National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public Notification
Rule
[Federal Register: May 4, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 87)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25981-26049]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04my00-13]
[[Page 25981]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 9 et al.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public Notification Rule;
Final Rule
[[Page 25982]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, 142 and 143
[FRL-6580-2]
RIN 2040-AD06
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public Notification
Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today, EPA is publishing final regulations to revise the
general public notification regulations for public water systems to
implement the public notification requirements of the 1996 Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments. The regulations set the
requirements that public water systems must follow regarding the form,
manner, frequency, and content of a public notice. Public notification
of violations is an integral part of the public health protection and
consumer right-to-know provisions of the 1996 SDWA amendments. Owners
and operators of public water systems are required to notify persons
served when they fail to comply with the requirements of the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR); have a variance or
exemption from the drinking water regulations; or are facing other
situations posing a risk to public health. EPA is also publishing today
revisions to the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) regulation to be
consistent with the final public notification regulation.
DATES: Today's rule is effective June 5, 2000. However, the new
regulations under Part 141, Subpart Q do not apply to public water
systems in States with primacy for the public water system supervision
program until May 6, 2002 or until the State-adopted rule becomes
effective, whichever comes first. The new regulations under Part 141,
Subpart Q also do not apply to public water systems in jurisdictions
where EPA directly implements the program until October 31, 2000. Until
the new regulations under Part 141, Subpart Q apply, public water
systems must continue to comply with the public notification
requirements under Sec. 141.32. For purposes of judicial review, this
final rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m. Eastern time on May 18, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the public comments received, EPA responses, and
all other supporting documents are available for review at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street SW, Water Docket (MC-
4101), Docket #W-98-19, Room EB 57, Washington, DC 20460. For an
appointment to review the docket, call 202-260-3027 between 9 a.m. and
3:30 p.m. and refer to docket W-98-19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll
free (800) 426-4791 for general information about the rule and copies
of this document. For technical inquiries, contact Carl B. Reeverts at
(202) 260-7273 or e-mail: reeverts.carl@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms Used in This Rule
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
CWS Community Water System
DBP Disinfection Byproduct
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HPC Heterotrophic Plate Count
IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
IOC Inorganic Chemical
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
MRDLG Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal
NCWS Non-Community Water System
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NTNCWS Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OW Office of Water
PN Public Notification
PWS Public Water System
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
SOC Synthetic Organic Chemical
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TCR Total Coliform Rule
TT Treatment Technique
TWS Transient Non-Community Water System
VOC Volatile Organic Chemical
Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority
II. Regulation Background
III. Significant Decisions Affecting the Final Rule
IV. Discussion of Final Rule
A. Purpose and Applicability
B. Effective Dates and Rationale
C. Summary of Changes to Current Public Notification
Requirements
D. ``Plain Language'' Format of Final Rule
E. General Provisions of Final Rule (Sec. 141.201)
1. Who Must Give Public Notice?
2. What Type of Public Notice is Required for Each Situation?
3. Who Must Be Notified?
F. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the Tier 1 Public Notice:
Violations and Situations With Significant Potential to Have Serious
Adverse Effects on Human Health as a Result of Short-Term Exposure
(Sec. 141.202)
1. Tier 1 Violations and Situations
2. Timing of the Tier 1 Public Notice (and Consultation
Requirement)
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the Tier 1 Notice
G. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the Tier 2 Public Notice:
Other Violations With Potential To Have Serious Adverse Effects on
Human Health (Sec. 141.203)
1. Tier 2 Violations and Situations
2. Timing of the Tier 2 Public Notice
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the Tier 2 Notice
H. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the Tier 3 Public Notice: All
Other Violations and Situations Requiring Public Notice
(Sec. 141.204)
1. Tier 3 Violations and Situations
2. Timing of the Tier 3 Public Notice
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the Tier 3 Notice
4. Option to Use an Annual Notice, Including the CCR, to Deliver
Tier 3 Notices
I. Content of the Public Notice (Sec. 141.205)
1. Standard Elements of the Public Notice
2. Multilingual Requirements for Public Notices
3. Standard Health Effects Language
4. Standard Language for Monitoring and Testing Procedure
Violations
5. Standard Language to Encourage Customers Receiving the Public
Notice To Distribute the Notice to Other Persons Served
J. Other Public Notification Requirements
1. Notice to New Billing Units or New Customers (Sec. 141.206)
2. Special Notice to Announce the Availability of the Results of
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (Sec. 141.207)
3. Special Notice for Exceedance of the Fluoride Secondary
Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) (Sec. 141.208)
4. Special Notice for Nitrate Exceedances Above the MCL by Non-
Community Water Systems (NCWS), Where Granted Permission by Primacy
Agency Under Sec. 141.11(d) (Sec. 141.209)
5. Conditions Under Which the Primacy Agency May Give Notice on
Behalf of Public Water System (Sec. 141.210)
K. Reporting to the Primacy Agency and Retention of Records
1. Public Water System Reporting to the Primacy Agency
(Sec. 141.31)
2. Retention of Records by Public Water Systems (Sec. 141.33)
L. Other Changes to the Current Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) To Be Consistent With the Final Public Notification
Regulations
M. Special State/Tribal Primacy Requirements and Rationale (40
CFR Part 142, Subpart B)
V. Changes to the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Regulation To Be
Consistent With the Final Public Notification Regulation
VI. Cost of Rule
VII. Other Administrative Requirements
[[Page 25983]]
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action
are public water systems (PWS). The following table provides examples
of the regulated entities under this rule. A public water system, as
defined by section 1401 of SDWA, is ``a system for the provision of
water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed
conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or
regularly serves at least twenty-five individuals.'' EPA defines
``regularly served'' as receiving water from the system sixty or more
days per year. EPA has an inventory totaling over 170,000 public water
systems nationwide.
Table of Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/Local/Tribal Publicly-owned PWSs, such as
governments. municipalities; county governments,
water districts, water and sewer
authorities, state governments, and
other publicly-owned entities that
deliver drinking water as an adjunct to
their primary business (e.g., schools,
State parks, roadside rest stops).
Industry..................... Privately-owned PWSs, such as private
utilities, homeowner associations, and
other privately-owned entities that
deliver drinking water as an adjunct to
their primary business (e.g., trailer
parks, factories, retirement homes, day-
care centers).
Federal government........... Federally-owned PWSs, such as water
systems on military bases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in Sec. 141.201 of the rule. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this section to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
I. Statutory Authority
Section 114 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996
(Public Law 104-182), enacted August 6, 1996, amended section 1414(c)
of the Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)). Sections 1414(c)(1) and (c)(2) were
significantly revised and require EPA to amend the existing public
notification regulations. The amended rules are intended to give
consumers more accurate and timely information on violations, taking
into account the seriousness of any potential adverse health effects
that may be involved. There is no deadline for promulgating the revised
public notification rule, but EPA is publishing the final rule today to
enable States to coordinate public notification rule adoption and
implementation with the ongoing adoption and implementation of the
Consumer Confidence Report regulations.
The public notification (PN) provisions were part of the original
SDWA in 1974 and were subsequently modified in the 1986 SDWA
amendments. The public notification regulations currently in place were
promulgated in 1987 and became effective in 1989 (40 CFR 141.32). The
existing rule remains in place until the new rule goes into effect.
SDWA Section 1414(c)(1) establishes who must give public notice,
under what circumstances a notice must be given, and who must receive
the notice. Section 1414(c)(1)(A) requires that all public water
systems (PWS) give notice to persons served of any failure to comply
with any national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWR), including
any required monitoring. Section 1414(c)(1)(B) further requires a PWS
to provide a notice when it is operating under a variance or exemption,
or when a PWS fails to comply with the requirements of a variance or
exemption. Section 1414(c)(1)(C) authorizes EPA, at the Administrator's
discretion, to require PWSs to provide notice of the concentration
level of any unregulated contaminant monitored under EPA regulations.
Except for the addition of paragraph (C) of section 1414(c)(1), these
requirements are unchanged from the previous SDWA.
Section 1414(c)(2) sets the specific requirements for the form,
manner, and frequency of a notice. Section 1414(c)(2)(A) requires EPA
to issue regulations, after consultation with the States, that
prescribe the detailed public notification requirements. The
regulations must provide for different frequencies of notices based on
the persistence of the violations and the seriousness of any potential
adverse health effects that may be involved. Except for the explicit
requirement in the 1996 amendments that EPA consult with the States
prior to promulgating the revised regulations, the general directions
to EPA for issuing regulations are unchanged.
Section 1414(c)(2)(B) enables States, at their option, to establish
alternate requirements with respect to the form and content of the
public notice, as long as the alternative State program provides the
same type and amount of information as required under the EPA
regulations. This section was added as a result of the 1996 amendments.
Section 1414(c)(2)(C) directs EPA to issue regulations which
require PWSs to distribute a notice within 24 hours to persons served
for violations with potential to have serious adverse effects on human
health from short-term exposure. The PWS is also required to send the
same notice to the primacy agency and to consult with the primacy
agency within the same 24-hour period on any additional public notice
requirements. This section is also a new statutory requirement.
Section 1414(c)(2)(D) directs that EPA's regulations require PWS to
provide written notice to each person served for each violation not
covered under Section 1414(c)(2)(C). The section specifies that the
notice may be: (1) In the first bill, if any, after the violation; (2)
in an annual report issued no later than one year after the violation;
or (3)
[[Page 25984]]
by mail or direct delivery as soon as practicable, but no later than
one year after the violation. This section significantly revises and
simplifies the previous statutory requirements on the form, manner, and
timing of the notice.
Section 1414(c)(2)(E) allows the Administrator the option to
require a PWS to give notice to persons served of the results of
unregulated contaminant monitoring required by EPA under section
1445(a). EPA recently published a revised unregulated contaminant
monitoring regulation (UCMR), which requires some systems to monitor
for specified contaminants (64 FR 50556, September 17, 1999). This
Section is new under the 1996 SDWA amendments.
Today's final rule fulfills the rulemaking requirements outlined in
amended Sections 1414(c)(1) and 1414(c)(2) of the SDWA, as amended.
II. Regulation Background
The final rule published today was proposed on May 13, 1999 (64 FR
25963). At the same time as the rule was proposed, EPA made available
for review a draft Public Notification Handbook, comprised of public
notice templates for different violation situations and other aids to
public water systems to support implementation of the revised
regulation. The final rule is based on input from a broad range of
stakeholders from the public and private sectors. The Agency has also
actively involved the States as partners in the rule development, as
required under Section 1414(c)(2)(A) of the 1996 SDWA amendments.
To gain early input and information from stakeholders on problems
with the current public notification program, EPA held a series of
stakeholder meetings in Indianapolis, Indiana, Washington, D.C., and
Seattle, Washington in late 1997, prior to initiating the rulemaking.
EPA also used the findings and recommendations from a June, 1992 GAO
report (``Drinking Water Consumers Often Not Well Informed of
Potentially Serious Violations'' (GAO/RCED-92-135)).
In May and June of 1999, during the public comment period after the
rule was proposed, EPA hosted public meetings in Madison, Wisconsin;
Washington, DC; Allentown, Pennsylvania; and Phoenix, Arizona. The
purpose of the meetings was to take comment on the proposed public
notification rule and to discuss (in a workshop-type setting) the draft
Public Notification Handbook. The meetings were very well attended and
the results greatly benefitted both the final public notification rule
and the final Public Notification Handbook. The final Handbook is
expected to be published shortly. Reports from all the meetings are
available for review at EPA's Water Docket (W-98-19) or by downloading
the documents from EPA's website (www.epa.gov/safewater).
EPA consulted with the States throughout the development of this
rule, as required under section 1414(c)(2)(A). Prior to initiating the
rulemaking, EPA met with a group of States, as part of the early
involvement meetings set up by the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA), to develop the scope of the process and
identify significant issues under the new statute. During the
development of the proposed rule, several State drinking water managers
participated as members of the EPA regulation workgroup. Their
involvement in the workgroup continued through the development of this
final rule. EPA also provided briefings to ASDWA on request several
times as the rule moved forward.
III. Significant Decisions Affecting the Final Rule
The final rule published today makes a number of significant
changes to what was proposed, based on decisions EPA made in response
to the comments received. Section IV of the preamble gives a detailed
summary of the final rule and an explanation of the significant changes
made in response to comments. Decisions on five key issues affecting
the final rule are highlighted below:
A. List of Violations and Situations Requiring a Tier 1 (24-Hour)
Public Notice
EPA received many comments related to the proposed public notice
tier level for violations of the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and the
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). Except for violations where fecal
contamination was found, the notice tier level for all the TCR MCL and
SWTR TT violations was proposed to be Tier 2 (30-day notice). Over half
of the commenters on this issue recommended that the final rule change
the notice requirement for at least some of the TCR and SWTR violations
to Tier 1. In particular, many of these commenters believed that
violations related to exceedances of the turbidity limit were more
often than not a strong indicator of harmful drinking water posing a
significant risk from short-term exposure. The rest of those commenting
on this issue specifically supported leaving as Tier 2 the routine TCR
violations and all SWTR violations, including those violations related
to exceedances of the turbidity limit. These commenters believed that
turbidity violations were more often than not a false indicator of
potential health risk.
After considering all the comments, EPA decided to stay with the
proposal requiring a Tier 2 notice for all TCR and SWTR violations
(other than where fecal contamination is found under the TCR rule)
because EPA believes that an automatic Tier 1 notice requirement is not
justified. Routine TCR and SWTR violations (without supporting
evidence) are not sufficiently strong or predictable indicators of
significant potential of risk from short-term exposure. At the same
time, in response to the range of comments related to the appropriate
tier level for turbidity exceedances, EPA agrees that certain
exceedances of the turbidity limit deserve special attention by the
primacy agency for public notification purposes.
Accordingly, the final rule continues to classify all turbidity
violations as Tier 2; adds a new requirement that PWSs consult with the
primacy agency within 24 hours when exceedances of the maximum
allowable turbidity limit occur; enables the primacy agency after the
consultation to elevate specific turbidity violations to Tier 1 when
warranted; and requires an automatic Tier 1 notice when consultation
does not take place within the 24-hour period. Since the significance
of the risk to health of an exceedance of the turbidity limits is
situational, EPA believes the final rule ensures that notices for
turbidity violations indicating an immediate health risk will go out
quickly when necessary (based on the immediate consultation
requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the
violation indicates no immediate risk to health. These decisions are
discussed in greater detail in section IV.F.1 of the preamble.
B. Standard Health Effects Language Required in Notices for MCL/TT
Violations
EPA requested comment on EPA's proposal to use the CCR standard
health effects language to meet the public notification requirement.
Although most commenters supported keeping the CCR and public notice
health effects language the same, a significant minority of commenters
believed that the public notice language should be separate from the
CCR language because of the different objectives of the public notice.
Several commenters also believed that the proposed language for
specific violations needed revision, and several offered alternative
language that they believed was more accurate and useful.
[[Page 25985]]
After considering all the comments, EPA decided to reaffirm its
intent to keep the standard health effects language identical for the
public notification and CCR rules. Today's rule publishes identical
language in the two rules for all the existing regulated contaminants.
EPA believes the benefits of having identical core health effects
language outweighs the value of tailoring the language to any unique
objectives of the public notice. EPA also reviewed the comments
offering alternative language for specific violations, with particular
focus on whether any of the proposed language was erroneous or
misleading. With three exceptions, the final language in today's rule
(including the amended CCR rule) is the same language as was proposed.
The three exceptions are for fluoride, fecal coliform/E.coli, and
several of the disinfectant/disinfection byproducts. These decisions
are discussed in greater detail in section IV.I.3 of the preamble.
C. Tier 2 (30-Day) Notice Deadline and Flexibility To Extend in
Appropriate Circumstances
EPA requested comment on the proposed 30-day time period required
for the initial Tier 2 public notice, the requirement for a repeat
notice of ongoing violations every three months, and the discretion
given to the primacy agency in specific circumstances to extend the
initial notice to three months or the repeat notice frequency to one
year (either on a case-by-case basis or by rule). EPA received a wide
range of comments on the proposed 30-day time period, ranging from
leaving the current 14-day requirement intact (or even requiring the
notice sooner), to support for the 30-day proposed period, to moving
the initial notice to 90 or 120 days after the violation. The comments
received related to the proposed discretion allowing primacy agencies
to extend the deadline also ranged widely, from disagreeing with
allowing any discretion at all, to extending the deadline, to
requesting that the discretion allowed be more open-ended.
After considering the wide range of comments, EPA retained the
proposed 30-day deadline for the initial notice and the 3-month repeat
notice frequency in the final rule. But EPA did make changes in the
final rule language in response to commenters requesting
reconsideration or clarification of EPA's intent in the proposed rule.
The final rule redefines how and when a primacy agency would be allowed
to extend the initial notice beyond 30 days and under what
circumstances the primacy agency could allow less frequent repeat
notices for unresolved violations. The final rule specifically
disallows extensions beyond 30 days for unresolved violations or less
frequent repeat notice for ongoing TCR and SWTR violations. The final
rule also does not allow primacy agencies to set ``across-the-board''
extensions in their policies and rules that would automatically extend
the notice period or frequency of repeat notice for all the other
violations.
