April 3, 2005 Small Water Systems likely to get New RegulationAlthough the Ontario government hasn't spelled out details yet, the Report of the Advisory Council on Drinking Water Quality and Testing Standards makes clear the direction the Ministry of the Environment is likely to take. Regulation 170, says the Council report, has problems that "cannot be remedied through specific changes to the current Regulation." Instead, it proposes "a new regulation, under the Safe Drinking Water Act", where Public Health Units would take the lead in assisting, administering, and enforcing the act. In its report, the Council acknowledged and agreed with virtually all key concerns expressed by stakeholders in public consultations last October and November. Council also heard from contributors to the Part 2 Walkerton Report, who indicated that Regulation 170 "went much further than was intended in terms of detail and the degree of prescription in law" as it affects small systems such as B&Bs, churches and campgrounds. The "testing requirement is too comprehensive and the application of a chlorine residual was not envisaged for these small systems." The Council is now recommending a Risk Assessment approach, based on what they call the "cumulative robustness" of a system--a measure that combines source, treatment, monitoring and response. The new regulation will need to define standards for each of these measures, and determine what is the overall robustness level that a system must achieve. Risk Assessments will be site specific, and will be conducted by trained "Public Water Health Inspectors". There is likely to be a user fee for the assessment, which the Council estimates will range between $250-$375 per year. It is not clear whether the Risk Assessment would be reviewed annually. With an estimated 800 inspectors, it may not, in reality, be practical to do so. The level of assessed risk, says the Council, should be the basis for making improvements. It defines risk as a combination of "probability and consequence of system failure." System failure would typically be influenced by "adverse conditions" which are event driven, such as floods. There are cautions in the report. For example, the Council says that the "historical absence of a problem in a system does not, per se, mean the system is secure." Yet they are also of the view that "many small systems using secure groundwater sources may have sufficient robustness such that treatment may not be required." It will be up to the Risk Assessment process to determine probability and consequence under these circumstances. It is, however, the Council's view "that all systems using surface water sources need some form of treatment." This could continue to have impacts on remote areas that draw their water from pristine lakes. The Council calls for a definition of a "secure source", saying that historical results can contribute to this definition. Of particular interest to B&Bs and other small system owners: the definition of a "small system" is still up for grabs. Council refers to the definition of a cut-off point for "small", for example, exemption for a B&B with 5 or fewer rooms. This is related to what they call a "principle of significant use," i.e. "a residence where the frequency of public access is low and where the family is the primary consumer of the potable water." This suggests they are still not sure what to do with B&Bs. While the Council is concerned that exemption on this basis may result in a situation "where the public is not adequately informed about the quality of the water supply," they add: "This [small cut-off] could be related to considerations on the primary use of the facility. The recommended model [Risk Assessment] would address the issue of size and primary use when assessing risk and setting out sampling and treatment options." The Water Health Inspector, as part of the initial risk assessment, would address whether there is a significant level of public access to a facility - "possibly" says the Council, "less than 25% of the time." Other highlights Under the risk assessment model, the engineering requirement is no longer a given, and may in fact become the exception rather than the rule for small system owners. Proven accurate and reliable self-testing is being suggested as a possible alternative for remote areas, but not for small systems in general, who are not remote from private labs. The option for self-testing should be universal. Expect an argument over the option to use commercially available test kits for e-coli and total coliforms in the remote north, but not as a principal screening technique in the south. Virtually all other jurisdictions the Council investigated define a small system as having fewer than 15 connections. According to the report, these jurisdictions are (a) generally less stringent than Ontario, (b) have no formal engineering requirement, and (c) are looking at relaxing rules for small systems going forward. Council insists that the new regulation should be flexible and provide options. It notes that a regulation that is too complex could actually increase the public health risk through lack of operator understanding or compliance avoidance. Local municipalities are being called upon to assist certain small communal systems (Non-Municipal Year-Round Residential, e.g. trailer parks) with required upgrades. Although the Council recommends that the provincial grant program be extended in these instances, the degree of provincial contribution remains to be determined. Failing full financial support from the province, this could place even higher burdens on the municipal tax base. The number of contaminants being tested for is likely to be reduced. Yet the cost of testing in the first year could remain the same as forecast under the current regulation. Council makes clear that testing should remain with accredited private labs, although common drop off points could be used for sample collection, possibly saving courier costs. It does NOT say that current testing frequency (weekly) should be dropped until after the first year. It is possible, though by no means assured that the Risk Assessment process could reduce mandatory frequency. Expect a blip in the commercial success of suppliers of real-time testing / continuous monitoring equipment. Equipment suppliers/manufacturers are likely to be required to become MOE accredited and licensed. Standards will need to be developed. The Ministry should provide a "scientific basis" for the development of future treatment systems. It is likely that the Advisory Council will continue to provide input into this process. A sign posting option may be made permanent for some establishments, but will be part of the Risk Assessment process, and will require that public access to the water supply be restricted wherever practical. By its tone, permanent posting is not strongly supported by the Council. Oxford County has been testing the risk assessment model since June 2004, and provides much of the basis for the Council's proposal. The Appendix 5 conclusion notes somewhat wryly "that the proposed Protocol is similar to the water sampling that was undertaken by Health Units twenty years ago." There will be an easing of the training requirements for small system operators, leading toward an information and guidance program, rather than a designation as a "trained person." Council states that the agency responsible for overseeing the Act and providing support and assistance to system owners should be different than the agency responsible for enforcement. It appears, however, that Public Health Units will ultimately be responsible for both roles. Proposed changes to the regulation are expected by the end of June, and will be posted on the Ministry website for public comment. Your feedback is welcome. Please
direct comments, questions or suggestions to wellsafe@the3bears.com |