Skip common site navigation and headers
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ground Water & Drinking Water
Begin Hierarchical Links EPA Home > Water > Ground Water & Drinking Water > National Drinking Water Advisory Council > Recommendations Resulting From A Meeting Held On November 17 And 18, 1998 End Hierarchical Links

 

Recommendations Resulting From A Meeting Held On November 17 And 18, 1998

National Airport Hilton Arlington, Virginia

The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) held its Fall 1998 meeting at the National Airport Hilton on November 17 and 18, 1998. At this meeting, the Council was provided with recommendations from the Right to Know, Benefits, and Operator Certification Working Groups. The following are the recommendations the Council determined should be forwarded to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and several recommendations that should go directly to the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.

RIGHT TO KNOW

Concurrence: The NDWAC concurred with the following mission statement for the Right to Know Working Group: To advise the National Drinking Water Advisory Council on tools which would encourage and enable citizens to fully use the public information and public involvement provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act. This working group will recommend products to NDWAC through which EPA and its public and private partners can help stakeholders and the public learn about their drinking water, take steps to protect it, and make informed decisions for themselves and their communities.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER

Recommendations #1: Guiding Principles for Outreach Products and Activities

NDWAC recommends that the following principles should guide development of all Drinking Water Public Outreach Products and Activities

1. Messages and materials should be targeted to specific audiences, including the types of audiences listed below. This list is meant to be suggestive, not exclusive:

General public Watershed dwellers Vulnerable subpopulations Children and youth Health care providers Water suppliers Private well owners States Local governments Tribes Educators Students of all ages Parks and recreation departments Agriculture

2. Tools used to deliver message should:

Use different language Be effective for the target audience Reflect appropriate literacy level(s)

3. Outreach products and materials should be multimedia:

Use many pathways

4. Materials and activities should be placed within appropriate contexts, including:

Wider health and resource issues Risk communication and management Support for program, e.g. infrastructure

5. Curriculum and other materials should educate effectively:

Audiences such as those listed in #1 (above)

6. Because involvement is just as important as information dissemination, materials should:

Foster public involvement Enable informed action

7. Work in partnerships to develop outreach materials and activities in order to:

Share successes Share lessons from others (watershed, community right-to-know) Take better advantage of funding opportunities Leverage interest and resources to take action

8. Evaluate effectiveness of products

Recommendation #2: Guiding Principles for Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs)

NDWAC recommends that the following principles should apply to information prepared to support Consumer Confidence Reports. Information prepared to support Consumer Confidence Reports should:

Prepare various audiences (general public water suppliers, state and local governments, health care providers, educators) to receive and to act upon CCRs

Help audiences to read and to understand CCRs

Empower, through education, audiences to act on information provided to them through CCRs

Provide the next layer of information beyond CCRs and clearly point out how to continue delving further layers down

Educate many audiences about drinking water, -- to make good decisions

Be honest about where there are uncertainties in conclusions, or where there isn't sufficient information

Recommendation # 3: Priority of Outreach Products

NDWAC recommends that the following priority outreach products be created(ranked in priority order):

A. Information announcing that CCRs are coming, including:

Training to prepare groups which will be expected to answer questions about CCRs Public Service Announcements (print, radio, tv)

B. Health Effects Information, including:

  • •Updating or expanding existing health effects fact sheets, as needed.
  • •Information about how drinking water standards are set, including consideration of vulnerable populations (e.g. children, elderly, immunocompromised persons)
  • •Risk communication document explaining how drinking water information can lead to decisions, and to personal and community actions.

C. Reference materials: how to get more information about CCRs, with links to more information:

  • EPA should post a sample CCR on its web page, with general answers to basic questions, and a note to contact your local water supplier for details relevant to your area; (See Attachment A)
  • Answers to the general questions should clearly point to specific materials which provide the next detailed layers of information

D. Overview of public involvement opportunities in drinking water, with attachments. The attachments would be issue-specific fact sheets, for each significant SDWA provision which offers the public an opportunity to be involved. Each fact sheet would provide detailed information on that topic, and would explain how to use that information to get involved at the local, State, Tribal, Regional, or national level. (See Attachment B for list of fact sheets)

E. Information on bottled water requirements, and point of use/point of entry devices.

F. Education materials, curriculum, or science fair projects; including materials linked specifically to CCRs.

G. Computer-based learning tools.

H. Collection and sharing of existing CCRs and templates.

I. Speaker's Bureau (perhaps based through EPA regions) to provide information, training, and to answer questions.

Recommendation #4: Internet Links

NDWAC recommends that all CCRs include EPA's web page address, and that water suppliers who post their CCRs on the Internet link their reports to the EPA web page.