EPA continues to believe that extensions to the fixed deadlines may
be appropriate in certain circumstances, since Tier 2 violation
situations are very diverse. Tier 2 situations range from violations
that on some occasions may pose potential adverse health effects from
short-term exposure (such as SWTR TT violations), to unresolved
violations that pose chronic health effects from long-term exposure
(such as benzene violations), and to resolved violations no longer
posing any potential risk to health. One size does not fit all. The
final rule reaffirms this intent to provide flexibility to the primacy
agency to deviate from the deadline in EPA's rule where warranted.
These decisions are discussed in greater detail in Section IV.G.2 of
the preamble.
D. Form and Manner of the Delivery of Public Notices
EPA requested comment on the revised requirements in the proposal
for deciding on the method of delivery of the public notice. The
proposed rule would require a water system to: (1) Select at least one
minimum method from a short list in the regulation, and (2) provide
additional notices by any other method reasonably calculated to reach
other persons not reached by the initial method selected. Some
commenters believed the minimum list should be expanded to allow, for
instance, use of the newspaper as the minimum method, as in the current
rule. Other commenters requested that the final rule require that water
systems use more than one minimum method, since one method is likely to
be an inadequate response in many cases.
After considering the comments, EPA has decided to maintain the
basic requirement as proposed: To require water systems to select at
least one delivery method from the regulatory list and to take steps
reasonably calculated to reach the others served by the system. EPA
believes requiring water systems to select at least one minimum method
sets a simple, enforceable baseline level of performance for all public
notices. This initial step must be supplemented by other actions when
the minimum method is not likely to reach all persons served by the
system. In the final rule, EPA did not expand the list of minimum
delivery methods it proposed but it does give the primacy agency
discretion to select a different minimum method not listed in EPA's
rule where warranted. The final rule also includes other minor changes
to the rule language to respond to specific requests for clarification
of EPA's intent. These decisions for each of the three notice tiers are
discussed in greater detail in sections IV.F.3, IV.G.3, and IV.H.3 of
the preamble.
E. Consolidating Public Notice Regulations Into New Subpart (40 CFR
Part 141, Subpart Q).
As part of the development of the final rule, EPA conducted a
thorough search of Part 141 of the current Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) to identify all the places where a public notification
requirement is set or where the current public notification regulations
are referenced. This led to a consolidation of several ongoing public
notification requirements into the new public notification regulations
in Subpart Q of 40 CFR Part 141. The benefits of consolidating all the
requirements in one place (Subpart Q) are significant. The final
Subpart Q provides in one place a complete and easily referenced set of
requirements. This should greatly enhance the understanding of the
public notification requirements and lead to greater voluntary
compliance. Many of these ancillary public notification requirements
are not in the current regulations under Sec. 141.32 and many were not
part of the proposed rule revision on May 13, 1999. EPA believes that
since they do not substantively alter the existing requirements, they
do not require prior notice and opportunity for comment. A summary list
of the changes to the CFR are included in Table C in Section IV.L of
the preamble.
IV. Discussion of Final Rule
This section explains the elements of the final regulation,
comments requested and comments received on the proposal, and EPA's
response to the comments. EPA made a number of significant changes to
the proposal based on comments received, clarified some requirements,
and edited and reorganized some of the proposed regulatory language to
improve the presentation. EPA requested comment on all elements of the
proposed regulation. Comments were received from 53 individuals and
organizations, representing 22 States, 20 utilities, and 11
environmental organizations and public interest groups. Almost 200
people participated in at least one of the four public meetings hosted
by EPA to
[[Page 25986]]
take comment on the proposed regulation. The ``Response to Comments''
document, all the written comments, and the public meeting reports are
available for review at EPA's Water Docket (W-98-19). Copies are also
available by downloading the documents from EPA's website (www.epa.gov/
safewater/pws/pn/pn.html).
A. Purpose and Applicability
Today's rule revises the minimum requirements that public water
systems must meet regarding the form, manner, frequency, and content of
the public notification. Public water systems must give notice to
persons served for all violations of National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWR) and for other situations posing a risk to public
health from the drinking water. The term NPDWR Violations is used in
the public notification regulations to include violations of the
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
(MRDL), treatment technique (TT), monitoring, and testing procedure
requirements. Public notice is not required, for example, for violation
of the Consumer Confidence Report regulation. See Table 1 and Appendix
A of the final rule for the NPDWR violations and other situations
requiring a public notice. Violations and situations not listed in
Appendix A do not require a public notice under Subpart Q.
The rule applies to existing and new public water systems that
violate a NPDWR or have other situations that pose a risk to health
from the drinking water. A ``public water system,'' as defined in 40
CFR 141.2 , is ``a system for the provision to the public of water for
human consumption through pipes or * * * other constructed conveyances,
if such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly
serves at least twenty-five individuals daily at least 60 days out of
the year.'' Public water systems regulated under Part 141 may be
publicly-owned or privately-owned.
A public water system (PWS) is either a community water system
(CWS) or non-community water system (NCWS). A CWS, as defined in
Sec. 141.2, means ``a public water system which serves at least 15
service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at
least 25 year-round residents.'' A NCWS means ``a public water system
that is not a community water system.''
Non-community water systems are further broken out in the drinking
water regulations into transient non-community water systems (TWS) and
non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWS). A NTNCWS is defined
by EPA under Sec. 141.2 as ``a public water system that is not a
community water system and that regularly serves 25 of the same people
over six months of the year.'' An example is a school or business that
has its own water well. A TWS is defined by EPA under Sec. 141.2 as ``a
non-community water system that does not regularly serve 25 of the same
persons over six months of the year.'' An example is a roadside rest
stop with its own water well.
For illustration purposes, Table A provides a summary of the number
of public water systems, broken out by type of system, the number of
these systems with violations during fiscal year 1998, and the total
number of violations during the same period. The numbers have been
updated from those presented in the preamble of the proposed rule,
which were based on FY 1996 information in the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) in mid-1997.
Public water systems must meet the requirements of all NPDWRs in
effect. Currently, there are NPDWRs in effect covering 80 separate
contaminants. EPA has also published final regulations for the Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the Stage 1
Disinfection/Disinfectant Byproducts Rule (D/DBP), which will increase
the number of regulated contaminants to 88 once they go into effect.
There are also other regulations in progress that will increase the
number of regulated contaminants to over 90 contaminants by 2002.
Table A shows that 36,467 (21 percent) of the 170,376 PWS had one
or more violations in FY 1998. Overall, the 36,467 PWS with violations
committed a total of 128,459 violations in FY 1998. Over 86 percent (or
108,459) of these violations were for failure to monitor according to
the regulations. Although not all violations require a separate public
notice, each violation requires the PWS to comply with the public
notification requirements.
Table A.--Number of Public Water Systems (PWS) and Violations in FY 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of PWS
Type of PWS Number of PWS with Number of
violations violations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Community Water Systems (CWS)................................ 54,367 13,024 64,914
2. Non-transient Non-community Water Systems (NTNCWS)........... 20,255 4,672 27,785
3. Transient Non-community Water Systems (TWS).................. 95,754 18,771 35,760
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 170,376 36,467 128,459
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FY 1998 inventory and violation data from Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), January, 1999.
As shown in Table A, 54,367 (32 percent) of the public water
systems are CWSs. CWSs must comply with all NPDWRs in effect. CWSs
serve residential populations and range from large municipal systems
that serve millions of persons to small systems that serve fewer than
100 persons. CWSs can be further categorized as publicly-owned systems,
privately-owned systems, and systems that provide water as an ancillary
function of their principal purpose. In FY 1998, 13,024 CWSs committed
64,914 violations. Approximately 80 percent of community water systems
serve fewer than 3,300 people.
Of the public water systems, 20,255 (12 percent) are NTNCWS.
Virtually all NTNCWSs provide water as an ancillary function of their
principal purpose (for example, schools, day-care facilities,
factories). In general, NTNCWSs must comply with the same national
primary drinking water regulations as community water systems. During
FY 1998, 4,672 NTNCWSs committed 27,785 violations. Approximately 99
percent of NTNCWSs serve fewer than 3,300 people.
The rest of the regulated public water systems (95,754 systems or
56 percent) are TWSs. Virtually all TWSs provide water as an ancillary
function of their principal purpose (for example, highway rest stops,
gas stations, state parks). TWSs must comply only with specified
national primary drinking water regulations where short-term
[[Page 25987]]
exposure may pose a health threat--total coliform, nitrate, nitrite,
total nitrate and nitrite, and violations of the Surface Water
Treatment Rule. TWSs using surface water serving 10,000 persons or more
must also comply with the new Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (IESWTR) and certain provisions of the Stage 1 Disinfectant/
Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBP) rule when they go into effect starting
in 2002. TWSs using surface water serving less than 10,000 persons or
using ground water sources must comply with certain provisions of the
Stage 1 D/DBP rule by 2004. In FY 1998, 18,771 TWSs committed 35,760
violations. Over 99 percent of TWSs serve fewer than 3,300 people.
B. Effective Dates and Rationale
Today's Rule: The public notification rule provisions under Part
141, Subpart Q become effective June 5, 2000. However, public water
systems will continue to comply with the public notification
requirements under Sec. 141.32 until the date the new Subpart Q
regulations go into effect in each State, Territory, Tribe, or the
District of Columbia. EPA has set different compliance deadlines based
on whether EPA or the State (or Territory or Tribe) has primary
enforcement authority (``primacy'') for the public water system
supervision program. As of today's rule, States (or Territories) have
primacy in all jurisdictions except Wyoming, the District of Columbia,
and on Indian lands. EPA directly implements the public water system
supervision programs in Wyoming, Washington, D.C., and on all Indian
lands. The term ``primacy agency'' is used in the final public
notification rule to refer to either EPA or the State (or Territory or
Tribe) in cases where EPA, or the State, Territory, or Tribe, exercises
primary enforcement responsibility for the Subpart Q public
notification. The term ``State'' is used throughout the rule to apply
to States, Territories, Tribes, and the District of Columbia.
Public water systems in primacy States must continue to comply with
the public notification requirements under Sec. 141.32 until May 6,
2002 or until the date the State's revised regulation under its
approved primacy program becomes effective, whichever comes first. The
two-year period matches the maximum time period allowed for States
under the primacy regulations (40 CFR Part 142, Subpart B) to adopt new
and revised National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). EPA
believes it is appropriate to make the effective date in primacy States
consistent with the basic two-year time primacy revision period.
Coordinating the phase-in of the new public notification requirements
with the State adoption of the revised regulations in each State will
avoid the potential confusion of having different State and EPA
requirements in effect in the State at the same time. Although States
are free to wait the full two years to adopt the new rule, EPA strongly
encourages States to consider early adoption in order to combine the
public notification rule and the Consumer Confidence Report rule into
one primacy revision package or to otherwise take early advantage of
the efficiencies in today's rule.
Public water systems in jurisdictions where the drinking water
program is directly implemented by EPA must continue to comply with the
public notification requirements under Sec. 141.32 until October 31,
2000. EPA believes that setting the compliance date for the new rule at
180 days after publication is appropriate and achievable for public
water systems in the jurisdictions directly implemented by EPA. Six
months after publication of the final rule is sufficient time for EPA
and the water systems to adjust their operating procedures to comply
with the new requirements. Early implementation will enable the water
systems to take advantage of the efficiencies in the new regulation as
early as possible, leading to a more effective public notification
program.
In practical terms, the different compliance dates allowed under
this rule mean that the new requirements will go into effect at
different times nationwide, based on the speed of the State adoption of
the new requirements and whether EPA or the State directly implements
the program. Regardless of the State primacy situation, the latest the
rule will go into effect in any State will be May 6, 2002, even in
those States that request and are granted an extension to adopt the
revised regulation beyond the basic two-year primacy revision time
period.
The final public notification rule applies to new and existing
violations and situations after the date public water systems must
comply with the new rule. However, EPA is not requiring that public
water systems provide initial public notices under the new rule where
the initial public notice has already been given under the regulations
in place at the time. However, unless the primacy agency makes a
different determination on a case-by-case basis, the new rule will
apply to repeat notices for existing violations or for any public
notice requirements applying to ongoing violations after the new rule
is in effect.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA had asked for comment on the
proposed effective dates and solicited suggestions on other options to
put the new regulations into effect earlier. Several comments were
received on the proposed effective date, all in support of the two-year
period allowed for water systems in primacy States.
EPA Response to Comments: The two-year effective date in the final
rule for water systems in primacy States is identical to what was
proposed. The final rule does, however, change the proposed effective
date for water systems in drinking water programs directly implemented
by EPA from 90 days after publication to 180 days after publication.
The shift from 90 days to 180 days was a result of a strong concern
raised during discussions on the proposed rule that 90 days gave EPA
insufficient time to effectively make the transition from the existing
program to the new program in areas where it directly implements the
program. EPA believes the change to 180 days in the final rule better
fits the time period needed to shift to the new program under the
revised regulations.
C. Summary of Changes to Current Public Notification Requirements
The final rule is a significant revision from the public
notification regulation under Sec. 141.32 of this part, which has been
in effect since 1989. The regulation under Sec. 141.32 is referred to
throughout the preamble as the ``current rule.'' The reason EPA chose
to refer to the rule under Sec. 141.32, which will be replaced by
today's action, as the ``current rule'' is because it will continue to
apply to some water systems for up to two years after publication of
today's rule. Table B is a summary of the major differences between the
current rule and the final revised rule.
[[Page 25988]]
Table B.--Summary of Differences Between Revised PN Rule and Current
Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised PN rule
Statutory authority (SDWA, Current rule (Sec. (part 141, subpart
as amended in 1996) 141.32) Q)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1414(c)(1), Each owner or (Sec. 141.32(a) and (Secs. 141.201(a)
operator of a PWS shall (b)) Owner or and 141.202(a))
give notice of NPDWR operators of PWSs Includes violations
violations, levels of must notify persons from current rule
unregulated contaminants, served by the and adds broader
and existence of a variance system for the definition of
or exemption to the persons following waterborne disease
served by the system. violations/ outbreak and other
situations:. waterborne
Maximum contaminant emergencies, adds
levels (MCL). new IESWTR and DBP
Treatment technique standards, moves
Testing procedure.. fluoride SMCL and
Monitoring......... nitrate exceedances
Operation under a of the MCL for NCWS
variance or when allowed by
exemption. primacy agency
Noncompliance with under 141.11(d),
variance or failure to take
exemption schedule.. confirmation sample
for nitrate, and
unregulated
contaminant
monitoring public
notices from other
parts of the
regulations. Adds a
new Appendix A to
the rule listing
all violations and
situations where
public notification
is required.
(Sec. 141.201(c))
Requires water
systems to notify
owners or operators
of consecutive
systems. Also
allows primacy
agencies to permit
systems to limit
distribution of the
notice if the
violation is in a
portion of the
distribution system
that is physically
or hydraulically
isolated from other
parts of the
system.
1414(c)(2)(A), Manner, (Secs. 141.32(a)(1) (Sec. 141.201(b))
frequency, and form are (iii) and 141.32(a) Tiers are defined
prescribed based on and (b)) There is a based on
seriousness and frequency three-tier system, seriousness of the
of violations. although tiers are violation or
not named. situation and of
Public notices are potential health
divided into three effects, and all
tiers: violations violations or
of MCLs that may situations are
pose an acute risk assigned to a tier
to human health; (Appendix A).
MCLs, treatment Tier 1 notice for
technique, and violations or
variance or situations with
exemption schedule significant
violations; and potential to have
other violations serious adverse
(including effects on human
monitoring) and health as a result
operation under a of short-term
variance or exposure;
exemption.. Tier 2 notice for
all other
violations or
situations with
potential to have
serious adverse
effects on human
health; and
Tier 3 notice for
all other
violations and
situations not
included in Tier 1
and Tier 2.
1414(c)(2)(C)(iii), Notice (Sec. 141.31(d)) (Sec. 141.31(d))
must be provided to System must provide Revised to require
Administrator or primacy a copy of the PWS to submit to
agency. notice to the State the primacy agency
within 10 days. within 10 days a
certification, with
copies of the
notices, for both
the initial notice
cycle and all
repeat notice
cycles.
(Secs. 141.202(b)(2
) and
141.203(b)(3)) New
sections added to
require
consultation with
primacy agency
within 24 hours for
violations or
situations
requiring a Tier 1
notice and for
violations of the
turbidity MCL of 5
NTU or a treatment
technique resulting
from a single
exceedance of
turbidity limits.
1414(c)(2)(C)(1), For (Sec. 141.32(a)(1)( (Sec. 141.202) Tier
violations with potential iii)(A)-(D) Acute 1 notice--
to have serious adverse violations include. Violations and
effects on human health as (1) Any violations situations include
a result of short-term specified by State. those defined as
exposure, notice must be (2) Nitrate/nitrite acute in the
distributed as soon as MCLs. current rule, plus:
practicable but no later (3) Fecal coliform/ an expanded
than 24 hours after the E. coli. definition of
occurrence of the violation. (4) Waterborne waterborne disease
disease outbreak in outbreak to include
unfiltered systems all water systems
subject to Surface and to add other
Water Treatment waterborne
Rule.. emergencies;
violations of the
maximum turbidity
limit where
determined by the
primacy agency or
where consultation
between the system
and the primacy
agency does not
occur within 24
hours; chlorine
dioxide MRDL
violation under new
DBP rule where
samples taken in
the distribution
system exceed the
standard or where
repeat samples are
not taken in the
distribution system
when required;
violation of the
testing procedures
to determine if
fecal coliform is
present after any
repeat sample tests
positive for
coliform;
violations of
combined nitrate
and nitrite MCL;
and failure to take
a confirmation
sample for nitrate
within 24 hours
when initial sample
exceeds MCL.
