Featured Webinar Series: Improving CWA-NPDES Permit Compliance

Have you attended webinars from the Improving CWA-NPDES Permit Compliance series of technical assistance webinars put on by the EPA and the Significant Noncompliance Rate Reduction National Compliance Initiative? (Also known as the SNC NCI).

These webinars are meant for plant operators, municipal leaders, TAPs, and compliance inspectors who are working to improve surface water quality and drinking water impacts by ensuring compliance with Clean Water Act and/or National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits. Attending live will provide you with a certificate of attendance that may be eligible for CEU credit in your state, depending on your state’s certification authority. The EPA has an archive of webinar recordings dating back to 2019, but watching these recordings does not make you eligible for a certificate of attendance or any CEU credit.

All the same, the recording archive contains information on a wealth of topics under the umbrella of CWA/NPDES permit compliance. We have put together a few recommended highlights below, but be sure to examine the whole archive as you grow your knowledge in pollutant discharge.

Recording Highlights

POTWs – What Does Your Permit Say? (Part 1)
January 22, 2024: This presentation covers how to read and understand a NPDES permit, how permittees can ensure that permit requirements are met, and a discussion of the most common reporting requirements for NPDES permits. Presented by Dan Connally, vice president of ERG Group with 22 years of experience in NPDES permit development.

POTWs – What Does Your Permit Say? (Part 2)
February 28, 2024: Part two of ‘What Does Your Permit Say?’ covers the permit requirements for pretreatment and biosolids, associated federal regulations, and both standard and special conditions for publicly owned treatment works. Presented by Dan Connally, Bob Brobst (Principal Environmental Engineer at PG Environmental), and Chuck Durham (Principal Engineer and Senior Project Manager at PG Environmental).

Fats, Oils, and Grease: What We Know After 23 Years of FOG Work
October 12, 2023: This presentation focuses on managing the impacts of FOGs on collection systems and wastewater treatment plants, as well as fees, public outreach, and enforcement for food service establishments. Presented by Byron Ross of Monitoring & Management Services, with nearly 40 years of experience in wastewater treatment.

Everything You Wanted to Know About PFAS But Were Afraid to Ask
April 12, 2023: This session examines the emerging contaminants PFAS and PFOA and discusses their uses, properties, impacts, and possible treatment methods in wastewater and drinking water. Viewers will also learn to identify the sources of these contaminants. Treatment options explored include activated carbon, ion exchange resin, reverse osmosis/nanofiltration, advanced oxidation, and biosolid removal. Presented by Jamie Hope, wastewater operator and training technician, with four decades of experience in wastewater treatment.

Small POTWs: What to Expect and How to Prepare for your NPDES Permit
June 16, 2022: This webinar explains what a small publicly owned treatment works can expect as they undertake NPDES permitting. It also features a step-by-step overview of obtaining a permit and insights on collaborating with permitting authorities. Presented by Sean Ramach, NPDES Training Coordinator for the EPA Office of Wastewater Management, Water Permits Division.

OSHA Requirements for Pumpers

It’s never a bad time for a refresh on the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (better known as OSHA). The act, passed in 1970, comprises a set of federal standards for workplace safety, but it also allows individual states to submit and operate their own safety plans and requirements. State plans may cover all workers in a state, or may only cover state and local government workers only. It is important to know which category your state falls under.

OSHA state plans covering private and state/local government workplaces:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawai’i, Kentucky, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming

OSHA state plans covering only state/local government workplaces:
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Virgin Islands

No state plan, follows federal OSHA plans:  
Alabama, American Samoa, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Washington D.C., West Virginia, Wisconsin

State plans often don’t differ drastically from the federal OSHA plan, but the states of California, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington do have plans with substantial differences from the federal one.

Find your state OSHA office here >>

If you are in need of assistance in identifying and/or fixing workplace safety issues, most states do have consultation services available for free as part of the On-Site Consultation Program. Other OSHA programs workplaces can participate in include the Alliance Program, the OSHA Strategic Partnership Program, the Voluntary Protection Programs, and the OSHA Challenge Program.

Read more about the OSHA cooperative programs here >>

Keep in mind that the supervisor or crew leader of an onsite/decentralized wastewater work crew will typically be the OSHA competent person (unless there is a different employee specifically assigned to oversee safety). Whoever is in charge of safety, they must be able to identify critical issues, know and follow OSHA requirements, enforce a written safety plan, and create a culture of safety for the workforce.