Recommendation #5: Liaisons

NDWAC recommends that the Right to Know Working Group should work closely with the NDWAC's Health Care Provider Outreach and Education Working Group, as appropriate. The two DFOs and NDWAC members on the working groups should work closely together, and should provide opportunities to review each other's materials, schedule meetings together, or recommend that members serve as ex-officio representatives to the other group, as appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION TO THE EPA ADMINISTRATOR

Recommendation #6: Liaison with the Food and Drug Administration

NDWAC recommends that the Administrator of EPA work closely with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that equivalent public right-to-know information is made as readily available to consumers for bottled water as it is for tap water, at a point where consumers can effectively use the information to make informed decisions and report to NDWAC on results of this coordination.

NOTE: The Council chose to send back to the Public Right to Know Working Group a recommendation that suggests an inventory and/or collection of existing good, high-quality public materials on drinking water be assembled. It was felt the Working Group should spend some additional time developing this concept before bringing it back to NDWAC in May 1999.

OPERATOR CERTIFICATION

The NDWAC recommendations that follow are the result of a thorough discussion on the operator certification guidelines. These guidelines set the minimum baseline standards for an operator certification program to meet the provisions of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The intent of these guidelines is to enable States to have flexibility in the

interpretation, implementation and enforcement of program details necessary to administer a successful operator certification program while ensuring the protection of public health. The Council recommends the following changes be made to the draft guidelines:

Baseline Standards

Baseline Standard #1: Authorization

Recommended Revised Language for Baseline Standard #1:

As evidenced by an Attorney General's certification, or certification from delegated counsel, the State must have the legal authority to implement the program requiring the certification of operators of all community and nontransient noncommunity water systems and to require that the systems comply with the appropriate requirements of the program.

Baseline Standard #2: Classification of Systems, Facilities, and Operators

Recommended Revised Language for Baseline Standard #2:

To avoid DWSRF withholding, a State's program must meet the following requirements:

  • It must classify and rank all community and nontransient noncommunity water systems based on indicators of potential health risk which for example may include such as but not limited to: (a) complexity, size, and source water, etc. for treatment facilities, and, (b) complexity, and size, etc. for distribution systems.

  • It must require owners of all community and nontransient noncommunity water systems to place the direct supervision of their water system, including each treatment facility and/or distribution system, under the responsible charge of an operator(s) holding a valid certification equal to or greater than the classification of the treatment facility and/or distribution system.

  • It must require, at a minimum, that the operator(s) in responsible charge or equivalent must hold a valid certification equal to or greater than the classification of their water system, including each treatment facility and distribution system, as determined by the State.

  • It must require that all operating personnel making process control/system integrity decisions about water quality or quantity that affect public health be certified.

  • It must require that a designated certified operator must be available for each operating shift.

Baseline Standard #3: Operator Qualifications

Recommended Revised Language for Baseline Standard #3:

To avoid DWSRF withholding, States must require operator applicants to:

  • Take and pass an exam that demonstrates that the applicant has the necessary skills, knowledge, ability and judgement as appropriate for the classification. All exam questions must be State validated to ensure no illegal bias, and they must be based on a job analysis and related to the classification of the system or facility.

  • Have a high school diploma or a general equivalency diploma (GED).

Have the defined minimum amount of on-the-job experience for each appropriate level of certification. The amount of experience required increases with each classification level. Experience that is used to meet the experience requirement for any class of certification may not be substituted for education. Education that is used to meet the education requirement for any class of certification may not be substituted for experience.

States may allow experience and/or relevant training to be substituted for a high school diploma or GED. Post high school education may be substituted for experience. Credit may be given for experience in a related field (e.g., wastewater). Experience and education may not be used more than once as a substitution.

Recommended Definition

Validated Exam--An independent review by subject matter experts to ensure exams are based on a job analysis and related to the classification of the system or facility.