[[Page 25989]]
Under Sec. 141.209,
Tier 1 notice is
also required for
exceedance of the
nitrate MCL by NCWS
where permitted to
exceed the MCL by
the primacy agency.
Provide copy of Timing revised to
notice to radio and require notice
TV stations within within 24 hours;
72 hours, or by must use at a
posting or hand minimum electronic
delivery within 72 media, posting,
hours. Posting must hand delivery, or
continue as long as other method
the violation approved by the
persists. primacy agency,
plus any additional
methods necessary
to reach all
persons served.
Additional notices: Revised to not
by newspaper within require additional
14 days or posting notices for same
or hand delivery if violation,
no newspaper is deferring instead
available; by mail to the primacy
within 45 days (may agency to set
be waived if state additional
determines requirements
violation has been (including
corrected); and additional notices)
repeat notice every on a case-by-case
three months basis.
thereafter.
1414(c)(2)(D)(1), (Sec. 141.32)(a)) (Sec. 141.203) Tier
Regulations shall specify For MCL, treatment 2 notice includes
notification procedures for technique, and those described in
violations other than Tier variance or Sec. 141.32(a) of
1; notice shall be in exemption schedule the current rule,
written form. violations. plus the new
standards under the
IESWTR and DBP
rules, and serious
and persistent
monitoring and
testing procedure
violations, as
determined by the
primacy agency.
By newspaper within Revised under Sec.
14 days or by 141.203(b) to
posting or hand require notice
delivery if no within 30 days
newspaper is unless the primacy
available. agency allows an
extension of up to
three months in
appropriate
circumstances.
Extensions will not
be allowed for any
unresolved
violations, nor
will automatic
``across-the-
board'' extensions
for the remaining
violations be
allowed. Unless
primacy agency
directs otherwise,
CWS must use mail
or direct delivery,
and other methods
reasonably
calculated to reach
persons served.
NCWS must use
posting (for as
long as violation
persists or for at
least seven days),
direct delivery, or
mail, and other
methods reasonably
calculated to reach
persons served.
Also requires
systems to consult
the primacy agency
within 24 hours of
learning of an
exceedance of
maximum turbidity
limits.
Additional notices: The initial notice
by mail within 45 does not require
days (may be waived multiple methods of
if State determines delivery unless
violation has been needed to reach
corrected), and persons served.
repeat notice every Repeat notice
three months required every
thereafter by mail three months where
or hand delivery. violation persists,
unless the primacy
agency determines
less frequent
repeat notice (no
less frequent than
annually) is
warranted in
appropriate
circumstances.
Primacy agencies
may not allow less
frequent repeat
notices for
microbiological
violations, nor
will automatic
``across-the-
board'' decreases
in frequency be
allowed for the
remaining
violations. Method
of delivery for
repeat notice will
be the same as that
required for
initial notices.
(Sec. 141.32(b), (Sec. 141.204) The
For monitoring and violations and
testing procedure situations
violations, and requiring a Tier 3
operation under notice are the same
variance or as those described
exemption. in Sec. 141.32(b)
of current rule.
Tier 3 notice is
also required to
announce the
availability of
unregulated
contaminant
monitoring results
as required under
Sec. 141.207; and
for exceedances of
the SMCL for
fluoride as
required under Sec.
141.208.
[[Page 25990]]
By newspaper within Revised to require
three months of the notice within one
violation or the year. Unless
granting of primacy agency
variance or directs otherwise,
exemption, or by CWS must use mail
hand delivery or or direct delivery,
posting if no and other methods
newspaper is reasonably
available. State calculated to reach
may allow less persons served.
frequent public NCWS must use
notice (up to 1 posting (for as
year) for minor long as violation
monitoring persists or minimum
violations. of seven days),
direct delivery, or
mail, and other
methods reasonably
calculated to reach
persons served.
Consumer Confidence
reports (CCRs) or
other annual
reports may be
used, as long as
notice in CCR meets
PN requirements.
Repeat notice every Repeat notice
three months annually; method of
thereafter by mail delivery must be
or hand delivery. the same as in the
initial notice.
Notice to new billing units (Sec. 141.32(c)) (Sec. 141.206)
or new customers (not in Community water Revised to require
statute). system must give a notice for any
copy of the most outstanding
recent public violation or
notice for any situation requiring
outstanding notice, including
violation of any monitoring and
MCL, any treatment testing procedure
technique violations.
requirement, or any
V&E schedule.
Revised to require
non-community water
systems to keep
notice posted for
as long as
violation persists,
even if notice was
initially hand-
delivered or
otherwise
distributed.
1414(c)(2)(C)(ii) and (Sec. 141.32(d)) (Sec. 141.205) Adds
1414(c)(2)(D)(ii), Content Each notice must ``when violation or
of notices. provide a clear situation was
explanation of the found'' and ``when
violation, system expects to
potential health return to
effects, population compliance or
at risk, steps resolve the
being taken to situation'' to
correct violation, content elements.
telephone number of New requirement to
the owner, include
operator, or ``contaminant
designee of the level.'' Adds name
public water and business
system, necessity address to phone
for seeking number of operator.
alternative water Adds new element
supplies, if any, requiring standard
and any preventive language, where
measures consumers applicable, asking
should take until bill paying
the violation is customers to
corrected. provide copies of
notice to other
persons served who
may not have
received the notice
directly from the
PWS.
Also, adds minimum
content elements
for notices of
operation under
variance or
exemption, which
parallel CCR
requirements. No
longer requires
health effects
language for
operation under a
variance or
exemption.
(Sec. 141.32(e)) (New Appendix B)
Systems must Revises standard
include standard health effects
health effects language, using
language for MCL, language identical
treatment to the CCR rule.
technique, variance
or exemption
schedule
violations, and
operation under a
variance or
exemption.
Adds standard
language for
monitoring and
testing procedure
violations.
Providing notice in other (Sec. 141.32(d)) (Sec. 141.205(c)(2)
languages (not in statute). Systems must ) Revised to
provide require that
multilingual notices contain
notices ``where information in the
appropriate''. appropriate
language(s)
regarding the
importance of the
notice or contain a
telephone number or
address so people
can obtain a
translated copy or
request assistance
in the appropriate
language, if system
serves a large
proportion of non-
English speaking
consumers. Systems
must determine what
constitutes a
``large
proportion'' if
primacy agency does
not make a
determination.
Special notice for (Sec. 141.32(f)) (Sec. 141.208)
exceedance of Fluoride Notice of SMCL Moved to new
Secondary Maximum exceedances between Subpart Q (deletes
Contaminant Level (SMCL) 2 mg/l and 4 mg/l Sec. 143.5);
(not in statute). (the MCL level) mandatory language
required within 12 is simplified.
mos.; shall contain
language in Sec.
143.5(b).
Special notice for Public notice is (Sec. 141.209)
exceedance of nitrate MCL required as part of Incorporates public
for NCWS (not in statute). Sec. 141.11(d). notice requirements
Sec. 141.11(d) in Sec. 141.11(d)
allows NCWS to have to new Subpart Q,
nitrate levels requiring the PN to
above MCL> (10 mg/ follow Tier 1
l), up to 20 mg/l, notice requirements
if State approves and content
and if they post requirements in
and meet other Sec. 141.205;
conditions. changes Sec.
141.11(d) to cross
reference the
Subpart Q PN
requirement.
[[Page 25991]]
Public notice by primacy (Sec. 141.32(g)) (Sec. 141.210 ) No
agency (not in statute). The State may give change.
notice to the
public on behalf of
the public water
system if the State
complies with the
requirements of
Sec. 141.32.
However, the owner
or operator of the
public water system
remains legally
responsible.
1414(c)(2)(E) Administrator (Sec. 141.35(d)) (Sec. 141.207)
may require notice of Written notice of Revised to require
levels of unregulated availability of notice of
contaminants monitored results within availability of
under section 1445(a). three months after results within 12
system receives months, following
results (surface Tier 3 delivery
water systems only requirements;
need to notify deletes Sec.
after the first 141.35(d).
quarter of
monitoring).
1414(c)(2)(B) States may (Sec. 142.10(a)) (Sec. 142.10(a)) No
establish alternative Authority to change.
notification requirements. require public
water systems to
give public notice
that is no less
stringent than the
EPA requirements in
Secs. 141.32 and
142.16(a).
(Sec. 142.16(a)) If (Sec. 142.16(a))
the state chooses Deletes current
to decrease notice requirement. Allows
frequency for minor primacy agencies to
monitoring establish
violations it must alternative public
submit to EPA the notification
criteria used to requirements with
decide the respect to form and
decreased frequency content of notice,
and which consistent with
violations are 1414(c)(2)(B) of
minor, and it must 1996 SDWA
submit the new amendments, as long
notice requirements. as they provide
same type and
amount of
information.
New Sec.
142.16(a)(2) added
to require State to
include in primacy
program enforceable
requirements and
procedures when
State augments its
program to take
advantage of the
flexibilities built
into EPA's rule.
List of special
primacy
requirements
included in Sec.
142.16(a)(2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. ``Plain Language'' Format of Final Rule
Today's Rule: As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule,
EPA has formatted Subpart Q of these regulations in question-and-answer
format and made other changes in format and language, consistent with
the requirements outlined in the June 1, 1998 memorandum sent by
President Clinton to all Federal agencies, to take steps to improve
both the clarity and comprehension of regulatory language. The intent
of ``plain language'' is to produce rules which are clear, concise,
straight-forward, understandable, and enforceable without extensive
``legalese.'' The current public notification rule, in particular, has
been criticized by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and others as
being too complex and confusing to implement. This criticism was viewed
by GAO in its 1992 report as one of the reasons the public notification
process is ineffective.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the new
format and solicited ideas on ways to make the public notification
regulation more readable by the regulated community. In general,
commenters supported the new format, finding it a significant
improvement from the current rule.
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule is consistent with the
overall ``plain language'' strategy incorporated into the proposed
rule. EPA has made minor formatting and language changes in response to
specific comments that improve the overall presentation.
E. General Provisions of Final Rule (Sec. 141.201)
Today's final rule replaces the existing public notification
regulation with an entirely new subpart (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q),
which incorporates the new provisions under sections 1414(c)(1) and
(c)(2) of the SDWA, as amended in 1996. The final rule streamlines the
requirements to more effectively meet the objectives of the public
notification process. Today's final rule revises the existing public
notification requirements:
To tailor the public notification requirements to address
the potential risk from the violations, with particular focus on the
notice for violations posing the greatest potential risk to public
health;
To simplify the requirements and make them more self-
implementing, allowing water systems to understand and implement their
public notification obligation without further interpretation;
To give greater latitude to States to develop alternative
programs to meet their unique needs and to provide greater flexibility
to public water systems to tailor distribution of the notice to best
reach persons served;
To better integrate the public notification requirements
for less serious violations with the annual Consumer Confidence Report
(CCR) for community water systems and with other annual reporting
mechanisms for non-community water systems; and
To reduce the burden on water systems of complying with
the public notification requirements.
1. Who Must Give Public Notice?
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.201(a) requires owners
and operators of public water systems to give notice to persons they
serve for all violations of national primary drinking water regulations
(NPDWRs), when they are operating under a variance or exemption (or
violate conditions of the variance or exemption), and for waterborne
emergencies and other specified situations posing a potential risk to
public health. The violation categories and other situations requiring
a public notice are identified in the final rule in Table 1 to
Sec. 141.201 and Appendix A of Subpart Q.
[[Page 25992]]
The final rule makes several changes to the current public notice
regulatory language to improve the clarity and understanding of when a
public notice is required. Appendix A provides a complete reference
guide (including regulatory citations) to all violations and situations
requiring a public notice. Not all violations under the EPA drinking
water regulations require a public notice. For instance, public notices
are not required for violations of the reporting regulations under
Sec. 141.31 and other Part 141 sections. Public notices are also not
required for violations of the Consumer Confidence Report regulations
under Subpart O of Part 141. Appendix A will be updated as new NPDWRs
are promulgated or when other situations arise where a public notice is
required. A public notice is only required for the violations or other
situations listed in Appendix A.
Several other changes were made to Table 1 to Sec. 141.201 in
today's rule modifying the violations and situations requiring a public
notice:
Special public notice provisions already required in the
current regulations, but not included in the current public
notification regulations under Sec. 141.32, are added to the list of
violations and situations requiring a public notice in Table 1 to
Sec. 141.201. These special public notice provisions include: The
notice requirements for exceedance of the fluoride secondary maximum
contaminant level (SMCL) under the existing Sec. 143.5; the requirement
to give notice of the availability of unregulated contaminant
monitoring results originally found under Sec. 141.35; and the public
notice required of non-community water systems under the current
Sec. 141.11(d) for exceedances of the MCL of 10 mg/l for nitrate (up to
20 mg/l) without receiving a violation. These changes are discussed in
Section IV.J of the preamble related to special public notices.
The existing requirement to give notice for waterborne
disease outbreaks under the Surface Water Treatment Rule is broadened
and clarified to include a requirement for a public notice for any
waterborne disease outbreak and other waterborne emergencies. This
change is discussed in Section IV.F.1 of the preamble related to Tier 1
public notices.
A new requirement is added that explicitly incorporates
additional public notice requirements as determined by the primacy
agency for other violations and situations not explicitly listed in
Appendix A of Subpart Q. This enables the primacy agency to broaden the
applicability of the public notice regulation to any situation it deems
important.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA asked for comment on the
proposal to add explicit regulatory language enabling the primacy
agency to require public notification for other situations it believes
have the potential for serious health risk. EPA also asked for comment
on its proposal to present in tabular form all the situations requiring
a public notice and its plans to update Appendix A as new rules are
published. In general, commenters strongly supported the addition of
Appendix A to the revised regulation and the flexibility explicitly
allowed the primacy agency to require public notices beyond those
listed in Appendix A.
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule is consistent with what
was proposed. Other than several minor formatting and wording changes
to improve the presentation, the only significant change to what was
proposed was to revise the proposed Table 1 to Sec. 141.201(a) to
conform to the changes made in other sections of the rule. Table 1 to
Sec. 141.201(a) now includes other situations requiring a Tier 1 notice
under Sec. 141.202(a) that were added in response to comments. These
changes to the Tier 1 requirements are discussed in Sections IV.F.1 and
IV.J of the preamble.
2. What Type of Public Notice Is Required for Each Situation?
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.201(b) divides the
public notice requirements into three tiers:
Tier 1 Public Notice, for violations and situations with
significant potential to have serious adverse effects on human health
as a result of short-term exposure;
Tier 2 Public Notice, for other violations and situations
with potential to have serious adverse effects on human health; and
Tier 3 Public Notice, for all other violations and
situations requiring a public notice not included in Tier 1 and Tier 2.
The form, manner, and frequency of the public notice is determined
by the tier to which the violation or situation is assigned. Appendix A
assigns each violation and situation to one of the three tiers. The
specific requirements for the public notice in each tier are defined
under Secs. 141.202, 141.203, and 141.204.
EPA is establishing the three-tier approach to public notification
to be consistent with the intent of the new public notification
provisions in the 1996 SDWA amendments. Section 1414(c)(2)(A) directs
the Administrator to issue regulations that provide for different
frequencies of notice based on the differences between intermittent and
persistent violations and the seriousness of any potential adverse
health effects. Section 1414(c)(2)(C) sets very specific requirements
for violations with the potential to have serious adverse effects on
human health from short-term exposure. This includes a new requirement
that such notices be distributed to persons served no later than 24
hours after the occurrence of the violation. Section 1414(c)(2)(D)
requires EPA to define in its regulations the notification procedures
for all violations not included under subparagraph (C). This section
requires that such procedures specify that the water system provide
written notice to each person served in either: (1) The first bill
prepared, if any, after the violation; (2) in an annual report issued
no later than one year after the violation; or (3) by mail or direct
delivery as soon as practicable, but no later than one year after the
violation.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on whether a
two-or three-tiered structure would be more appropriate for the final
EPA regulation and what the advantages and disadvantages of the
preferred tier structure would be. All but three of the twenty
commenters supported the three-tier structure.
EPA Response to Comments: EPA made no changes in the final rule to
what was proposed under Section 141.201(b). In response to the three
commenters preferring a two-tier notice structure, EPA believes that a
three-tier approach is more appropriate than a two-tier approach
because it provides more effective tailoring of the public notice
requirements based on the seriousness of any potential health effects
and is still relatively simple and straightforward to implement.
Violations span a wide range of potential health risks. A ``middle-
tier'' public notice requirement between the 24-hour notice and the
annual notice is appropriate for those lower-tier violations and
situations that may have the potential for serious adverse effects on
human health, but are not significant or urgent enough to require an
emergency notice. EPA believes a three-tier system of public
notification effectively separates the form, manner, content, and
frequency of public notice based on the seriousness of any potential
adverse health effects. The three-tier system also meets the clear
objectives and purposes of public notification, is simple and
straightforward to implement, and meets the requirements of the
statute.
[[Page 25993]]
3. Who Must Be Notified?
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.201(c) requires that
each public water system provide public notice to persons served by the
water system. EPA believes that consumers have a right to know in a
timely manner whenever violations occur that may affect them, to allow
them to make their own choices about using drinking water, based on
their own perceived risk. This is consistent with the statutory
requirement under the SDWA, which requires that public notice be
provided to ``the persons served by the system.'' (SDWA, Section
1414(c)(1)). In response to comments on the proposal, EPA in the final
rule has clarified the requirement in three ways.
