An EPA advisory panel crafting recommendations for revising federal bacteria standards for drinking water is preparing to debate the contentious question of whether the agency should require public water systems to notify the public when the systems test positive for total coliform -- a measure of harmful bacteria’s presence.

The issue could be controversial after key White House and EPA officials recently recommended that EPA’s total coliform rule (TCR) not require public notification -- a recommendation opposed by environmentalists.

EPA last year convened the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) panel to review its existing TCR, amid calls for revisions by water officials who see public notification as a major issue. The panel is slated to complete its work in July, and sources associated with its efforts say that the question of whether the rule should continue to require public notification of the presence of total coliform is likely to be a main topic during a panel meeting taking place May 21.

The debate comes after a report recently released by a Small Business Advisory Review (SBAR) panel, which was tasked with examining the same issue. In the report, members suggested that positive tests for total coliform should no longer be considered a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) violation which requires notification to consumers. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com.

Instead, the report states, “The panel supports an approach which uses TCR as a trigger for investigation and/or corrective action.” The current TCR, which mandates public notification following each monthly violation for total coliform “is ineffective, confusing, and leads to unnecessary public distrust of the water system because total coliforms do not themselves represent a health risk and the notification usually comes well after the incident occurred and water quality has returned to normal,” the report states.

Officials from the White House Office of Management & Budget, EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics & Innovation, the U.S. Small Business Administration and EPA’s Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water drafted and signed the report. The following month, the report was sent to the FACA panel for its review and consideration, a source associated with the panel says, adding that they expect their group will soon take up the issue of whether public notification should be required when water systems test positive for total coliform

The source says the panel has “not had a substantial conversation on public notification,” and it is “premature” to say whether the group will heed the SBAR panel’s suggestions on the matter, or instead decide to maintain the public notification requirements which are currently in place. Still, the source says, “my understanding is that there is an explicit intent” to “integrate” the SBAR panel’s suggestions in to the FACA panel’s own report.

Abolishing the public notification requirement in the TCR could garner support from officials in the drinking water industry, but rile some environmentalists who oppose eliminating the requirement.

“I don’t think they should eliminate the notification,” one clean water activist says, adding, “people might need to be aware,” that total coliform is present in the water supply. The source has no problems with the majority of the suggestions contained in the recent SBAR report, but is not in favor of discontinuing public notification for TCR violations. “People need to know that there is an issue,” the source says.

But drinking water industry officials argue that the existing TCR’s notification requirements create unnecessary burdens, and that the changes proposed in the SBAR report will prove beneficial, especially to small drinking water utilities. The proposed change “would eliminate many thousands of violations that are now occurring and unnecessarily alarming the public,” one source says, adding that in his views the changes would be “very beneficial to the public,” as well as the drinking water industry because the current rule “leads the public to believe there is a danger in the water -- when there is not such proof.”

Under the existing TCR, drinking water utilities are required to notify the public within 30 days of a monthly MCL violation, and within 24 hours of MCL violations which are considered acute, and in which fecal contamination is found. According to a presentation made during a 2007 TCR stakeholder workshop, the notification is necessary because the bacteria can indicate a potential breakdown in the water system, as well as the presence of fecal contaminants or bacterial growth. Total coliforms, the presentation says, occur more frequently than E. coli and fecal coliforms, and serve as indicators for other possible contaminants.

The bacteria itself does not pose health risks though, and industry officials say this makes notification especially confusing for the public. “Approximately 9,000 public water systems violate the rule each year and are forced to send out the unnecessarily alarming public notice letters,” one industry source says.

In a 2005 letter to officials with several drinking water associations, Jack Daniel of the Department of Health and Human Services said such notification “is causing this nation a lot of money needlessly and is misleading to the American public.” He said EPA’s review process of the existing TCR is an “opportunity to put credibility in to the total coliform rule and improve the confidence of this nation’s public water consumers.”

Still, a source associated with a clean water group says that the money and inconvenience associated with notifying the public of total coliform violations should not merit the elimination of notification requirements. “I don’t think that should be a big driving factor there,” the source says.

But at least one member of the FACA panel seems to be siding in favor of eliminating the public notification requirement, stating recently that “there’s no need to notify the public, because there’s no public health threat.” A May 7 Federal Register notice indicated that the panel’s meeting later this month will include a group discussion on the issue, along with other topics associated with the TCR revision process.

Sources say the FACA panel should conclude its work late this summer, after which EPA is expected to review the suggestions made by both panels and decide what changes will be made to the existing rule. -- Naomi Smoot

INSIDEEPA-29-19-15