Grandparenting (under baseline Standard #3)

Recommended Revised Language for Grandparenting

EPA recognizes that there are many competent small system operators that may not meet the initial requirements to become certified. EPA believes that some States may need a transition period to allow these operators to continue to operate the system become certified and that this can be accomplished through "grandparenting" the requirements in some circumstances. It is recommended that grandparenting determinations be based on factors such as system compliance history, operator experience and knowledge, system complexity, and lack of treatment.

If States choose to include a grandparenting provision in their programs, it must include the following requirements:

  • During this initial transition period, grandparenting is permitted only to existing Operator(s) in Responsible Charge of existing systems which, because of State law changes to meet these guidelines, must for the first time have a certified operator.

  • There are two options offered for consideration and comment concerning the time period within which a system must apply to the State for grandparenting.Because a clear consensus was not achieved during the deliberations of the work groupsboth options are presented here.

(1) The system must apply for grandparenting for the operator(s) in responsible charge within two years of the effective date of the State's regulation; or

(2) The system must apply for grandparenting within one year of the effective date of the State's regulation.

  • Grandparenting shall be site-specific and non-transferable.

  • After an operator is grandparented, he or she must, within some time period specified by the State, meet all requirements for to obtain certification renewal including the payment of any necessary fees, acquiring necessary training to meet the renewal requirements, and demonstrating the skills, knowledge, ability and judgement for that classification.

  • If the classification of the plant or distribution system changes to a higher level, then the grandparented certification will no longer be valid.
  • If a grandparented operator chooses to work for a different water system, he or she must meet the initial certification requirements.

Baseline Standard #4: Enforcement

Recommended Revised Language for Baseline Standard #4:

To avoid DWSRF withholding, the State agency with primary enforcement responsibility for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program must have regulations requiring community water systems and nontransient noncommunity water systems to comply with State operator certification requirements. In nonprimacy States, the Governor shall determine which State Agency shall have this responsibility. States must have appropriate enforcement capabilities for example such as, but not limited to: administrative orders, bilateral compliance agreements, criminal or civil administrative penalties, and/or stipulated penalties.

States must have the ability to revoke operator certifications.

States must also have the ability to suspend operator certifications or take other appropriate enforcement action for operator misconduct. Examples include such as, but not limited to: fraud, falsification of application, falsification of operating records, gross negligence in operation, incompetence, or failure to use reasonable care or judgement in the performance of duties.

Baseline Standard #5: Certification Renewal

Recommended Revised Language for Baseline Standard #5:

To avoid DWSRF withholding, the State must establish training requirements for renewal based on the level of certification held by the operator.

States must require operators to acquire necessary amounts and types of approved training. States may determine other requirements as deemed necessary.

States must have a fixed cycle of renewal not to exceed three years.

The State must require an consider a certificate to have lapsed and the individual must recertify individual to recertify if the individual fails to renew or qualify for renewal and is beyond a grace period (not to exceed two years) within two years of the date that the certificate expired.

Baseline Standard #6: Resources Needed To Implement the Program

Recommended Revised Language for Baseline Standard #6:

To avoid DWSRF withholding, the States must provide sufficient resources to adequately fund and sustain the operator certification program (components include including components such as, but are not limited to: staff, data management, testing, enforcement, administration, and training approval). EPA recommends that States establish a dedicated fund that is self-sufficient.

Baseline Standard #7: Recertification

Recommended Revised Language to Baseline Standard #7:

To avoid DWSRF withholding, the States must have a process for recertification of individuals whose certification has expired for a period exceeding two years lapsed. This process must include: review of the individual's experience and training, and reexamination. An individual is not certified with an expired certificate. The State must consider the certificate to have lapsed and the individual must recertify, if the individual fails to renew or qualify for renewal and is beyond a grace period (not to exceed 2 years). The State may develop more stringent requirements for recertification for individuals whose certifications have expired, been revoked, or been suspended.

Baseline Standard #8: Stakeholder Involvement

Recommended Revised Language for Baseline Standard #8:

Stakeholder involvement is important to the public health objectives of the program. It helps to ensure the relevancy and validity of the program, and the confidence of all interested parties.