First, EPA interprets the obligation of the water system to reach
persons served to extend beyond bill-paying customers and service
connections to all consumers of the system's drinking water. This is
defined in the final rule to require that water systems provide the
notice in a form and manner ``reasonably calculated to reach persons
served.'' EPA recognizes that reaching the persons served beyond the
bill-paying customers and service connections may pose a challenge to
some water systems. Some consumers (such as apartment dwellers, other
renters, university students, prison inmates, and condominium
residents) may not be the persons paying the water bill or be otherwise
linked to the service connection address. The form and manner of the
public notice necessary to reach all the persons served depends on the
local situation. To illustrate how EPA interprets the breadth of this
obligation, EPA has added examples in the rule language under
Secs. 141.202(c), 141.203(c), and 141.204(c) outlining what additional
efforts it expects of public water systems to reach persons other than
the bill-payers or the service connection addresses.
EPA has also added standard language under Sec. 141.205(d)(3) for
water systems to use in their public notices (where applicable) to
encourage those receiving the notice to distribute it to other persons
who may drink the water. Examples where the use of this standard
distribution language would apply include notices that are sent to
apartment and condominium managers, building managers or physical plant
superintendents, or others who receive the notice who provide drinking
water to others.
Second, language under Sec. 141.201(c)(a)(1) has been added to
define the public notice obligation of public water systems that sell
or otherwise provide drinking water to other public water systems.
These ``parent'' systems are responsible for providing public notice of
the violation or situation to the owner or operator of the
``consecutive'' systems to whom they sell water, but they are not
required under the rule to distribute the notice to persons served by
the consecutive system. Although different public notice arrangements
are sometimes made between the parent and consecutive system, the
consecutive system is the water system responsible under this rule for
delivering the notice to the persons it serves. Although the legal
obligation is clear under the rule, EPA recommends that each
consecutive water system in its contract with the parent system agree
on the most effective approach for distributing public notices. EPA
will give examples of such agreements in the Public Notification
Handbook.
Third, language under Sec. 141.201(c)(2) has been added to enable
the primacy agency, at its option, to make exceptions to the system-
wide notice requirement if specific regulatory criteria are met. The
new language will allow a water system to limit distribution of the
notice to those persons served by a portion of the distribution system
impacted by the violation, where the water system is able to
demonstrate that the affected portion of the system is physically or
hydraulically isolated from all other parts of the distribution system.
This replaces the more limited discretion given to primacy agencies in
the current rule, which allows less than system-wide notice for
violation of EPA's chemical standards only when the elevated
contaminant levels are contained in a separable portion of the
distribution system with no interconnections. Today's rule broadens the
allowable exceptions to a system-wide notice by adding ``hydraulically
isolated'' to the exception criteria. Although not open-ended, the
amended language recognizes situations other than physical separation
where there is clear and certain evidence that persons served by a
portion of the distribution system have no chance of being affected by
the violation.
To meet EPA's criterion that a portion of the distribution system
must be physically isolated to be eligible for an exception to the
system-wide notice requirement, a system must show the primacy agency
that the affected portion is separated from other parts of the
distribution system with no interconnections. Because of the physical
separation, the elevated contaminant levels contained in only that
portion of the system would have no bearing on the contaminant levels
in other parts of the system. In such a situation, EPA believes a
primacy agency may permit an exception to system-wide notice. These
exceptions to system-wide notice are already allowed in the current
rule for violations of the chemical standards under Secs. 141.23(i)(4),
141.24(f)(15)(iii), and (h)(11)(iii). Today's rule incorporates this
exception criteria into Sec. 141.201(c)(2).
To meet EPA's criterion that a portion of the distribution system
must be hydraulically isolated to be eligible for an exception to the
system-wide notice requirement, a system must show that the water in
the affected portion is separated from the water in all other parts of
the distribution system because the projected water flow patterns and
water pressure zones effectively isolate the water to that portion of
the system. This hydraulic isolation can result from the design of the
distribution system (e.g., pressure zones, backflow prevention devices)
or be created through system operation (e.g., flow control). An example
associated with the Total Coliform Rule is the presence of E. coli
downstream from a pipe break that the system can demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the primacy agency, led to the entry of fecal
contamination, and that the water downstream from the break does not
flow into any other part of the distribution system. Another example,
related to a chemical standard (e.g., nitrate, fluoride), is a
situation where contaminant levels exceeding the MCL are shown to be
from a single source and found only in the distribution main leading
from that source. The water system in this situation may be eligible
for an exception if it could demonstrate, using other monitoring
information and distribution flow modeling, that exceedances above the
MCL could only be found in the single distribution main because of
water flow patterns and pressure zones (the ``hydraulics'') under all
operational scenarios. For both of these examples, the decision on
whether to permit an exception to the system-wide notice requirement
rests solely with the primacy agency.
Primacy agencies seeking authority to grant exceptions to the
system-wide notice requirement must meet the special primacy conditions
under Sec. 142.16(a)(2) in their approved primacy program. Decisions by
the primacy agency to permit exceptions must be in writing and
otherwise documented based on use of the regulatory criteria in today's
rule. EPA recognizes that there are other situations where the water
system has evidence that not all the
[[Page 25994]]
persons served by the system are affected equally by the violation. In
these situations, EPA expects the water system to tailor the language
in the public notice its sends system-wide, to communicate who is at
most risk from the violation and who is at minimal risk. All such
notices, unless the water system is granted an exception by the primacy
agency, are required to be distributed system-wide according to the
requirements in this part.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA asked for comments on its
interpretation of who must be notified under the SDWA and the proposed
rule. A substantial number of commenters recommended that EPA allow
exceptions to the proposed (and current) requirement that the notice go
to persons served by the entire system, particularly where it is clear
that only a portion of the persons served are affected by the
violation. Other commenters asked EPA to clarify how far the water
system must go to ensure that its notice reaches all persons served.
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule reaffirms the statutory
language that water systems provide the public notice to persons served
by the entire system. In response to comments, however, the final rule
now includes language enabling the primacy agency, at its option, to
make exceptions to the system-wide notice requirement where the
violation is shown to be due to exceedances in a portion of the system
that is physically or hydraulically isolated from the rest of the
system. EPA also added language in the final rule to respond to
requests that EPA clarify public notice responsibilities for persons
selling water to other water systems (i.e., ``consecutive systems'').
Several commenters requested that EPA change the distribution
requirement from ``persons served by the system'' to ``persons
affected,'' to allow less than system-wide notice where the available
evidence indicates that the violation affects only a portion of the
persons served by the system. EPA disagrees with changing the baseline
requirement to distribute notices of all violations system-wide,
because EPA strongly believes that consumers have a right-to-know in a
timely manner when violations occur that may affect them. In situations
where evidence indicates that not all persons served are affected
equally by the violation, EPA expects the water system to tailor the
language in the public notice to communicate who is at most risk and
what actions they should take, not to limit the notice distribution
based on relative risk. EPA does agree, however, that exceptions to the
system-wide notice distribution may be warranted when the contaminant
exceedances are shown to be contained exclusively in an isolated
portion of the distribution system. In such a situation, only those
persons served by that portion of the system are affected. Accordingly,
EPA has added language in the final rule allowing the primacy agency to
grant exceptions, at its option, where the violation is shown to be due
to exceedances in a portion of the system that is physically or
hydraulically isolated from the rest of the system.
Several other commenters gave examples of situations where they
believed a system-wide notice is unwarranted. EPA believes the language
added in the final rule effectively addresses these comments by
allowing exceptions to the system-wide requirement, at the primacy
agencies discretion, when the system can demonstrate that specific
engineering and hydraulic criteria are met. EPA's intent in adding the
language is explained earlier in this preamble section. EPA's detailed
response to specific comments on this provision is contained in the
``Response to Comments'' document contained in the docket for this
rule.
F. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the Tier 1 Public Notice: Violations
and Situations With Significant Potential to Have Serious Adverse
Effects on Human Health as a Result of Short-Term Exposure
(Sec. 141.202)
1. Tier 1 Violations and Situations
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.202(a) requires a Tier
1 public notice for specific violation categories and other situations.
The list of violations requiring a Tier 1 public notice in today's rule
includes all violations in the current rule defined as posing acute
health effects. In addition, a number of new violations and situations
have been added to those already required under the current regulation.
Tier 1 notice requirements under the final rule are required for:
Violation of the MCL for total coliform, when fecal
coliform or E. coli are present in the water distribution system, or
when the water system fails to test for fecal coliforms or E. coli
after any repeat sample tests positive for coliform. Failure to test
for fecal coliform or E. coli is not defined as an acute violation
requiring a 72-hour notice in the current rule.
Violation of the MCL for nitrate, nitrite, or total
nitrate and nitrite, or when a water system fails to take a
confirmation sample within 24 hours of the system's receipt of the
first sample showing exceedance of the nitrate or nitrite MCL.
Violation of the total nitrate and nitrite MCL and the failure to take
a required confirmation sample are not defined as acute violations in
the current rule.
Exceedance of the nitrate MCL by non-community water
systems (NCWSs), where permitted to exceed the MCL by the primacy
agency under the criteria established under Sec. 141.11(d). The
authority given by primacy agencies under Sec. 141.11(d) to allow NCWS
to exceed the MCL level of 10 mg/l (up to 20 mg/l) is unchanged by
today's action. The final public notification rule incorporates the
public notice requirements for qualifying NCWSs into a new special
public notice under Sec. 141.209. Qualifying NCWS must follow the Tier
1 notice requirements. This existing requirement is not explicitly
incorporated into the current public notice rule.
Violation of the MRDL for chlorine dioxide, where one or
more samples taken in the distribution system the day following an
exceedance of the MRDL at the entrance of the distribution system
exceed the MRDL. A Tier 1 notice is also required when the water system
does not take required samples in the distribution system. These are
new Tier 1 notice requirements incorporated from the Stage 1 D/DBP rule
published on December 16, 1998 (63 FR 69390).
Violation of the turbidity MCL under Sec. 141.13(b) or a
violation of the SWTR and IESWTR treatment technique requirements
resulting from a single exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity
level, where the primacy agency determines after consultation initiated
by the water system that a Tier 1 public notice is required. Violations
resulting from exceedance of these turbidity limits will routinely
require a Tier 2 notice except where the primacy agency determines,
after consultation, that a Tier 1 notice is required for the specific
situation. The consultation requirement under Sec. 141.203(b)(3) is
triggered whenever these specific turbidity violations occur.
Consultation must take place as soon as practical but no later than 24
hours after the violation is known. If the water system is unable to
consult with the primacy agency within the 24-hour period, the public
notice requirement is automatically elevated to a Tier 1. Where the
notice requirement is elevated to a Tier 1, the public water system
must distribute the notice as soon as practical but no later than the
subsequent 24-hour period after the Tier 1 requirement is known (i.e.,
no later than 48 hours after the
[[Page 25995]]
public water system first learns of the violation). This provision is
not included in the current rule.
Occurrence of a waterborne disease outbreak, as defined in
Section 141.2, and other waterborne emergencies. This is an expanded
Tier 1 notice requirement from that required under the current rule,
which is limited to outbreaks related to violations of the Surface
Water Treatment Rule for unfiltered systems. Today's final rule adds an
explicit reference to Sec. 141.2 to clarify the definition of
waterborne disease outbreaks requiring a Tier 1 public notice. The
following definition of a waterborne disease outbreak is in Sec. 141.2:
Waterborne disease outbreak means the significant occurrence of
acute infectious illness, epidemiologically associated with the
ingestion of water from a public water system which is deficient in
treatment, as determined by the appropriate local or state agency.
Today's final rule also adds ``other waterborne emergencies'' to the
list of situations requiring a public notice. The definition of
``waterborne emergency'' is illustrated in the final rule by example,
but EPA's intent is to have the Tier 1 public notice requirement apply
to any waterborne emergency (whether a violation or not) with
significant potential to pose adverse health effects from short-term
exposure. The examples in the final rule to illustrate this include,
but are not limited to: Failure or significant interruption in key
water treatment processes, a natural disaster that disrupts the water
supply or distribution system, or a chemical spill or unexpected
loading of possible pathogens into the source water that significantly
increases the potential for drinking water contamination.
Other violations or situations with significant potential
to have serious adverse health effects from short-term exposure, as
determined by the primacy agency. This enables the primacy agency to
elevate to Tier 1 other violations and situations not specifically
identified as requiring a Tier 1 notice in Appendix A, when necessary
to protect public health. The final rule allows the primacy agency to
elevate either violations or situations; the current rule applies only
to ``violations.''
EPA has limited its list of violations and situations routinely
requiring a Tier 1 notice to those with a significant potential for
serious adverse health effects from short-term exposure. There are
other serious violations which may indicate a potential for adverse
health effects from short-term exposure in specific circumstances. But
EPA did not designate these other violations as automatically requiring
a Tier 1 notice because they represent exceedances of indicator
parameters which are not strongly or consistently linked to the
occurrence of the possible acute health effects. Most routine Total
Coliform Rule (TCR) MCL violations and Surface Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR) TT violations would fall into this category. These violations
are included in the Tier 2 list. EPA believes focusing the 24-hour
notice requirement in its rule on the more limited set of violations
will increase the effectiveness of the Tier 1 notices and lead to
greater health protection. When a specific violation or situation
clearly warrants a Tier 1 notice based on the strength of the evidence,
EPA expects the primacy agency to use its discretion to elevate the
notice requirement to Tier 1. Use of this discretion is authorized
under the final EPA rule to ensure that the public is effectively
informed of these violations and situations not explicitly listed by
EPA as requiring a Tier 1 notice.
EPA decided to include violations resulting from exceedance of the
maximum allowable turbidity limit in its Tier 1 list of violations
under Table 1 to Sec. 141.202, but Tier 1 would only apply when the
primacy agency directs such a notice after consultation with the public
water system. This was because EPA believes that violations resulting
from an exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit may be an
indicator that there is significant potential of adverse health effects
from short-term exposure. There is a strong possibility of serious
consequences to public health if the public is not alerted quickly when
pathogens have passed through to the drinking water. However, EPA does
not believe that all such turbidity excursions should prompt a Tier 1
notice, thus justifying a new requirement that the system consult with
the primacy agency within 24 hours to determine whether the specific
situation warrants a Tier 1 notice. Requiring immediate consultation
with the primacy agency will ensure that Tier 1 notices will be
required when supported by the evidence. Requiring consultation rather
than an automatic Tier 1 notice also avoids unnecessary and costly
notices. When consultation with the primacy agency does not occur
within 24 hours, the final rule automatically requires that a Tier 1
notice be distributed.
EPA expects that some of the routine violations related to
turbidity exceedances should require a Tier 2 (not a Tier 1) notice
because a turbidity exceedance by itself, without other supporting
information, has not been shown to date to be a predictable indicator
of a pathogen loading in the finished water. A single exceedance of the
maximum allowable turbidity limit, although a violation, may also prove
to be a false reading because of a testing equipment malfunction. EPA
is continuing research on turbidity as an indicator of pathogen loading
as part of the development of the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule. Given the relatively small number of single exceedance
turbidity violations (estimated at less than 200 per year), the
additional primacy agency workload for consultation should not be
overly burdensome. The final rule provides the best balance between
getting a notice out quickly to protect public health and avoiding
unnecessary alarm and confusion through issuance of unnecessary
notices.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on its
proposed list of violations and situations requiring Tier 1 public
notification. EPA received a range of comments recommending changes to
the proposed list.
First, many commenters specifically focused on those proposed Tier
2 violations which may in some circumstances pose a significant and
immediate risk from short-term exposure, specifically violations of the
TCR and SWTR/IESWTR. In particular, over half of these commenters
recommended that turbidity excursions resulting in a violation be
automatically elevated to a Tier 1 notice because they believed that
turbidity violations were more often than not a strong indicator of
harmful drinking water posing a significant risk from short-term
exposure. The rest of those commenting on this issue specifically
supported leaving all turbidity violations in Tier 2 (as was proposed)
because they believed that turbidity violations were more often than
not a false indicator of potential health risk. Virtually all the
commenters agreed that turbidity was useful as an indicator to trigger
immediate follow-up by the water system.
Second, commenters asked EPA to be more precise in defining which
violations or situations required a Tier 1 notice. In particular,
commenters asked EPA to better define when EPA intended a Tier 1 notice
to be triggered for a waterborne disease outbreak, to clarify when
failure to test for fecal coliform required a Tier 1 notice, and to
better specify which chlorine dioxide violations required a Tier 1
notice.
Third, several commenters requested that EPA provide more explicit
criteria for when EPA intended for the primacy agency to elevate other
violations and
[[Page 25996]]
situations not explicitly listed in the EPA rule to a Tier 1 notice.
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule reflects several
substantive changes to what EPA proposed, based on comments received on
the proposal. In response to comments recommending that the proposal be
changed to require that all TCR MCL violations and all SWTR TT
violations require a Tier 1 notice because of their potential risk from
short-term exposure, EPA decided to stay with the Tier 2 requirement as
proposed. EPA believes that an automatic Tier 1 notice requirement is
not justified because routine TCR and SWTR violations (without
supporting evidence) are not sufficiently strong or predictable
indicators of significant potential of risk from short-term exposure.
