, the recommendations were intended to strengthen, rather than dilute or diminish, existing programs. The article also discusses the baseline operator certification standards as recommended by the NDWAC.