The top reasons for accidents include rushing, poor concentration, and simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A comprehensive safety plan can help address some of these causes and minimize damages after accidents do occur.

For more:

• A Pumper's Guide to Federal and State OSHA Standards, Pumper Magazine
• Focus on Safety: Installers Need to Make Safety a Priority, Onsite Installer
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Proposal to Strengthen Lead and Copper Rule

On November 30, 2023, U.S. EPA announced the proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI). The proposed LCRI is a major advancement in protection from the significant, and irreversible, health effects that can occur after being exposed to lead in drinking water.
  
Key provisions in the proposal include:

• Achieving 100% Lead Pipe Replacement within 10 years. The proposed LCRI would require the vast majority of water systems to replace lead services lines within 10 years.
• Locating Legacy Lead Pipes. Under the proposed LCRI, all water systems would be required to regularly update their inventories, create a publicly available service line replacement plan, and identify the materials of all service lines of unknown material.
• Improving Tap Sampling. The proposed LCRI would require water systems to collect first liter and fifth liter samples at sites with lead service lines and use the higher of the two values when determining compliance with the rule.
• Lowering the Lead Action Level. EPA is proposing to lower the lead action level from 15 µg/L to 10 µg/L. When a water system’s lead sampling exceeds the action level, the system would be required to inform the public and take action to reduce lead exposure while concurrently working to replace all lead pipes.
• Strengthening Protections to Reduce Exposure. Water systems with multiple lead action level exceedances would be required to conduct additional outreach to consumers and make filters certified to reduce lead available to all consumers.

Taken together, these provisions in the proposed LCRI would strengthen public health protections, reduce complexity, and streamline implementation. EPA anticipates finalizing the LCRI prior to October 16, 2024.

Further Resources & News... 

• Press Release
• Q&A Page
• General Fact Sheet
• Proposed LCRI: Pre-Publication Federal Register Notice (pdf)
• Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan
• Are there lead pipes in my area? Map shows state public water rankings | Fast Company
• EPA proposes requiring lead water pipes to be replaced in 10 years | The Hill
• EPA Proposes Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) | ASDWA
• City seeks contractors as lead pipe replacement initiative ramps up | CBS Detroit

5 Strategies for a Lead-Free Rural Water System

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to focus efforts around reducing lead exposure from all sources, particularly for children.

The agency is proposing tighter rules for exposure to lead in older residential buildings and childcare facilities that have completed lead abatement. The draft rule would lower the lead dust hazard level to any level greater than zero — meaning any amount of lead paint found remaining in a building would be considered a hazard.

EPA Deputy Administrator Janet McCabe said in a statement: “This proposal to safely remove lead paint along with our other efforts to deliver clean drinking water and replace lead pipes will go a long way toward protecting the health of our next generation of leaders.”

The proposal complements expected exposure reductions from the replacement of lead-based service lines at public water systems. This article from Water Online (excerpted below) outlines the following suggestions for water utilities in rural areas:

Identify how broad-based the problem is.
It’s hard to make any progress without knowing just how big the problem of lead service lines is in any given community. As other communities have done, utilities can create maps of their service line networks. These maps can help identify concentrations of lead pipelines.

Inform customers about potential lead pipeline contamination.
The average customer doesn’t think about lead contamination when turning on the tap. Customers need to be educated about what their pipes are constructed of and how those materials can affect their water quality. The more they know, the more likely they’ll want their utilities or cooperatives to help them solve the problem.

See how other communities have replaced their lead pipes effectively.
Some communities, utilities, and cooperatives have been very successful in upgrading their water systems. Consequently, other communities should take notice. Building a playbook based on a city or town that has already undertaken the effort can be simpler than starting from scratch.

Look for funding sources.
Any kind of pipe replacement is costly. That’s why it’s important to stay on the leading edge of any funding streams available to cooperatives, utilities, towns, etc. For instance, the EPA has some excellent resources and links to various types of water project grants and loans, such as the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund.

Build a framework for replacing all the lead service lines.
With the right information and well-educated customers, utilities and cooperatives can begin building timelines to replace all the lead service lines. In time, the overarching goal can be a lead-free water system. Though some customers might not like absorbing minimal costs along the way, most will appreciate not having to worry about the quality of the water they and their families are drinking.