Routine TCR violations with no evidence of fecal contamination clearly
do not provide sufficient evidence indicating significant potential of
short-term health risk. Routine violations of the treatment technique
requirements under the SWTR and IESWTR do provide an indication of
problems with disinfection or filtration treatment, but they are not in
themselves sufficient evidence indicating significant potential of
short-term health risk.
In response to the range of comments related to the appropriate
tier level for turbidity violations, EPA agrees that certain
exceedances of the turbidity limit deserve special attention in the
final rule. Accordingly, EPA has added language in the final rule
addressing this specific situation. For the reasons outlined earlier in
this section, the final rule: Continues to classify all turbidity
violations as Tier 2; adds a new requirement that PWSs consult with
their primacy agency within 24 hours when exceedances of the maximum
allowable turbidity limit occur; enables the primacy agency after the
consultation to elevate specific turbidity violations to Tier 1 when
warranted; and requires an automatic Tier 1 notice when consultation
does not take place within the 24-hour period. Since the significance
of the risk to health of an exceedance of the turbidity limit is
situational, EPA believes the final rule ensures that Tier 1 notices
will go out quickly when necessary (based on the immediate consultation
requirement) while avoiding unnecessary notices where the violation
poses no risk to health.
In response to comments asking that EPA clarify the violations and
situations requiring a Tier 1 notice, EPA agrees and has added language
in Table 1 to Sec. 141.202 of the final rule to more precisely define
when a Tier 1 notice is required. In response to specific comments, EPA
also added several new Tier 1 categories to Table 1 to ensure that
Table 1 accurately and completely lists all the violations and
situations where a Tier 1 notice is required. In addition, the final
Table 1 list incorporates two existing public notice requirements not
explicitly referenced as Tier 1 requirements under the proposal: The
notice required under Sec. 141.11(d) for those NCWS allowed by the
primacy agency to exceed the nitrate standard; and the notice required
under Sec. 141.23(f)(2) when a system fails to take a nitrate
confirmation sample after the initial sample showed an exceedance of
the MCL. These changes incorporated existing requirements currently
found in other sections of the CFR. Finally, changes were made in the
final rule language to broaden the definition of waterborne disease
outbreak by adding other waterborne emergencies and making minor
changes in the language related to failure to test for fecal coliform
and chlorine dioxide violations to clarify when the Tier 1 notice is
required.
In response to comments asking for more explicit criteria to guide
primacy agencies on when to elevate other violations and situations to
the Tier 1 list, EPA has decided not to specify additional criteria in
the final rule. EPA believes that the primacy agency needs wide
latitude to access individual situations based on the regulatory
definition of the Tier 1 notice under Sec. 141.201(b). EPA also
encourages public water systems to use the Tier 1 notice protocols
whenever a violation or situation has significant potential to pose
adverse health effects from short-term exposure. Since time is of the
essence to protect public health in such situations, public water
systems should act quickly to notify persons served, without waiting
for direction from the primacy agency. EPA will shortly be issuing the
final Public Notification Handbook and the Public Notification Primacy
Guidance, which will offer examples of other situations where it
believes a Tier 1 notice may be necessary.
2. Timing of the Tier 1 Public Notice (and Consultation Requirement)
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.202(b) requires that a
Tier 1 public notice be provided by the public water system as soon as
possible but no later than 24 hours after the system learns of the
violation. The public water system is also required to initiate
consultation with the primacy agency within that same 24-hour period
and comply with whatever subsequent public notification requirements
are established during that consultation.
The timing and process established for the Tier 1 public notice in
the final rule is significantly different from the current rule.
First, the public water system is required to distribute
the notice within 24 hours (as required under Section 1414(c)(2)(C)(i)
of the SDWA), rather than within 72 hours required in the current rule.
This is a statutory obligation for such violations under the 1996 SDWA
amendments. EPA interprets the statute under Section 1414(c)(2)(C)(i)
to require this initial public notice within the first 24 hours to
apply regardless of when the consultation with the primacy agency takes
place.
Second, the final rule sets a new requirement that the
water system consult with the primacy agency to determine subsequent
public notification requirements. EPA interprets the statute under
Section 1414(c)(2)(C)(iii) and (C)(iv) to require that the public water
system consult with the primacy agency within the first 24 hours after
the violation becomes known to the water system, to determine
subsequent public notice requirements (e.g., repeat notice frequencies,
form and manner of subsequent notice, etc.). In contrast, the current
rule sets the subsequent public notice requirements in the rule itself,
rather than on a case-by-case basis as a result of consultation with
the primacy agency.
The final rule identifies a number of elements which may be covered
during the consultation, including the timing, form, manner, frequency,
and content of subsequent notices, the duration of the notice when
posted, and other actions reasonably calculated to ensure the notice is
provided to persons served. Additional notices may be necessary to
reach other persons served who may not have seen the initial notice and
to reaffirm the seriousness of the public health risk from drinking the
water. EPA also believes, but does not require in the final rule, that
a supplemental notice to announce that the violation has been resolved
and the risk from the drinking water has been abated is an effective
way to bring closure to the emergency situation. The decision on when
to require subsequent notices can best be handled by the primacy agency
on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the public water system.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the new
requirement for a 24-hour notice for Tier 1 public notices and the new
consultation process within the same
[[Page 25997]]
24-hour period proposed in lieu of more prescriptive EPA requirements.
EPA also asked for comment on its interpretation of the statute under
Section 1414(c)(2)(C), which allows EPA to require public water systems
to consult with the primacy agency. EPA received many comments on the
new 24-hour notice requirement, ranging from support of the new
requirement to a request that the final rule give water systems (or the
primacy agency) flexibility to allow more than 24 hours when necessary
to produce an effective notice. Some commenters supported maintaining
the 72-hour requirement in the current rule, others thought that 24
hours was too long a period. Many other comments were received
requesting clarification of when the 24-hour clock would start.
EPA Response to Comments: In response to comments received, EPA
made minor changes in rule language to what was proposed, primarily to
clarify EPA's intention. In response to comments that the 24-hour
deadline be increased or decreased, EPA has decided to maintain the
proposed period because of the clear statutory language and intent
under the 1996 SDWA amendments. As described in the preamble to the
proposed rule, in setting the deadline for Tier 1 notification, EPA was
limited by the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(1414(c)(2)(C)(i)), which allow a maximum of 24 hours for violations
with the potential to cause serious health effects as a result of
short-term exposure.
In response to questions about when EPA intended the 24-hour clock
to begin, EPA wants to reaffirm the language in the proposal:'' * * *
as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours after the system learns
of the violation.'' EPA believes it is important to hold the PWS
responsible for learning about a violation and the actions it is
required to take. Accounting in the rule for every way in which a
system could learn of a violation would make the rule overly
complicated. EPA wishes to restate that the trigger point for
notification is when the system learns that the violation has occurred,
not at the point when a system expects that a violation will occur
(e.g., when the presence of coliform is discovered and the system is
awaiting the results of a confirmation sample). If systems use an
independent laboratory, this means that the 24-hour clock starts when
the laboratory reports to the public water system the analytical
results that indicate a violation has occurred. To get the notice out
as soon as practical but no later than 24 hours, EPA encourages systems
to ``gear up'' in advance for preparing a notice. EPA recommends that
public water systems review the public notification requirements for
each violation type and develop a fill-in-the-blank Tier 1 notice based
on the templates to be issued with the final Public Notification
Handbook.
In response to comments on the proposed new consultation
requirement under Sec. 141.202(b)(2) and (b)(3), EPA has decided to
retain the language as proposed. Some commenters requested that the
consultation deadline be changed from 24 hours to the end of the next
business day. Even though the public water system is required to
distribute the notice to persons served within 24 hours whether or not
consultation occurs, EPA believes that any delay in getting the primacy
agency involved is unwarranted given the seriousness of the Tier 1
situation. Other commenters asked for clarification of the term
``initiate consultation,'' particularly when the water system is unable
to contact the State within the 24-hour period. EPA intends the phrase
``initiate consultation'' to require, at a minimum, that the system
take active steps to contact the primacy agency. EPA and most States
now have voice mail or an emergency hotline, so public water systems
should always be able to leave a message indicating that an attempt at
initiating consultation was made. EPA recognizes that full and complete
consultation may not be possible if the primacy agency is unavailable.
EPA plans to work with States during the primacy revision process to
augment the States' capability to respond on a 24-hour basis to
potential Tier 1 notice situations.
Finally, several commenters believed that the proposed requirement
under Sec. 141.202(b)(3) to comply with any additional notice
requirements resulting from the consultation was too vague and open-
ended. In response, EPA intends that the primacy agency have broad-
based discretion to respond to the specific situation. Authorizing the
primacy agency to respond appropriately to the specific situation will
strengthen the public notice response to situations posing significant
potential of short-term risk to health.
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the Tier 1 Notice
Today's Rule: The final rule, under Sec. 141.202(c), allows the
public water system some flexibility in choosing the specific method of
delivery to distribute the notice. This is significantly different from
the current rule, which requires that an initial notice be provided in
all cases by electronic media and that subsequent notices be delivered
first by newspaper and later on by mail. The final rule does require
water systems to use, at a minimum, at least one of the following
delivery methods: appropriate broadcast media, posting of the notice in
conspicuous locations, hand delivery, or another minimum delivery
method specified in writing by the primacy agency. It also establishes
an enforceable performance standard, requiring the water system to use
delivery methods reasonably calculated to reach all other persons not
reached by the minimum method within the 24-hour period, including all
residential, transient, and non-transient users of the water.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the
revised requirements defining the form and manner of the Tier 1
notices. Many commenters believed that the proposed list of minimum
methods was too limiting, and that other methods should be added to
this minimum list to give water systems greater choice. Other
commenters requested that the final rule require water systems to use
more than one minimum method, since one method in many cases would not
reach all persons served. Several commenters felt that the use of a
performance standard (``take steps reasonably calculated to reach all
persons served''), in lieu of additional listed methods to reach others
not covered by the minimum method, gave water systems too much
flexibility.
EPA Response to Comments: EPA made one substantive change and made
other edits to the language in Sec. 141.202(c), in response to the
comments received on the proposal. Based on comments received, the
final rule added a fourth item to the list of minimum forms of notice
delivery, which authorizes the primacy agency to approve in writing the
use of a substitute delivery method not already listed in EPA's rule.
The proposed rule did not give the primacy agency the discretion to
allow use of methods other than those explicitly listed under
Sec. 141.202(c). EPA agrees with the commenters that the proposed
minimum list of delivery methods (broadcast media, posting, and hand
delivery) was too limiting and potentially inappropriate to some Tier 1
situations.
Commenters recommended adding a wide variety of delivery methods to
the minimum list, including newspaper, postal patron mailing, e-mail,
or priority mail. EPA believes the best response to these comments is
to allow primacy agencies to substitute methods other than those listed
to fit the specific
[[Page 25998]]
situation, because no single list will fit all situations.
Other commenters believed EPA should require that more than one
minimum delivery method be used. EPA disagrees. Using one of the listed
minimum methods, coupled with the requirement that the system take
steps ``reasonably calculated to reach all persons served'' ensures
that additional methods are employed where necessary. Although
additional methods are not always required, EPA expects that most
community water systems will need to use more than one method of
delivery to effectively reach all persons served. In contrast, one
method may be adequate for many very small community water systems or
non-community systems to reach the persons they serve. In addition, the
consultation with the primacy agency required for Tier 1 notices under
Sec. 141.202(b) is intended to be a backup where systems are unable or
unwilling to comply fully with the requirement.
G. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the Tier 2 Public Notice: Other
Violations With Potential To Have Serious Adverse Effects on Human
Health (Sec. 141.203)
1. Tier 2 Violations and Situations
Today's Rule; The final rule under Sec. 141.203(a) requires a Tier
2 public notice for the following violation categories and other
situations:
All violations of the MCL, MRDL, and treatment technique
requirements, except where a Tier 1 notice is required under 141.202(a)
or where the primacy agency determines a Tier 1 notice is required;
Violations of the monitoring and testing procedure
requirements where the primacy agency determines that a Tier 2 public
notice is required; and
Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of any
existing variance or exemption in place.
The above list is similar to the list in the comparable section of
the current rule, with three exceptions:
First, the final rule sets the new public notice
requirements for the Stage 1 Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts (D/
DBP) Rule and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (63 FR
69389 and 69477, December 16, 1998). (Today's rule also amends the
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) regulations to define the CCR
requirements for these new rules. See Section V of the preamble for
discussion of the CCR rule changes included in today's rulemaking.)
Second, the final rule enables the primacy agency, at its
option, to elevate the public notice requirement for specific
monitoring or testing procedure violations from a Tier 3 to a Tier 2
notice, taking into account the potential health impacts and the
persistence of the violation. Unless the primacy agency determines
otherwise, monitoring and testing procedure violations will be reported
in a Tier 3 notice.
Third, although the final rule continues to designate
turbidity MCL and TT violations as Tier 2 (as in the current rule and
as proposed), the final rule has added a new requirement under
Sec. 141.203(b)(3) that a public water system consult with the primacy
agency within 24 hours after learning of the violation to determine
whether the specific situation should be elevated to a Tier 1 notice.
Table 1 to Sec. 141.202 explicitly authorizes the primacy agency,
after consultation, to elevate to Tier 1 those violations related to
exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity level. When consultation
does not take place within the 24-hour period, a Tier 1 notice is
automatically required. The public water system must distribute the
Tier 1 notice by the end of the next 24-hour period (or no later than
48 hours after the system learns of the violation). (See discussion in
preamble under Section IV.F.1 related to Tier 1 notices and under
Section IV.G.2 related to the turbidity consultation requirements.)
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the list
of violations included under Tier 2. Comments were also requested on an
alternative option that would require a Tier 2 notice, rather than a
Tier 3 notice, for all monitoring and testing procedure violations,
unless the primacy agency explicitly allowed a Tier 3 notice. Many
comments received on this section related to which of the violations
proposed as requiring a Tier 2 notice should be elevated to Tier 1. The
response to these comments is included in Section IV.F.1 of the
preamble, related to Tier 1 requirements. Other than the Tier 1 issue,
most of the comments supported the proposed list of violations as
requiring a Tier 2 notice. A few of the commenters did, however,
recommend that certain violations proposed as Tier 2 (e.g., Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) treatment technique violations) be moved to Tier 3.
Other commenters asked EPA to clarify and possibly add criteria for the
situations in which EPA expects primacy agencies to elevate monitoring
violations from a Tier 3 notice to a Tier 2 notice.
EPA's Response to Comments: EPA made no changes to the language in
Sec. 141.203(a) from what was proposed, based on comments received on
the proposal. In response to comments recommending that LCR violations
be moved to Tier 3, EPA has decided to leave the rule as proposed. For
public health and right-to-know reasons, EPA believes that treatment
technique violations deserve the same level of notice as MCL
violations. LCR TT violations are an indicator of potential increased
levels of lead or copper in drinking water. This is a significant
public health issue for a large segment of the population and, for this
reason, EPA believes that a Tier 3 notice is not appropriate. In
response to comments that EPA specify additional criteria on when
primacy agencies should elevate Tier 3 notices to Tier 2, EPA has
decided not to add to the performance criteria in the proposal (``* * *
taking into account health effects and the persistence of the violation
* * *''). EPA intends that the primacy agency exercise broad discretion
on when to elevate Tier 3 notices to Tier 2 as part of its approved
primacy program. EPA plans to make recommendations on how to decide
when to elevate violations to higher tiers in its guidance to primacy
agencies on implementing the public notification rule.
2. Timing of the Tier 2 Public Notice
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.203(b)(1) requires the
public water system to provide a Tier 2 public notice to persons served
as soon as practical, but no later than 30 days after the system learns
of the violation. Posted notices are required by the final rule to
remain in place for as long as the violation or situation persists, but
in no case for less than seven days, even if the violation or situation
is resolved. The final rule under Sec. 141.203(b)(2) also requires the
public water system to repeat the notice every three months for as long
as the violation persists. In contrast, the current rule requires a
newspaper notice within 14 days, a notice mailed to all bill-payers
within forty-five days, and a repeat notice mailed every three months
thereafter until the violation is resolved.
The final rule gives the primacy agency discretion, in appropriate
circumstances, to extend the time period allowed for the Tier 2 notice
from 30 days to up to three months for the initial notice and to allow
repeat notice less frequently than every three months (but no less than
once per year). Permission must be granted in writing. Although the
discretion given to the primacy agency is fairly broad, the final rule
specifically disallows extensions of the 30-day deadline for the
initial public notice for any unresolved violation. It also
specifically disallows primacy
[[Page 25999]]
agencies from approving repeat notices less frequently than every three
months for TCR, SWTR, and IESWTR TT violations. The final rule also
does not allow primacy agencies to establish regulations or policies
that automatically give ``across-the-board'' extensions or reductions
in the repeat notice frequency for all the other violations.
EPA believes that giving the primacy agency discretion in
appropriate circumstances to extend the initial notice beyond 30 days
or to allow repeat notices less frequently than every three months is
clearly warranted. The violation situations under Tier 2 are very
diverse, ranging from violations that on some occasions may pose
potential adverse health effects from short-term exposure (such as
routine SWTR TT violations), to unresolved violations that pose chronic
health effects from long-term exposure (such as benzene violations),
and to resolved violations no longer posing any potential risk to
health. One size does not fit all! An extension beyond 30 days may be
appropriate for violations that were quickly resolved. An extension to
three months may allow the water system to include the initial notice
in the same mailing as the quarterly bill, with no loss in
effectiveness.