To avoid DWSRF withholding, States must include ongoing stakeholder involvement in the revision and operations of State operator certification programs. Public comment on rule revisions is not adequate stakeholder involvement. A stakeholder board or advisory committee is strongly recommended. Examples of stakeholders may include but are not limited to: operators, environmental/public health groups, the general public, consumer groups, technical assistance providers, utility managers, trainers, etc.

Baseline Standard #9: Program Review

Recommended Revised Language for Baseline Standard #9:

To avoid DWSRF withholding, States must perform reviews of their operator certification programs. EPA recommends that States perform periodic internal reviews and occasional external/peer reviews. Examples of items to reviews include: regulations, exams and exam scores for bias, exam items for relevancy and validity, compliance, enforcement, budget and staffing, training relevancy, training needs through examination performance, and data management system.

Program Submittal Process

Requirements

1. Submittal Schedule

Recommended Revised Language:

Not later than two years after the guidelines are published, to avoid DWSRF withholding, States must have adopted and implemented be implementing a program for the certification of operators of community and nontransient noncommunity public water systems that meets the requirements of or is substantially equivalent to these guidelines based on the public health objectives. States are encouraged to submit their operator certification programs to the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator for review as early as possible. Any State that expects to receive its FY 2000 or FY 2001 capitalization grant after February 6, 2001, should submit its operator certification program to EPA by August 2000. Also, any State that intends to enforce its existing operator certification program in lieu of these guidelines must submit its program to EPA by August 2000. EPA must determine whether an existing State operator certification program is substantially equivalent to these guidelines.

Future annual submittals of State operator certification programs to EPA must be submitted either before or with the annual capitalization grant application.

2. Submittal Contents

Recommended Revised Language:

(a) Initial Submittal

The submittal of operator certification programs to EPA by States must include the following:

  • The State Attorney General's Certification that the State has the legal authority to implement the program requiring the certification of operators of all community and nontransient noncommunity water systems and to require that the systems comply with the appropriate requirements of the program;
  • A full description and explanation of how the State's operator certification program complies with or is substantially equivalent to the requirements of these guidelines; and
  • A copy of the State operator certification regulations; and

(b) Subsequent Years

  • All annual program submittals subsequent to the initial submittal must include documentation and evaluation of ongoing program implementation; and

  • A new State Attorney General's Certification, if changes were made to the regulations or statutes.

Withholding of Funds

Recommended Revisions to Language

The Administrator shall withhold 20% of a State's funds that it is entitled to receive under the DWSRF program (section 1452) unless the State has adopted and is implementing a program for the certification of operators of community and nontransient noncommunity public water systems that meets the requirements of these guidelines. This withholding provision will begin two years after the effective date of these guidelines.

Definitions

Recommended Revised Language for Definitions:

Distribution System Complexity--Examples include Such as but not limited to: pressure zones, booster stations, storage tanks, fire protection, chlorination, non-residential consumers, cross connection potential, and/or demand variations.

Distribution System Size--Examples include Such as but not limited to: population served, number of service connections, size of pipes, total distance of pipe, and/or quantity.

Source Water--Examples include type (surface water, groundwater, groundwater under the influence of surface water, purchased water), quality (variability), and/or protection (e.g., wellhead protection)

Treatment Facility Size (capacity)--Examples include Such as but not limited to: population served, number of service connections served, and/or plant flow.

Treatment Facility Complexity--Examples include Such as but not limited to: difficulty in controlling water quality, potential effect to the consumer and/or safety of the operator.

Validated Exam--An independent review by subject matter experts to ensure exams are based on a job analysis and related to the classification of the system or facility.

Expense Reimbursement

The Council further recommends:

  • The allocation methodology is for expense reimbursement grants to be allocated to States based on the number of small systems serving 3300 persons or fewer.
  • The $30 million would not be sufficient for States to cover the expenses incurred as a result of the guidelines and recommends that EPA set aside the entire $30 million.