Further Resources:  

• Lead Home Page | U.S. EPA
• Lead Regulations | U.S. EPA
• Lead Service Line Replacement | U.S. EPA
• Funding and Technical Resources for Lead Service Line Replacement in Small and Disadvantaged Communities

EPA Mandates Cybersecurity Reporting for the Water Sector

Public water systems are increasingly at risk from cyberattacks that threaten public health. U.S. EPA has issued new guidance that states are required to evaluate and report on cybersecurity threats for systems that use industrial control systems or other operational technology.

“Cyberattacks against critical infrastructure facilities, including drinking water systems, are increasing, and public water systems are vulnerable," said EPA Assistant Administrator Radhika Fox. “Cyberattacks have the potential to contaminate drinking water.”

This expectation is outlined in a memo that interprets sanitary survey requirements, accompanied by a detailed guidance document aimed at state programs and technical assistance providers. It was released as part of the Biden administration's updated National Cybersecurity Strategy. 

U.S. EPA offers resources that can help water systems understand and address cyber vulnerabilities including this video on basic cybersecurity concepts that can be used by water systems as a part of an annual cybersecurity training program. Our database on WaterOperator.org also has resources on this topic, including this 56-page guide from WaterISAC on cybersecurity best practices to reduce exploitable weaknesses and attacks.

AWIA Section 2013 Compliance Check

Small community drinking water systems (CWSs) that serve between 3,301 and 49,999 must submit Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) certifications by June 30, 2021 and an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) by December 21, 2021 in order to stay in compliance with America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA). Certification must be completed every five years and the ERP updated within six months of that recertification. You can confirm if your water system is impacted by the AWIA on the U.S. EPA website. 

In this era of unpredictability, it is increasingly important to adapt water systems to the ever changing and intensifying events that threats like climate change pose. Building a strong water resilience plan is the best way to prepare yourself and your community against these events. In order to stay ahead of the game, utilities should conduct an assessment to reduce risk, plan for and practice responding to emergencies, and monitor systems for contaminants. 

The AWIA does not require utilities to use any specific tools or methods when conducting these assessments. It does however require utilities to meet all requirements listed in Section 2013 and throughout the act. The U.S. EPA also has more information on how to certify your risk and resilience assessment and your emergency response plan. There is also more information on our website about how to complete your RRA and ERP, as well as information about the AWIA Small Systems Certificate Program.

Featured Video: Disinfection Byproducts in Tap Water: 5 Things To Know

The challenge of disinfection byproduct (DBP) control in drinking water lies in balancing the varying health risks of over 600 known DBPs with the benefits of microbial waterborne illnesses prevented via disinfection. While DBPs can originate from industrial sources, they generally form in water treatment systems when natural organic matter reacts with a disinfectant, usually chlorine-based. Ongoing studies have suggested that the toxicity for any given DBP can range from having no known health effects to exhibiting links between exposure and cancer, birth defects, or reproductive disorders. Disinfectant type and dose, residual chlorine, inorganic and organic precursor concentrations, pH, temperature, and water age can impact DBP formation.

The management of DBPs in drinking water is enforced through the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule (DBPR). Collectively, the rules set maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for total trihalomethanes (TTHM), 5 haloacetic acids (HAA5), bromate, chlorite, chlorine/chloramines, chlorine dioxide, and DBP precursors.

According to a 2019 report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Stage 2 DBPR invoked the largest number of community water system violations between 2017 and 2018, accounting for approximately 30% of all drinking water violations. Consecutive water systems, those with surface water sources, and systems serving populations of 501 to 10,000 people experienced violations more frequently. A greater compliance challenge is experienced by consecutive systems because they have little control over the water that they receive. While treated water may have achieved compliance at the system’s interconnection, DBP concentrations can rise through the receiving distribution system.

Non-consecutive utilities experiencing compliance challenges for the Stage 1 or 2 DBPR can start by troubleshooting the system using our previous blog post on The Disinfection By-Product Challenge. Consecutive systems should coordinate with their wholesale system following the approaches suggested in the 2019 report discussed above. The preferable methods of control often lie in prevention and optimization. As your system troubleshoots the cause of high DBP concentrations, keep the community informed on your efforts as well as some basic information on the health effects and sources of DBPs. Operators can find a general overview on DBP challenges in this week’s featured video. We recommend using this video to provide customers with answers to the following questions:

• What are disinfection byproducts?
• How are DBPs regulated?
• How do I know if my water has high levels of DBPs?
• How are people exposed to DBPs?
• How do I remove DBPs from my home’s water?
  