As referred to earlier in Section IV.G.1 of the preamble, the final
rule also establishes a new provision under Sec. 141.203(b)(3)
requiring public water systems to consult with the primacy agency
within 24 hours of learning of a violation related to exceedance of the
maximum allowable turbidity limit. Violation of the maximum allowable
turbidity limit, when combined with other site-specific information, is
an indication that pathogens may have passed through to the finished
water. EPA is requiring consultation under the public notification rule
so the primacy agency can determine whether to elevate the notice
requirement to a Tier 1. Where consultation does not take place as
required in the 24-hour period, a Tier 1 public notice requirement is
automatically triggered and the public water system must distribute the
notice within the next 24-hour period. The new consultation requirement
overlaps with current SWTR regulations requiring public water systems
to inform the primacy agency by the close of the next business day
whenever turbidity levels exceed 5 NTU. Today's rule amends the current
SWTR rule to eliminate the overlapping requirement. A discussion of
this new provision, including why EPA established this new consultation
requirement, is contained in Section IV.F.1 of the preamble.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the
proposed 30-day time period required for the initial Tier 2 public
notice, the requirement for a repeat notice of ongoing violations every
three months, and the discretion given to the primacy agency in
specific circumstances to extend the initial notice to three months or
the repeat notice frequency to one year (either on a case-by-case basis
or by rule). A broad range of comments were received on the proposed
30-day time period for the initial Tier 2 notice, ranging from leaving
the current 14-day requirement intact (or even requiring the notice
sooner), to support for the 30-day proposed period, or to moving the
initial notice to 90 or 120 days after the violation. A significant
minority of commenters objected to allowing the primacy agency any
discretion to extend the Tier 2 deadlines, believing that such
discretion made a more complex rule which could be used inappropriately
to give public water systems longer notice periods than intended under
the rule. Other commenters supported giving the primacy agency
flexibility to extend the Tier 2 deadlines, but asked for clarification
or offered alternatives to the proposed extension process.
EPA Response to Comments: After considering all the comments, EPA
has decided to retain the proposed 30-day period for the initial notice
and the 3-month repeat notice frequency in the final rule. But, in
response to the large number of commenters requesting reconsideration
or clarification of the proposed deadline extension, the final rule
redefines how and when primacy agencies would be allowed to extend the
initial notice beyond 30 days and under what circumstances the primacy
agency would allow less frequent repeat notices for unresolved
violations. The proposed rule would have allowed the primacy agency the
discretion to deviate from the regulatory time period for ``specific
circumstances'' as defined under the individual approved primacy
programs. In Sec. 141.203(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the final rule, EPA
replaced the proposed criteria allowing extensions in ``specific
circumstances'' with a list of the specific violation situations where
the discretion to extend or allow less frequent repeat notice is
prohibited.
In response to comments recommending that the Tier 2 deadline be
set at 14 days or less, EPA believes the 30-day deadline will work most
effectively because of the need to sharply differentiate the public
health circumstances for violations requiring a Tier 2 notice from
those requiring a Tier 1 notice. Routine violations in Tier 2 are not
usually considered to pose a serious health risk from short-term
exposure, thus immediate notification is not routinely needed to get
people out of harm's way. The final rule recommends, however, that the
notice be distributed as soon as practical, but sets the outer boundary
at no longer than 30 days after the system learns of the violation. A
violation that routinely requires a Tier 2 notice but for whatever
reason poses elevated risk from short-term exposure may be elevated to
Tier 1 at the discretion of the primacy agency.
EPA also disagrees with commenters recommending that the Tier 2
deadline be set at 90 or 120 days after the violation is known. EPA
believes that a 30-day baseline period is appropriate and achievable
for most Tier 2 violations and situations. A 30-day period is long
enough after the violation for the system to gather the information
needed to develop an effective notice and soon enough to meet the clear
preference of many stakeholders to be informed as soon as practical
after the violation. EPA believes setting a 90- or 120-day baseline
period for the wide range of violations requiring a Tier 2 notice would
threaten the public health and right-to-know objectives underpinning
the public notification requirement. EPA does believe that there are
situations where it is appropriate to extend the time frame for
notification of some of these violations beyond 30 days, but these
situations are the exception to the norm. The final rule addresses the
exceptions to the 30-day deadline by enabling the primacy agency, at
its option, to extend the deadline for the initial notice up to three
months in appropriate circumstances.
In response to comments opposing any extension of the initial
public notice period beyond 30 days, EPA believes that the violations
and situations requiring a Tier 2 notice encompass a wide range of
violations. One size does not fit all! Although EPA believes that the
30-day deadline is applicable for most Tier 2 situations, giving the
primacy agency the discretion to extend the 30-day deadline gives the
needed flexibility to respond to local situations. For example, an
extension may be especially appropriate for violations that were
quickly resolved and no longer pose a risk to public health, or where
an extension may allow the water system to include the notice in the
same mailing as a quarterly bill with no loss in effectiveness. At the
same time, EPA has limited the primacy agency flexibility to grant
extensions by prohibiting extensions for any unresolved violation. The
final rule also does not allow primacy agencies to establish ``across-
[[Page 26000]]
the-board'' extensions for all violations through their rules and
regulations. EPA will work with the States as they develop their
primacy revision packages to reach agreement on how this flexibility
will be used in their approved primacy program.
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the Tier 2 Notice
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.203(c) requires public
water systems issuing Tier 2 notices to use one or more of the minimum
methods specifically listed in the rule and to take other steps that
are reasonably calculated to reach persons served in the required time
period. The final rule significantly changes the requirements for
delivery of the Tier 2 notice in the current rule. For example, the
current rule (for community water systems) first requires a newspaper
notice, followed by a notice either mailed or directly delivered to
customers.
In contrast, the final rule requires that community water systems,
at a minimum, mail or otherwise directly deliver the notice to each
customer receiving a bill and to other service connections to which
water is delivered. The requirement to deliver the notice to other
service connections where water is delivered adds an obligation not
explicit in the current rule. The final rule requires that non-
community water systems, at a minimum, post the notice in conspicuous
places or mail or directly deliver to each customer and service
connection (if known). Beyond this regulatory minimum, all public water
systems must take steps reasonably calculated to reach other persons
served by the system who would not normally be reached by the minimum
regulatory method. Examples where persons served may not be reached by
the minimum method include: community water systems that provide
drinking water to persons who do not pay a water bill (e.g., students,
renters, nursing home residents, prison inmates) and therefore would
not routinely see a mailed notice; and non-community water systems with
situations where persons who use the drinking water might not see the
posted notice (e.g., seasonal residents in a resort). The final rule
also gives the primacy agency the option to prescribe a different
method of delivery for the water system, based on policies and
procedures established as part of its approved primacy program.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the
revised requirements for the method of delivery of the Tier 2 public
notice. Comments were also requested on an alternative option to the
proposal on the method of delivery that would give the public water
system discretion to select from a list the methods it would use, with
no required minimum, to meet the overall performance standard. Many
comments were received on the proposed list of minimum methods systems
could choose from. Some commenters believed the minimum list should be
expanded to allow, for instance, use of the newspaper as the minimum
method, as in the current rule. Other commenters requested that the
final rule require that water systems use more than one minimum method.
Still other commenters recommended that the final rule add a
requirement to consult with the primacy agency before selecting a
method.
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule maintains the obligation
that was proposed, requiring water systems to take steps beyond the
specified minimum that are reasonably calculated to reach persons
served by the system, whether they were bill-paying customers, other
service connections where water is delivered, or other persons served.
The final rule also includes two new requirements that were not in the
proposal: delivery of repeat notices must follow the same requirements
as the initial notice; and permission given by the primacy agency to
deviate from the method of delivery presented in the final rule must be
in writing.
In response to comments that the proposed list of minimum delivery
methods be expanded, EPA believes no additions to the proposed minimum
list are necessary, as the listed methods provide a good baseline for
most systems in meeting the performance standard to reach all persons
served. Beyond this regulatory minimum, water systems are obligated to
use any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons
served by the system if they would not normally be reached by solely
relying on the minimum regulatory method. Any other methods used would
serve to enhance this minimum objective.
EPA disagrees that a newspaper notice should be explicitly listed
as one of the minimum delivery methods, as it is in the current rule.
EPA believes that a newspaper notice is beneficial as a supplemental
method to mail or hand delivery, and it may be included in a water
system's strategy to use media coverage to reach others not reached by
mail or hand delivery. But newspaper notices are not as effective as
mail or hand delivery in directly reaching persons served. Newspaper
notices are typically placed in the legal notices section of the
newspaper where they are not likely to be read. If newspapers are used
as an additional method of delivery, EPA strongly recommends that
systems purchase advertising space near the front of the newspaper,
rather than placing a legal notice. EPA prefers that community water
systems focus on methods that will get the notice in people's hands at
their place of residence.
In response to comments requesting that EPA not set a minimum
delivery method at all in the final rule, relying instead solely on a
narrative performance standard, EPA believes that a list of minimum
methods establishes a necessary baseline level of performance that is
clear and simple to understand and implement. EPA agrees with these
commenters on the importance of flexibility in the public notification
process. However, EPA feels that the rule must specify basic minimum
requirements in order to allow the rule to be self-implementing and
enforceable. Therefore, while the rule provides flexibility it also
requires that at least one listed minimum method be used to measure
baseline performance, to be supplemented if the minimum method is not
likely to reach all persons served. Systems have flexibility in
determining what supplemental methods should be used. In addition,
primacy agencies may allow, as part of their approved primacy program,
other minimum methods not listed as the minimum methods in EPA's rule.
H. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the Tier 3 Public Notice: All Other
Violations and Situations Requiring Public Notice (Sec. 141.204)
1. Tier 3 Violations and Situations
Today's Rule: The final rule under Table 1 to Sec. 141.204(a)
requires a Tier 3 public notice for: a monitoring or testing procedure
violation, except where a Tier 1 notice is already required for
specific violations or where the primacy agency determines that the
violation requires a Tier 2 or Tier 1 notice; operation under a
variance granted under Section 1415 or exemption granted under Section
1416 of the SDWA; announcing the availability of unregulated
contaminant monitoring results, as required under Sec. 141.207; and
exceedances of the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for
fluoride, as required under Sec. 141.208. The special public notice
required for announcing the availability of the unregulated contaminant
monitoring results and the special notice for exceedances of the
fluoride SMCL, while not included in the
[[Page 26001]]
comparable section of the current rule, are not new requirements and
can be found elsewhere in the current Code of Federal Regulations. The
final rule simply consolidates all the Tier 3 notice requirements in a
single table for ease of reference.
Today's rule also makes two other changes from the current rule. It
explicitly enables the primacy agency to require a Tier 2 (rather then
a Tier 3) notice for specific monitoring or testing procedure
violations, taking into account the potential health impacts and
persistence of the violation. It also explicitly excludes from Tier 3
the monitoring and testing procedure violations where a Tier 1 notice
is already required under the rule. These Tier 1-type monitoring and
testing procedure violations are listed in Table 1 to Sec. 141.202 and
discussed in Section IV.F.1 of the preamble.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the list
of violations proposed to require a Tier 3 notice. Specifically,
comments were requested on an alternative option that would require a
Tier 2 (rather than Tier 3) notice for monitoring and testing procedure
violations, with the option given to the primacy agency to downgrade
such violations to a Tier 3 notice for minor violations. Most of the
comments received supported the lead proposal: requiring a Tier 3
notice for monitoring and testing procedure violations, but giving the
primacy agency the option to elevate serious violations to a Tier 2. A
significant minority of commenters, however, preferred the alternative
option, requiring Tier 2 notice for these types of violations, unless
the primacy agency lowered the notice requirement for a specific
violation to Tier 3. A few commenters requested that the final rule
require a Tier 2 notice for certain monitoring and testing procedure
violations, rather than giving discretion to the primacy agency to make
these decisions.
EPA Response to Comments: EPA made several changes in the
regulatory language proposed under Sec. 141.204(a), but the changes did
not alter in any significant way the list of violations and situations
requiring a Tier 3 notice. The final rule deleted the item from the
proposed Table 1 to Sec. 141.204(a) which authorized the primacy agency
to add other violations and situations to the Tier 3 list, as it was
redundant with the same authority already granted under Table 1 to
Sec. 141.201(a). The final rule also added to the Tier 3 list the
special notice requirements already required under Secs. 141.207 and
141.208. Table 1 to Sec. 141.204 of the final rule now offers a
complete list of Tier 3 required notices for ease of reference. The
other changes made to the proposed language were similar clarifications
to improve the overall presentation.
In response to the comments received on the proposed alternative
option to require Tier 2 notices for monitoring violations, EPA
disagrees and has decided to retain the lead proposal (i.e., requiring
Tier 3 notice for monitoring violations, with discretion given to the
primacy agency to elevate to Tier 2). EPA believes that Tier 3 notice
is appropriate because most monitoring and testing procedure violations
pose no ongoing risk to public health, and annual notice fulfills the
public's right-to-know expectations about these violations. While some
monitoring and testing procedure violations may have the potential for
serious adverse health effects, most do not. EPA believes that
elevating the major or more serious monitoring and testing procedure
violations from Tier 3 to Tier 2 must be done on a case-by-case basis,
based on the primacy agency's assessment of the potential health
impacts arising from the lack of monitoring and the persistence of the
monitoring violation. It would be impossible to identify in the rule
all instances where Tier 2 notice would be more appropriate. As a
result, the rule gives primacy agencies the authority to elevate any
monitoring violation to Tier 2, based on potential health effects or
persistence of the violation.
EPA also disagrees with commenters who recommend that the rule
should distinguish major monitoring and testing procedure violations
from other monitoring and testing procedure violations. EPA believes
this would make the rule unnecessarily complex. Again, primacy agencies
have discretion under the rule to elevate monitoring and testing
procedure violations to Tier 2 if they see a need to do so.
2. Timing of the Tier 3 Public Notice
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.204(b)(1) requires that
public water systems provide a Tier 3 public notice to persons served
no later than one year after the system learns of the violation or
other situations requiring a Tier 3 public notice. The final rule also
requires the public water system to repeat the notice annually for as
long as the violation or situation persists. In contrast, the current
rule requires an initial notice to be mailed within three months (with
possible extension to one year at the State's option for minor
monitoring violations) and a repeat notice every three months
thereafter until the violation is resolved. EPA believes that requiring
a notice no more frequently than annually for Tier 3-type situations is
appropriate, given the great number of violations requiring such a
notice (i.e., 108,599 of the 128,459 violations reported to EPA in FY
1998) and the fact that most monitoring and testing procedure
violations do not pose a health risk. The final rule allows water
systems, at their option, to distribute the Tier 3 public notice as
soon as they believe it is appropriate for their specific situation.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the
proposal to require Tier 3 notices no later than 12 months after the
violation occurs. A substantial number of commenters expressed concern
over the long time period (12 months) allowed to complete the Tier 3
public notice requirements for monitoring and testing procedure
violations. Some commenters recommended that the 12-month period be
limited to minor monitoring violations only (as in the current rule),
with the notice for the major monitoring violations to be required much
sooner. A significant minority of commenters believed that 12 months
was too long after the violation to be useful to consumers and in some
cases (transient non-community water systems) would be quite
ineffective since consumers present at the time of the violation will
be long gone.
EPA Response to Comments: EPA carried forward to the final rule the
proposed 12-month requirement for Tier 3 notices, making language
changes to Sec. 141.204(b) to conform to the changes made under the
comparable section for Tier 2 requirements. In response to comments
requesting that the final rule add the phrase ``as soon as possible''
to the one-year Tier 3 notice deadline, EPA has decided to retain the
language as proposed, without adding the phrase. EPA believes that
requiring notice ``as soon as possible'' is appropriate and necessary
for the more serious violations in Tiers 1 and 2. But violations and
situations requiring a Tier 3 notice by definition do not pose any
direct risk to public health. EPA has chosen not to parallel this
language for Tier 3, so as not to hinder the effectiveness of other
more immediate notices. Systems are of course free to issue the notice
in advance of the 12-month deadline where they believe it is
appropriate.
In response to comments that a 12-month period is too long after
the violation to be useful and this deadline should be limited to minor
monitoring violations only, EPA disagrees with such a limitation. The
routine violations and situations in Tier 3 are by definition
[[Page 26002]]
non-serious violations, and EPA believes that Tier 3 requirements
should apply to all the routine monitoring and testing procedure
violations. Tier 3 notification is more a right-to-know issue than a
public health concern. EPA acknowledges that some monitoring and
testing procedure violations have the potential to mask potentially
serious situations. Rather than attempt to address every case where
this may happen, it is more efficient to provide primacy agencies the
authority to elevate monitoring and testing procedure violations to
Tier 2 or even Tier 1 if they believe the need exists.
A commenter's point that requiring notice as soon as possible would
motivate systems to return to compliance more quickly is well taken.
However, EPA believes that the vast majority of systems with monitoring
or testing procedure violations return to compliance well in advance of
the requirement for the public notice. Elevating the notice
requirements for these violations to encourage systems to return to
compliance is not relevant. For systems with continuing monitoring
violations, using the public notification process as an incentive to
comply with the monitoring requirements should be part of the primacy
agency's overall compliance strategy. Primacy agencies are free under
the final rule to elevate the notice requirements from Tier 3 to Tier 2
to meet this compliance objective.