BENEFITS WORKING GROUP REPORT

The specific charge of the Benefits Working Group was to "consider the range of quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits that could be considered when developing drinking water regulations and provide recommendations to the Agency on which benefits should be routinely considered in developing its regulations." Following are the recommendations NDWAC is passing on to the Agency, after considering the report of the Working Group:

Recommendation #1: Categories of Benefits

The National Drinking Water Advisory Council recommends that EPA should focus its benefits analysis efforts primarily on assessing effects on human health, defining these effects as clearly as possible and using the best available data to value them. It is also recommended that EPA should consider the following benefits where appropriate: (1) health risk reductions; (2) taste and odor improvements; (3) reduction of damage to water system materials; (4) commercial water treatment cost reductions; (5) benefits due to source water protection (e.g. ecological benefits and non-use benefits); and (6) benefits derived from the provision of information on drinking water quality (e.g., a household's improved ability to make informed decisions concerning the need to test or filter tap water.

Recommendation #2: Assessing Health Risks and Valuing Benefits

NDWAC recommends that EPA should devote substantial efforts to better understanding the health effects of drinking water contaminants, including the types of effects, their severity, and affected sensitive subpopulations. Better information is also needed on exposures and the effects of different exposure levels, particularly for contaminants with threshold effects. These efforts should pay particular attention to obtaining improved information concerning impacts on children and other sensitive populations.

Recommendation #3: Addressing Uncertainty

NDWAC recommends that EPA should clearly identify and describe the uncertainties in the benefits and costs analysis, including descriptions of factors that may lead the analysis to significantly understate or overstate total benefits and costs. Factors that may have significant but indeterminate effects on the benefits and costs estimates should also be described.

Recommendation #4: Addressing Non-Quantified Benefits

NDWAC recommends that EPA consider both quantified and non-quantified benefits in regulatory decision-making. The information about quantified and non-quantified (qualitative) benefits should be presented together in a format, such as a table, to ensure that decision-makers consider both kinds of information.

Recommendation #5: The Presentation of Information on Benefits and Costs

NDWAC recommends that EPA should consider incremental benefits and costs, total benefits and costs, the distribution of benefits and costs, and cost-effectiveness in regulatory decision-making. This information should be presented together in a format, such as a table, to ensure its consideration by decision-makers.

Recommendation #6: Source Water Protection Options

NDWAC recommends that whenever EPA considers regulation of a drinking water contaminant, it should evaluate and consider, along with water treatment requirements to remove a contaminant, source water protection options to prevent such a contaminant from occurring. The full range of benefits of those options should be considered.

SMALL SYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION

Concurrence: The NDWAC concurred with the following mission statement for the Small Systems Implementation Working Group: To advise the NDWAC on the specific challenges currently facing various types of small Public Water Systems (those serving <10,000 persons but with special emphasis on economically and socially disadvantaged systems serving <500 persons); the challenges likely to face these systems over the next 5-10 years; and strategic options that USEPA and the states should consider to assist small systems in meeting the pubic health protection objectives of the Safe Drinking Water Act.


ATTACHMENT A

EPA Document/Website that answers general questions related to drinking water for various audiences. EPA will provide general answers to the following questions (e.g. drinking water sources include surface water, ground water, etc.), will clearly point them to the next layer of detail that can be provided by EPA, and will direct users to their local water supplier for specific local information.

1. What is the source of my drinking water?

How can I prevent it from becoming impaired?

How can I remediate existing pollution?

  • How is my drinking water treated to make it safe?
  • What contaminants occur in drinking water?

What are the health effects?

Where do the contaminants come from? How did they get there?

What is the standard setting process? How does it protect vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and immuno-compromised persons?

4. When and how do violations of drinking water standards occur?

5. How can I become involved in directing funding to prevent or remediate impairment of my drinking water?

6. How can I become involved in other parts of the drinking water program - variances, operator certification, etc.


ATTACHMENT B

Recommended Product: Overview of SDWA Public Involvement Opportunities, including Issue-Specific Fact Sheets on Public Involvement

Each fact sheet would include:

Basic information

How to use that information to get involved (at local, State, Tribal, Regional, National level)

  • Capacity development
  • Compliance reports, annually, both State and National
  • Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs
  • Consumer Confidence Reports
  • Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Intended Use Plans
  • Operator Certification
  • Public Notification
  • Source Water Protection
  • Standard Setting at National level
  • Wellhead Protection

Safewater Home | About Our Office | Publications | Links | Office of Water | En Español | Questions and Answers

 
Begin Site Footer

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us