  

Managing Hexavalent Chromium in California Small Drinking Water Systems

Photo Credit: "PG&E Did It, And Always Knew, Since 1952!" by Alison Cassidy 05/31/2015; Edited with cropping and color correction.

In recent years, hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) has become a taxing contaminant for small water systems in California to manage. The contaminant has a complex regulatory and legal history, some of which was made renowned by the 2000 film Erin Brockovich starring Julia Roberts. Presently, an invalidated state drinking water standard, an uncertain regulatory future, and varying positions on the potential drinking water health risks, leave small systems unsure how to proceed. Chromium-6 challenges have only been exacerbated by its history of environmental contamination through industrial sources.

On a federal level, there is currently no drinking water standard. Hexavalent chromium was evaluated under the third round of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCMR 3). While the U.S. EPA is still evaluating the results and risks of chromium-6, there is no current undertaking to develop a new drinking water standard. A regulation does, however, exist for total chromium which includes all forms of chromium. The total chromium standard of 100 ppb assumes that the chromium sample is composed entirely of its most toxic form, chromium-6, to safeguard against the greatest potential risk. In California the total chromium standard was set at 50 ppb. At the time these total chromium standards were established, ingested hexavalent chromium was not associated with cancer risks. Exposure through drinking water has now been linked to both cancer and skin reactions.

According to a 2018 publication by the Water Research Foundation, the three most reliable water treatment technologies for chromium-6 removal include: reduction, coagulation, and filtration (RCF); adsorption onto regenerable strong base anion (SBA) resin; and adsorption onto disposable weak base anion (WBA) resin. Each technology generates unique waste with different handling and disposal requirements that can be expensive for very small systems to adopt and maintain. In a recent 2019 publication by the American Water Works Association, researchers identified a treatment technique that does not generate concentrated waste by reducing chromium-6 to easily separable and non-toxic chromium-3.

Much of the chromium found in drinking water was introduced from rocks, animals, plants, or volcanic activity. While both chromium-3 and chromium-6 can occur naturally, chromium-6 is more often affiliated with industrial sites that use chrome plating, paints and sprays, leather tanning, or corrosion inhibitors.

Hexavalent chromium was brought to the forefront of public health concerns in 1996 as a result of a class-action lawsuit between Hinkley, CA and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Prior to 1996 PG&E had released chromium tainted wastewater into unlined spreading ponds around Hinkley, a remote desert community in San Bernardino County. When Hinkley learned of the contamination years later, it filed a lawsuit against PG&E. During this time, legal clerk Erin Brockovich worked to link cancer illnesses to chromium-6 exposure. A convoluted series of legal battles between PG&E and those who developed illnesses from the contamination left the scientific community uncertain about the health risks of chromium-6 in water.

Only in 2008 did the U.S. EPA recognize research by the National Toxicology Program identifying cancerous tumors in rats and mice who ingested heavy doses of hexavalent chromium. By 2013 the growing plume of contamination in Hinkley had spread to over six miles long and two miles wide. Following a long regulatory investigation of the chromium-6 health effects during the PG&E legal battles, California eventually recognized the link between chromium-6 and cancer in 2014, approving a maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking water at 10 ppb effective July 1, 2014.

The new standard proved difficult for many small utilities to meet compliance. Senate Bill 385 gave systems with source water above the new MCL until January 1, 2020 to come into compliance without violations. During this time, impacted systems had to submit plans for achieving compliance, obtain approval of the plan, and carry out the plan in a timely manner. Plans could include steps for finding funding, conducting a feasibility study, investigating treatment options, performing an environmental review, acquiring land, facilitating construction, and testing. 

Developing, implementing, and submitting reports for these plans was no small task for any utility. Drinking water systems granted time to meet compliance were also monitoring sources of hexavalent chromium quarterly. As systems notified customers of new exceedances, they took on the burden of managing strong community concerns. It’s estimated that chromium-6 has been detected in 2,475 California drinking water sources spread across 48 out of 51 counties. The Environmental Working Group published a map that includes the average detected chromium-6 concentration by county across the country.