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the Tier 3 Notice
Today's Rule: The notice distribution requirements for Tier 3
notices are patterned after the Tier 2 requirements under Sec. 141.203.
The basic requirement to take steps reasonably calculated to reach both
bill-paying customers and the other persons served who do not receive a
bill applies for Tier 3 notices as well. The method of delivery
requirements in the final rule for the initial Tier 3 notices and any
repeat notices are the same as those prescribed for the Tier 2 public
notice.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the
revised requirements for the method of delivery of the Tier 3 notices.
Commenters generally supported the proposed method of delivery
requirements. Several commenters requested clarification of EPA's
intent related to reporting multiple monitoring violations in a single
notice, since in some cases a water system missing a single sample may
generate separate monitoring violations for all regulated contaminants
under the single analytical technique. For example, one analytical
method is used to monitor for the 21 regulated VOCs; missing the one
sample, therefore, generates 21 monitoring violations.
EPA Response to Comments: EPA made minor changes to proposed
Sec. 141.204(c), to conform to the changes made in the comparable
section of the final rule for the form and manner of the Tier 2 notice.
See the discussion of EPA's response to comments in Section IV.G.3 of
the preamble. In response to the request that EPA clarify how multiple
monitoring violations should be presented in a single Tier 3 notice,
EPA strongly supports efforts by systems to use a single Tier 3 notice
to communicate multiple violations whenever appropriate. To make EPA's
intent clearer, EPA changed the first of the ten elements required in
every public notice to explicitly reference the possibility of multiple
violations in a single notice. Section 141.205(a)(1) now reads (with
the changes in italics): ``* * * description of the violation or
situation, including the contaminant(s) of concern * * * '' EPA will
also provide examples and a notice template in the Public Notification
Handbook to illustrate how multiple monitoring violations can be
presented in a single notice.
4. Option To Use an Annual Notice, Including the CCR, To Deliver Tier 3
Notices
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.204(b)(2) gives the
water systems the option of providing an annual notice listing all Tier
3 violations occurring during the previous year, as long as the water
system makes certain that the annual notice is distributed no later
than one year after the earliest of the included violations. For
systems with multiple monitoring violations, the advantages of using an
annual notice instead of individual notices for every violation are
compelling, both in terms of reduced cost and in terms of effective
communication with the consumers. Further, Sec. 141.204(d) allows
community water systems, if appropriate, to use the annual Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR) as the vehicle for giving initial public notice
for violations occurring during the previous twelve months. However,
the use of the CCR as a vehicle for the annual public notice has strict
limitations: the CCR can only be used if the CCR meets the timing,
content, and distribution requirements required under the public
notification rule. The specific conditions for use of the CCR as the
annual Tier 3 public notice are listed in Sec. 141.204(d) of the final
rule.
Since the vast majority of the violations require a Tier 3 public
notice, the burden on public water systems with multiple Tier 3
violations would be dramatically reduced through use of an annual
notice and, where possible, the CCR. EPA recommends that public water
systems consider how the CCR and public notification requirements can
be better coordinated to take advantage of these efficiencies.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the option
to allow public water systems to provide an annual notice of violations
in lieu of individual Tier 3 notices and on the use of the CCR to meet
the Tier 3 public notification requirements. In general, virtually all
commenters supported the option given to public water systems with
multiple Tier 3 violations to use an annual public notice. But many
commenters had reservations about the proposed option for using the CCR
as the vehicle for the annual public notice. Most commenters believed
that using the CCR was a good idea in concept, but they identified
significant problems in practice if the final rule required that the
CCR must first meet the Tier 3 public notification rule requirements.
The CCR and public notification rules have different timing, delivery,
and content requirements that are difficult to reconcile. A significant
minority of commenters disagreed altogether with giving systems the
option to use the CCR as the annual public notice because they believed
the purposes of the public notice and the CCR are so different.
EPA Response to Comments: EPA retained in the final rule the
proposed language allowing water systems, at their option, to issue an
annual Tier 3 notice of violations occurring during the year (including
using the CCR where appropriate). The final rule made minor changes to
the proposed language in Secs. 141.204(a)(2) and 141.204(d) to better
define the limitations on their use and to clarify EPA's intent, but
the final rule makes no significant changes to what EPA proposed. EPA
agrees with the commenters who supported the use of the CCR but
expressed reservations about how such an option would actually work.
EPA acknowledges that there are significant limitations to using the
CCR as the annual Tier 3 public notice. However, where the timing of
violations allows it, EPA does recommend coordinating the CCR and the
annual Tier 3 public notice. Coordinating the two related activities
would reduce redundancy and would be less costly. An annual Tier 3
public notice as part of the CCR would sharpen the overall message and
be more likely to get consumers' attention. EPA will provide in the
final Public Notification Handbook suggestions and examples on
[[Page 26003]]
how to coordinate the annual Tier 3 notices with the CCR.
In response to comments that EPA should change the public notice
requirements to better fit into the format and content of the CCR, EPA
believes such changes would undermine the intent of the public notice.
EPA is also limited by the specific timing, delivery, and content
requirements of the public notification provisions in the SDWA, as
amended. Because EPA encourages water systems to use the CCR where
possible, EPA investigated ways to extend the deadline for Tier 3
notices to 18 months. EPA concluded such a change could not be made in
the rule because the 12-month period is clearly required by statute.
This limits the use of the CCR as the initial public notice to only
those violations occurring within 12 months of the CCR publication.
Practically, this means that for CCRs published on July 1 (as required
under the CCR rule), the CCR could only be used as the initial public
notice for violations that occurred after July 1 of the previous year.
In response to the commenters who objected to EPA allowing use of
the CCR at all for the initial public notice, EPA continues to support
initiatives by public water systems to better coordinate the CCR and
the public notices because the violation information required for both
is complimentary, the objectives are similar, and coordinating the two
similar requirements is more efficient and effective.
I. Content of the Public Notice (Sec. 141.205)
1. Standard Elements of the Public Notice
Today's Rule: The final rule specifies a list of ten elements that
must be included in a public notice for water systems with violations
of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) and for most
other situations requiring a public notice. The rule also specifies
four elements that must be included in notices for water systems
operating under a variance or exemption. The final rule revises and
edits the existing list of standard elements required in every public
notice and strengthens the criteria and standards defining notice
quality.
Ten elements are required under Sec. 141.205(a) for public
notices of violations of NPDWRs, including monitoring and testing
procedure violations, or other situations requiring a public notice.
The ten required elements include:
1. A description of the violation or situation that occurred,
including the name of the contaminant(s) and level(s) (where
applicable);
2. When the violation or situation occurred;
3. Any potential adverse health effects;
4. The population at risk;
5. Whether alternative water supplies should be used;
6. What actions consumers should take;
7. What the system is doing to correct the violation or situation;
8. When the water system expects to return to compliance or
otherwise resolve the situation;
9. The name, business address, and phone number of the water system
owner or operator; and
10. A statement appended to the notice (where applicable) to
encourage notice recipients to distribute the notice to other consumers
who might not have seen the notice.
This list of elements is significantly changed from the content
requirements in the current rule, as discussed later in this section.
Four elements are required under Sec. 141.205(b) for
public notices for water systems operating under a variance or
exemption:
1. An explanation for the reasons for the variance or exemption;
2. The date the primacy agency granted the variance or exemption;
3. A brief status report on compliance with the variance or
exemption conditions; and
4. A notice of any opportunity for public input into the review of
the variance or exemption.
The current rule does not set the required content elements for
public notices for variances or exemptions.
Four performance standards are listed under
Sec. 141.205(c)(1) defining the adequacy of the notice. The notice:
1. Must be displayed in a conspicuous way when printed or posted;
2. Must not contain overly technical language or very small print;
3. Must not be formatted in a way that defeats the purpose of the
notice; and
4. Must not contain language that nullifies the purpose of the
notice.
The performance standards in today's final rule modify slightly the
comparable elements in the current rule.
Note that the information required under Sec. 141.205(b) for
variances or exemptions is identical to that already required to be
included in the CCR. Community water systems operating under a variance
or exemption are encouraged to use their CCR to give the Tier 3 public
notification, as long as the timing and delivery requirements required
under the final public notification regulation are met. Public water
systems that are not required to issue a CCR may, at their option,
combine the variance and exemption notice with other violations
occurring over the last year into a single annual public notice. Using
the CCR or other annual notice is inappropriate for public water
systems violating the conditions of a variance or exemption. Such
violations require a 30-day Tier 2 notice.
Today's rule broadens the applicability of the content requirements
under Sec. 141.205(a) to include not only notices required for
violations of the NPDWRs but also for other situations requiring a
public notice. The current rule does not specify content requirements
for ``other situations'' requiring a public notice. The list of ``other
situations'' requiring a public notice has been considerably expanded
in today's rule. The situations requiring a public notice other than an
NPDWR violation or a variance or exemption are listed in part IV of the
final Appendix A to Subpart Q. Six ``other situations'' are listed:
Tier 1 Notice Requirement Under Sec. 141.202(a) for
Waterborne Disease Outbreak;
Tier 1 Notice Requirement Under Sec. 141.202(a) for Other
Waterborne Emergency;
Tier 1 Notice Requirement Under Sec. 141.202(a) for Other
Situations as Determined by Primacy Agency;
Special Notice Under Sec. 141.207 to Announce the
Availability of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Data;
Special Notice Requirement Under Sec. 141.208 for
Exceedance of the Fluoride Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL);
and
Special Notice Requirement Under Sec. 141.209 for
Exceedance of Nitrate MCL for Non-Community Water Systems, When Allowed
by Primacy Agency.
Except where the content requirements are otherwise specified in
the rule language, EPA intends the content requirements under
Sec. 141.205(a) to apply. The only exceptions in the rule are: (1) The
special notice for the fluoride SMCL exceedance under Sec. 141.208,
where the entire text of the notice consists of standard language
specified in Sec. 141.208(c); and (2) the special notice announcing the
availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results under
Sec. 141.207, where the standard elements related to a violation do not
apply. Applying the same content requirements under Sec. 141.205(a) for
both violations and other situations makes sense because
[[Page 26004]]
the questions posed by persons served by water systems for both are
basically the same. In both cases, the persons served need to
understand what is prompting the notice, what health risk the
underlying violation or situation poses, what steps should be taken to
minimize risk, and what the water system is doing to resolve the
violation or situation.
Under Sec. 141.205(a) of today's rule, EPA is making small but
significant changes from the list of notice elements currently required
under Sec. 141.32. Other than adding the ``other situations'' to the
definition of each element, the changes from the current rule are as
follows:
Element (a)(1), the description of the violation or
situation, is modified to include both the name of the contaminant(s)
and the contaminant level(s) (where applicable);
Element (a)(2), when the violation or situation occurred,
and element (a)(8), when the system will return to compliance or
resolve the situation, are added;
Element (a)(9), the water system contact information, is
expanded to require the name and business address of the contact in
addition to the phone number;
Element (a)(10), standard language encouraging persons
receiving the notice to distribute it to other persons served (where
applicable), is added.
Comments Requested on Proposal: Comments were requested on the list
of elements in the proposal and the four performance standards
identified for how the notices must be presented. Several commenters
expressed concern that the ten elements required in notices for
violations of NPDWRs do not fit into every notice situation. They felt
that by requiring them in every notice, EPA's proposal may
inadvertently hinder the public water system's ability to issue an
effective notice. Other commenters raised specific concerns around the
individual elements.
EPA Response to Comments: EPA made several changes to the proposed
language in the final rule, but the changes did not substantively
change the notice content requirements under Secs. 141.205(a), (b), and
(c)(1). In response to comments that the proposed requirement under
Sec. 141.205(a) may be too restrictive because it requires all ten
elements to be included for every notice regardless of the situation,
EPA wants to reaffirm its intent that the ten elements are meant to
apply to every notice situation. Each of the ten elements must be
addressed in some manner for each notice, regardless of the violation
type (including monitoring and testing procedure violations) or
situation, the notice tier, and the method of delivery. But EPA expects
public water systems to use this simple baseline requirement to guide
development of a complete and effective notice, not to force systems to
add information that is inappropriate or not useful in a given
situation. To reflect this intent, EPA has made key changes to the rule
language to clarify where discretion in their use is allowed. In
response to comments, EPA also amended the language to provide better
definition and clarity for some of the elements. If used as EPA
intends, the content requirements under Sec. 141.205(a), as amended in
the final rule, will not hinder the development of effective notices.
To enhance EPA's expectations regarding use of the ten elements, EPA
has developed public notice templates and sample notices for a variety
of violations and situations. These templates and sample notices will
be included in the Public Notification Handbook to be issued shortly.
2. Multilingual Requirements for Public Notices
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.205(c)(2) is much more
specific than the current rule in defining the multilingual
requirements to be met by public water systems. The current rule under
Sec. 141.32 (c)(2) sets a general performance standard, requiring
simply that the notice shall be multilingual where appropriate. The
final rule requires public water systems serving a large proportion of
non-English speaking consumers (as determined by the primacy agency) to
include in their notices, in the appropriate languages, information on
the importance of the notice or a telephone number or address where
persons served may contact the water system to obtain a translated copy
of the notice or to request assistance in the appropriate languages.
The multilingual requirement in the final rule is in two parts:
Sec. 141.205(c)(2)(i), which sets the same basic
multilingual requirements as in the CCR rule; and
Sec. 141.205(c)(2)(ii), which requires the water system to
determine when and how it must meet the multilingual requirement when
the primacy agency has not made the determination.
EPA encourages water systems to go beyond the minimum multilingual
requirements in this rule, particularly for Tier 1 notice situations,
and provide a fully translated copy of the notice on request or offer
telephone assistance in the appropriate language. The Public
Notification Handbook will contain sample language regarding the
importance of the notice in various languages as well as complete Tier
1 public notice templates in Spanish.
Comments Requested on Proposal: Comments were requested on the more
specific multilingual requirements for public water systems required
under the proposed rule. Most of the commenters requested that the
final rule provide more clarity on when the multilingual requirements
would apply and how the rule language (``PWS serving a large proportion
of non-English speaking consumers'') would be interpreted by the
primacy agency.
EPA Response to Comments: To respond to comments requesting more
clarity on how and when the multilingual requirements would apply, EPA
added a new paragraph in the final rule (Sec. 141.205(c)(2)(ii))
amending the proposed section to require water systems to comply with
the multilingual requirements where appropriate, even in those cases
where the primacy agency does not provide further direction. The
proposed rule language required water systems serving a large
proportion of non-English speaking consumers, as determined by the
primacy agency, to meet the multilingual requirements. The final rule
maintains the proposed language under Sec. 141.205(c)(2)(i), but it now
also includes a second paragraph not in the CCR rule requiring that
water systems, in the absence of further primacy agency direction,
comply with the multilingual requirements where appropriate. EPA
intends the second paragraph (141.205(c)(2)(ii)) to provide a baseline
regulatory requirement ensuring that public water systems, in the
absence of additional primacy agency direction, would continue the
multilingual programs they are required to have in place under the
current rule.
In response to comments that the final rule establish criteria to
guide the primacy agencies and water systems on who must comply with
the multilingual requirements, EPA has decided not to establish such
criteria in the final rule. EPA agrees, however, that additional
guidance would be useful. EPA will provide examples in the Public
Notification Handbook of the range of situations where it believes
multilingual notices are appropriate. EPA will work with those States
which are already developing multilingual programs under the CCR rule
to guide implementation of the similar requirements for the public
notification program.
EPA agrees with a number of commenters that compliance with the
letter and spirit of the multilingual requirements will be extremely
difficult, particularly for situations where many different languages
are spoken by large numbers of consumers. EPA also
[[Page 26005]]
believes that compliance with the multilingual requirements is very
important if notices are to effectively reach all persons served,
particularly for Tier 1 situations. Although EPA is unable to provide a
translation service, as some commenters recommended, EPA will include
in Appendix C of the Public Notification Handbook a translation in
several languages of the key phrases EPA believes are critical in a
public notice for communicating the importance of the message. It will
also work actively with the States, utility associations, and other
assistance providers to provide better support to utilities where
needed. EPA believes that widespread compliance with the multilingual
requirements depends on active and ongoing support from EPA, the
States, the Tribes, and utility associations, and other assistance
providers.
3. Standard Health Effects Language
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.205(d)(1) retains the
requirement that all public notices for MCL and treatment technique
violations use mandatory health effects language to explain the health
risks posed by the violation. The final rule replaces the standard
language in the current rule for each NPDWR with a new Appendix B to
Subpart Q, which provides a table of regulated contaminants with the
required language. The final health effects language is shorter,
simpler, and consistent with the language EPA uses in similar outreach
forums and documents. Under the rule published today, the health
effects language required for both the final public notification rule
and the Consumer Confidence Report rule are identical.