In developing the new MCL, California estimated that costs to implement the rule would increase water bills by $64 per year for customers of large systems and $5,640 per year for customers of small systems. Polluters were not held accountable to assist with compliance costs in areas of industrial contamination. For small drinking water facilities like the Phelan Pinon Hills Community Services District (PPHCSD) or the San Bernadino County Special Districts Department, the sticker price for compliance came at a cost in the millions. Furthermore, these small systems must spread costs over fewer people making the adoption of hexavalent chromium solutions cost prohibitive. In San Bernadino County, PPHCSD opted to take on a water blending project while the San Bernadio County Special Districts began exploring a pilot program for new treatment technology. Ultimately petitioners against the rule claimed that the MCL was too stringent with compliance too expensive. As a result, the rule was invalidated in 2017 by Sacramento Superior Court under grounds that the Department of Health failed to consider the economic feasibility for small water systems. By this time towns like Phelan had already spent $3.7 million toward the mitigation of chromium-6.

Using the data collected during the standard’s three years of implementation, the State Water Resources Control Board intends to develop a new MCL. As regulatory development ensues, impacted systems are left uncertain how to proceed. There is no certainty that a new MCL will in fact be implemented. Yet if the Board successfully passes a new MCL, systems cannot be certain that the standard will remain at 10 ppb. The board developed this FAQ sheet to help systems with ongoing loans and project plans determine their next steps. The PPHCSD in Phelan believes that the 10 ppb standard will be reinstated and has continued to move forward with their $17 million blending project.

Systems that choose to pause or discontinue projects are still left uncertain whether they are providing their community with safe drinking water. While legally facilities must now comply with the total chromium standard of 50 ppb, California did set the chromium-6 public health goal (PHG) at 2 ppb. This PHG conflicts with the U.S. EPA’s total chromium maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of 100 ppb and existing research debating that ingestion of chromium-6 can alter its toxicity. For now systems must use their best judgement and remain transparent with their community about all decisions. If the 10 ppb standard is reinstated, operators of nearly 800 groundwater supply wells will be in violation of the rule according to a 2018 publication by Hausladen.

California small water systems are not alone in their challenge to manage drinking water contaminants in the absence of strong regulatory guidance. Water systems across the country have had to make tough decisions about treating unregulated drinking water contaminants, many of which were spread through commercial practices. An example of such contaminants is per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and cyanotoxins. Utility decision making to handle these unregulated contaminants must factor in finances, source water conditions, potential project affordability, availability for partnerships, existing infrastructure needs, and more. As we move closer to the new year, water systems and regulatory agencies should take note of the chromium-6 decision-making in California to understand the potential impacts of new regulations on small systems.

Katie Buckley substantially contributed to this article.

Resources to Complete Your Risk & Resilience Assessment and Emergency Response Plan

Drinking water utilities should be aware of the risk and resilience assessment (RRA) and emergency response plan (ERP) requirements mandated by section 2013 of the America’s Water and Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018. Under section 2013, community water systems (CWS) serving populations of 3,300 people or more are required to perform a risk assessment using the results to develop or update their ERP. The due date to certify the completion of these requirements is dependent on the population served by the system. If a CWS provides water to a consecutive system, they must include the population of the consecutive system in the total population served. 

*After submitting the RRA, the ERP must be submitted and certified within six months. Community water systems will be required to review and revise, as necessary, their RRA and ERP every five years after the initial certification dates. 

These new AWIA requirements amend section 1433 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), originally created from the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. The Act focused on incidents of terrorism and required CWS’s serving more than 3,300 people to conduct a vulnerability assessment (VA) and develop an ERP. The new AWIA requirements place an emphasis on the risks of malevolent acts, natural disasters, and cybersecurity. Since the vulnerability assessments from the Bioterrorism Act are now more than 10 years old, AWIA approved the destruction of these assessments. Utilities that want their VA returned instead can submit a request letter to the EPA before the due date of their risk assessment.

To assist in meeting the new requirements, the EPA has developed several resources designed specifically for AWIA. Resources and tools are uploaded on this EPA web page as they become available. The risk and resilience assessment is the first requirement due under section 2013 and necessary to develop your ERP. The assessment must include six criteria. Following the assessment, the ERP must include four criteria in addition to any state requirements. In this blog we will provide information about these AWIA resources in addition to other documents that can be useful to complete your RRA and ERP. 

EPA's AWIA Resources:

Resiliency and Risk Assessment:

• Vulnerability Self-Assessment Tool (VSAT) 2.0 
  U.S. EPA
  This downloadable tool was updated to help utilities conduct risk and resilience assessments under AWIA. The tool can estimate risks from malevolent threats and natural hazards while evaluating potential improvement strategies. 
  
  
• Baseline Information on Malevolent Acts for Community Water Systems 
  U.S. EPA
  AWIA requires that the RRA addresses risks to ‘malevolent acts’. The EPA provides baseline information on malevolent acts and how to assess their potential threats in this 51-page guide.

Emergency Response Plans:

• Community Water System Emergency Response Plan 
  U.S. EPA
  This 13-page document includes a emergency response plan template with instructions developed to assist systems in meeting the ERP requirements under AWIA.

Other Helpful Resources to Get Started:

Resiliency and Risk Assessment:

• CREAT Risk Assessment
  U.S. EPA
  CREAT is a risk assessment tool to help utilities to adapt to extreme weather events. New users will be required to fill out a registration form. While your account is processing, check out a more preliminary EPA climate adaptation tool, the Resilient Strategies Guide for Water Utilities.
  
  
• Reference Guide for Asset Management Inventory and Risk Analysis 
  Southwest Environmental Finance Center
  This 9-page guide acts as a starting point to inventory assets and consider potential failure risks. The table suggests the information that should be collected while taking an inventory of assets.
  
  
• Financial Planning: A Guide for Water and Wastewater Systems 
  Rural Community Assistance Corporation
  Utilities need to include a financial infrastructure assessment in their RRA. The 59-page guidebook provides a process for developing and monitoring a utility budget, evaluating rates, and developing a 5-year financial plan. 
  
  
• Simplified Vulnerability Assessment Tool for Drinking Water 
  Kansas Department of Health and Environment
  In this 24-page guide systems will learn about risk minimization, the probability of asset threats, consequences of threats, and threat deterrents. 

Emergency Response Plans:

• Flood Emergency Action Procedures: Preparation Guide for Small Communities 
  Midwest Assistance Program
  The 50-page document provides a flood preparedness planning methodology for small rural communities. 
  
  
• 15 Cybersecurity Fundamentals for Water and Wastewater Utilities 
  Water ISAC
  This updated 56-page guide explains the best practices water utilities can use to reduce security risks to their IT and OT systems.

To certify the completion of your RRA or ERP, the EPA has developed guidelines for certification submittals via their secure online portal, email, or mail. If your system needs any additional help to meet these requirements, the EPA will be hosting in-person and online training sessions for each region. If these document suggestions don’t meet your system needs, check out our document library to find a variety of resources on risk assessment and emergency response.

Guidelines for Public Water Systems in Submitting Public Comments on Regulatory Proposals

Submitting comments on proposed regulations can help the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish inclusive rules that consider the perspective of your public water system. Just one effectively written and well supported comment can create a much bigger impact than hundreds of poorly written arguments.

Your best opportunity to submit a comment for a drinking water or wastewater regulation is offered after the Agency releases a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to the Federal Register. A copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents will be available on the EPA’s electronic public docket system, Regulations.gov, where the public can also submit comment. To comment on a rule with Regulations.gov you should know the Docket number, title of the regulation, or some title keywords. Once you search for the regulation, select ‘comment now’ or ‘Open Docket Folder’ under the correct rule. The docket folder includes information about the proposed regulation, its supporting documents, and other public comments.

An effective comment will be written concisely with clear, professional language and sound reasoning. You will want to provide examples that support your stance citing data driven evidence, publications, case studies, or technical resources when possible. Explain the impact of the proposed regulation from the perspective of your water industry experience. If the impact includes a cost analysis, make sure to include how those costs were calculated. A well written argument for or against the regulation will consider both sides of story. When you oppose a particular regulatory action, suggest potential alternatives. Comments that address particular wording or actions within the regulation should cite their exact page number, column, and paragraph from the register document. 

When submitting the comment, you can choose to attach supporting files, however be sure to read through the restrictions associated with attachments. Finally, remember that anyone can view your comment. Once the public comment period has ended, your decisive utility perspective will inform the revision considerations to the final rule.