EPA believes it does not make sense to require standard health
effects language different from the CCR language unless there is a
compelling reason specific to the public notice situation. Although EPA
recognizes that the CCR and public notice may be given at different
times and may be intended to meet different objectives, EPA believes
that the benefit of using identical core health effects language
outweighs the value of tailoring the language to the unique objectives
of the public notice. EPA expects that public water systems will
supplement the mandatory health effects language or otherwise put the
language in the context of the overall notice to meet the unique
purposes of the specific public notice. Examples of public notices
applicable to different situations are included in the final Public
Notification Handbook, which will be issued shortly.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on EPA's
proposal to use the CCR standard health effects language to meet the
public notification requirement. In particular, EPA solicited comment
on specific situations or violations where the CCR language is believed
to be inappropriate or incomplete. Most commenters supported keeping
the CCR and public notice health effects language the same. A
significant minority of commenters believed that the public notice
language should be separate from the CCR language because of the
different purpose of public notification. Several commenters provided
alternative language for specific violations that they believe better
expressed the health concerns that needed to be communicated in the
public notice for the violation. Other commenters requested that EPA
vary the required health effects language based on the strength of
evidence underlying the standard, particularly for carcinogens, or
include in the language information on the quality of the source
waters.
EPA Response to Comments: With three exceptions, the health effects
language in today's final rule is identical with the language that was
proposed:
The first exception is the language in the final rule for
violations of the fluoride MCL. Today's rule revises the public
notification language proposed in Appendix B to Subpart Q for fluoride.
Today's action also amends the CCR rule to include this revised
fluoride language. The revised fluoride language for violations of the
MCL now includes more specific information on the cosmetic effects of
exceedances above 2 mg/l, which is the fluoride secondary maximum
contaminant level (SMCL). EPA's response to comments received
concerning the fluoride standard language is included in Section IV.J.3
of the preamble.
The second exception is the language EPA proposed in the
public notification rule for new and revised standards under the Stage
1 D/DBP rule. EPA is incorporating the language that was proposed into
the final rule with only minor editorial changes to maintain consistent
language for contaminants with the same health effects. Today's action
also amends the existing CCR rule to insert the exact language that is
contained in the final public notification rule.
The third exception is the language in the final rule for
fecal coliform/E. coli MCL violations. The language in the current CCR
rule and the proposed rule listed infants, young children, and people
with severely compromised immune systems. EPA agrees with several
commenters that drinking water with violations of the fecal coliform/
E.coli standard may pose a special health risk to the elderly as well.
Accordingly, the EPA has amended the proposed public notification rule
and revised the current CCR rule to add ``some of the elderly'' to the
standard health effects language for fecal coliform/E.coli.
The final rule affirms the proposed requirement to use standard
health effects language in Appendix B in public notices for violations
of the MCL, TT, and MRDL standards. In addition, EPA reaffirmed its
intent to keep the standard health effects language identical for the
public notification and CCR rules. Today's action publishes identical
language in the two rules for all the existing regulated contaminants.
EPA will maintain this policy direction when considering the public
notification and CCR rule requirements for new and revised standards,
unless there is a compelling reason specific to the new rules for the
language to be different.
In response to the comments received offering alternative language
to the proposal for specific violations, EPA undertook a systematic
review of each comment to determine, first, if the proposed public
notification language (and the underlying CCR rule language) was
erroneous or misleading and, second, if there was a reason unique to
the public notification objective for the language to be different from
the CCR. EPA started with the presumption that the CCR language and the
public notification language should be the same unless there were
compelling reasons to be different. Based on this review, EPA has
concluded that there were no errors in the standard language in the
existing CCR rule justifying a change and no compelling reason for the
core health effects language in the final public notification rule to
be different than what was already in place in the CCR rule. Therefore,
with the two exceptions discussed earlier in this section, the proposed
language is carried forward unchanged into the final public
notification and amended CCR rules. EPA's detailed response to the
commenters offering alternative language is contained in the ``Response
to Comments'' document in EPA's docket for this rule.
In response to several commenters who recommended that the language
be greatly simplified for low-literacy audiences, EPA believes such a
change is unwarranted. EPA notes that the health effects language
developed for the CCR rule, and used in the proposed
[[Page 26006]]
public notification rule, was targeted to low-literacy audiences. It is
intended to be simplified language, while still communicating essential
health information.
EPA does agree with several of the commenters who recommended that
EPA periodically review the public notification and health effects
language required in both the CCR and the public notification rules.
EPA intends to conduct such a review periodically as new and revised
regulations are developed and as new health effects materials are
developed based on ongoing research and new information.
4. Standard Language for Monitoring and Testing Procedure Violations
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.205(d)(2) adds a new
section requiring that all public notices contain the following
standard language for monitoring and testing procedure violations:
We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific
contaminants on a regular basis. Results of regular monitoring are
an indicator of whether or not your drinking water meets health
standards. During [compliance period], we [``did not monitor or
test'' or ``did not complete all monitoring or testing''] for
[contaminant(s)], and therefore cannot be sure of the quality of
your drinking water during that time.
The mandatory language is required in all public notices for
monitoring and testing procedure violations. EPA recognizes that many
monitoring violations are minor, and are quickly resolved and pose
little potential risk to health. For most monitoring and testing
procedure violations, water systems resume monitoring quickly after a
single violation. The standard language will be most effective where
the water system supplements the standard language with a clear
explanation of the status of the violation, its relative seriousness
related to public health risk, and how it was rectified.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA solicited comment on proposed
standard language, particularly the phrase ``* * * and we are unable to
tell whether your health was at risk during that time.'' EPA also
requested comment on an option to not require any specific language in
the public notice for all monitoring violations. Although most
commenters supported the new provision requiring standard language to
be included in public notices for monitoring violations, several
commenters offered edits or alternative language. Other commenters
recommended that the standard language be applied selectively or
tailored to take account of the wide range of monitoring violation
situations. A significant minority of the commenters disagreed
altogether with the need to require any standard language for
monitoring violations in EPA's rule.
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule retains the proposed new
requirement to use standard language in the public notice for
monitoring and testing procedure violations. In response to commenters
supporting the standard language but offering edits to better meet
EPA's objective, the standard language under Sec. 141.205(d)(2) in the
final rule has been significantly revised from the language as
proposed.
EPA revised the proposed language to speak of the potential health
effects of failure to monitor in more general terms, in response to
comments that more specific health effects language does not always
apply to notices across the wide range of monitoring and testing
procedure violations where the language must be used. EPA's intent is
to clearly and simply alert consumers that lack of monitoring or
failure to meet testing requirements may in some cases disguise a
potential risk to health. It is intended to prompt questions from
persons served about the significance of a specific monitoring and
testing procedure violation. EPA expects water systems to anticipate
such questions and to answer them for the specific situation in the
full public notice.
In response to comments that EPA delete the requirement to use
standard language in favor of a narrative performance standard, EPA
considered setting a performance standard rather than requiring
mandatory standard language in the final rule. EPA opted to retain
standard language in the final rule because the Agency believes that,
in the absence of a reported MCL, MRDL, or treatment technique
violation, consumers may presume that the drinking water provided by
their water system is safe. This may sometimes not be an appropriate
presumption. The standard language clearly and simply alerts consumers
that lack of monitoring in some cases may disguise a potential risk to
health. Although EPA believes that the vast majority of monitoring
violations are quickly resolved and do not disguise a potential risk to
health, EPA intends the standard language to prompt questions about the
significance of the specific monitoring violation. In routine
circumstances, these questions should be anticipated and answered in
the full public notice. EPA's intent is not to alarm consumers
unnecessarily; rather, the information should help inform consumers
about the significance of the monitoring or testing procedure
violation.
5. Standard Language To Encourage Customers Receiving the Public Notice
To Distribute the Notice to Other Persons Served
Today's Rule: The final rule under Sec. 141.205(d)(3) adds a new
section requiring that public notices contain standard language, where
applicable, encouraging the customers receiving the public notice to
distribute the notice to other persons served by the public water
system (such as tenants, residents, patients, etc.). The required
standard language is as follows:
Please share this information with all the other people who
drink this water, especially those who may not have received this
notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes,
schools, and businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in
a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
Mailed notices, in particular, are routinely sent to only the bill-
paying customers, and therefore may not reach some consumers at risk
unless actions are taken to notify them of the violations. EPA believes
that this standard language is appropriate as a safety net and is
necessary to encourage those receiving the public notice to take steps
to alert others of the violations and potential risk from drinking
water.
Compliance with this requirement is one of, but not the only,
reasonably-calculated steps a public water system must take to reach
other persons who may not receive or see the notice. The final rule
gives the water system discretion to add the distribution language when
it determines such a notice is needed to reach persons served beyond
those who receive the initial notice directly from the water system.
Comments Requested on Proposal: Comments were solicited on the
proposed standard language and any alternative language that would meet
EPA's intent. Most commenters supported the proposed requirement to
include standard distribution language in public notices. A few
commenters believed such standard language was not always appropriate
and recommended that the final rule give the water system or primacy
agency flexibility in determining when it was applicable. A number of
comments offered edits to the proposed text to better communicate the
intended message.
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule retains the proposed
requirement that water systems include in their notices the standard
language contained in Sec. 141.205(d)(3) to encourage persons receiving
the notice to distribute it to
[[Page 26007]]
others who are served by the water system. EPA agreed with commenters,
however, that the standard language should be required only where it is
applicable and useful to reach those persons served by the system who
may not hear about the violations through traditional means. Therefore,
the final rule gives the water system discretion to determine when the
standard language is applicable. The proposed rule required the
standard language to be used for all notices. The final rule also
includes minor edits to the proposed standard language in response to
suggestions from commenters. EPA believes the revised language is
simpler than what was proposed and would apply to more situations and
encourage wider distribution. EPA disagrees with several commenters who
claimed that such a new requirement is not warranted. On the contrary,
EPA believes the standard language will serve as a safety net,
encouraging those receiving the public notice to alert others who would
otherwise not hear of the potential risk from their drinking water due
to the violation.
J. Other Public Notification Requirements
1. Notice to New Billing Units or New Customers (Sec. 141.206).
Today's Rule: The final rule modifies the current regulatory
provision requiring that public notices go to new billing units. The
current rule requires that community water systems send a copy of the
most recent public notice to all new billing units for ongoing MCL and
TT violations or violations of the conditions of existing variances or
exemptions. The final rule broadens the requirement to include any
ongoing violation or situation that required an initial public notice
(including ongoing monitoring and testing procedure violations) and
adds a new provision requiring non-community water systems to
continuously post the notice to inform new customers of any ongoing
violations. EPA is revising the current rule to better ensure that new
customers served by all public water systems are made aware of any
continuing violations of drinking water standards. The initial notice,
if posted in a location where new consumers pass by, will meet this new
requirement. However, water systems that deliver the initial notice to
some but not all the existing customers (or that otherwise have the
notice out of sight of new consumers) have an additional responsibility
under this new provision. EPA believes this new provision makes notices
more readily available to new consumers not receiving the notice under
the current regulation.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the change
to the current rule extending the requirement to cover ongoing
monitoring and testing procedure violations and to require that the
notice be provided to new customers by both community and non-community
water systems. Commenters raised a number of concerns with the proposed
language. Several commenters believed that compliance with the new
requirement would be difficult to track. Other commenters felt that the
notice to new billing units of ongoing monitoring violations was
unnecessary and that the more effective vehicle to communicate these
violations, for community water systems at least, would be the CCR.
EPA Response to Comments: EPA is retaining the requirement for
notice to new billing units as proposed. The final rule makes minor,
clarifying changes from the proposal, but the basic changes to the
current requirements in the proposal have been retained in the final
rule. In response to comments that the new requirement extending the
current requirement to include notice to new billing units for ongoing
monitoring violations was inappropriate and difficult to track, EPA has
decided to leave the proposed requirement unchanged. EPA believes that
notification to new customers of all ongoing violations meets a clear
right-to-know objective. It is part of the operator's obligation to
reach the persons they serve, regardless of when they move into the
distribution area. In response to State commenters anticipating
significant difficulty in tracking compliance, EPA expects that when a
system submits the certification of compliance to the primacy agency
under Sec. 141.31(d) after each violation event, it would also commit
the PWS to sending the notice to new billing units until the violation
is resolved. EPA does not intend for systems to forward to primacy
agencies a copy of every public notice sent to new customers. EPA will
include in the Public Notification Handbook a discussion of how the
certification process will work.
2. Special Notice To Announce the Availability of the Results of
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (Sec. 141.207)
Today's Rule: The final rule creates a new Sec. 141.207 to add the
timing and other public notification details to the notice requirement
under the recently published Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
(UCMR). The UCMR carried over an existing provision in Sec. 141.35,
which required that the water systems give notice to the public of the
availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results. The UCMR
retains the same reporting requirement as in the former Sec. 141.35 but
eliminates the 3-month deadline for giving the public notice,
referencing instead the timing and other requirements contained under
Sec. 141.207 of today's rule. Today's rule sets a 12-month deadline for
this special notice, to allow public water systems, at their option, to
report the availability of all the results in a single annual notice,
reducing the number of required notices from four to one. EPA
encourages community water systems to include the annual notice
required under this section in their CCR, as long as the CCR meets the
public notification timing and delivery requirements. The unregulated
contaminant monitoring results (where detected) must already be
included in the CCR, so meeting both requirements in the CCR will be
both more efficient for the regulated community and less confusing to
the public.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the
proposed approach to meeting the requirements under Sections
1414(c)(2)(E) and 1445(a)(2)(E) of the 1996 SDWA. EPA also requested
comment on its proposal to shift the timing of the notice from three
months to twelve months. Most commenters supported the timing change.
Several commenters recommended that EPA delete the requirement for this
special notice requirement altogether from the public notification
rule, as it is already adequately covered by the CCR (for community
water systems at least).
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule retains the requirement,
as proposed, to provide notice of the availability of unregulated
contaminant monitoring results within twelve months of the monitoring.
In response to several commenters who recommended that the notice
requirements be provided within three months (as required in the former
Sec. 141.35), EPA has decided to retain the proposed 12-month notice
deadline. EPA sees this distribution of information as a right-to-know
issue, with a different public notification message than the higher-
tier notices because it is not related to a violation of an existing
standard. The change in the timing of the public notice is to allow
water systems, at their option, to report the availability of all the
results just once during the year. Nothing precludes a water system
from distributing notice of the availability of results of monitoring
for unregulated contaminants sooner.
[[Page 26008]]
In response to comments that the special notice announcing the
availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results is
overlapping and redundant with a similar requirement in the CCR rule,
EPA is responding to a statutory requirement under Section 1414(c)(1)
and (c)(2)(E) of the 1996 SDWA amendments and is carrying over an
existing requirement. EPA does agree, however, that community water
systems should be allowed and encouraged to include the notice of the
availability of the results in the CCR, if the timing and delivery
requirements are met. EPA believes close coordination between the
public notification requirement and the CCR reporting requirement for
this information will be both more efficient for the regulated
community and less confusing to the public.
3. Special Notice for Exceedance of the Fluoride Secondary Maximum
Contaminant Level (SMCL) (Sec. 141.208)
Today's Rule: Today's action moves the current special fluoride
notice requirements under Sec. 143.5 into the new Subpart Q public
notification provision at Sec. 141.208. The special public notice is to
alert persons served who may not otherwise be notified that the
fluoride levels in the drinking water may pose a cosmetic dental risk
to children under nine years old. The final rule retains the current
requirement that community water systems provide a special notice to
persons served when they exceed the SMCL of 2 mg/l for fluoride but do
not exceed the MCL violation level of 4 mg/l. As in the current rule, a
copy of the notice must also be sent to all new billing units and new
customers at the time service begins and to the State public health
officer. Community water systems must use the mandatory notice language
in the rule. The final rule requires that the notice be sent out as
soon as practical but no later than 12 months from the day the water
system learns of the exceedance. Repeat notices must be sent out at
least annually until the exceedance is eliminated. At its option, a
primacy agency may require an initial notice sooner than 12 months or a
repeat notice more frequently than annually when warranted by the
specific situation.
The final rule under Sec. 141.208 of Subpart Q makes four changes
to the current public notice requirements for exceedance of the
fluoride SMCL:
To require that the form and manner of the special notice
follow the Tier 3 requirements in Secs. 141.204(c) and 141.204(d) of
the final rule, including that the notice be sent to persons served by
the system (rather than just to the billing units);
To require that the notice be sent out ``as soon as
practical but no later than 12 months from the day the water system
learns of the exceedance'' (rather than ``annually'');
To explicitly authorize the primacy agency to require
notice sooner and repeat notices more frequently when warranted by the
specific situation; and
To revise the mandatory language to reflect recent studies
of the incidence and potential cosmetic effects of dental fluorosis and
to make other changes to better communicate the intended message.
Today's rule also requires that the proposed standard health
effects language for violations of the fluoride MCL in Appendix B of
Subpart Q be revised to include the effects of dental fluorosis on
children under nine years of age. This was added in response to
comments that the proposed standard language required for a violation
of the MCL did not adequately address the risks to children from
fluoride levels above the SMCL.
EPA believes it is important to retain and strengthen the existing
fluoride SMCL special notice requirement. Consumers have a right to
know about the cosmetic effects from dental fluorosis that may occur in
children resulting from exposure to drinking water exceeding the
fluoride SMCL. The current notice requirement for exceedance of the
fluoride SMCL in Sec. 143.5 was put in place when the fluoride national
primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) was published in April 2,
1986 (50 FR 11396). The 1986 fluoride NPDWR replaced the more stringent
MCL in place as an interim standard since the original SDWA in 1974.
The interim MCL of 2 mg/l became the SMCL when the final primary
standard was published on April 2, 1986. Part of the agreement for
reducing the stringency of the MCL from 2 mg/l to 4 mg/l was that the
public would continue to be notified of the potential for developing
dental fluorosis from exposure to their drinking water when the levels
exceeded 2 mg/l.
NTNCWS are not currently required to monitor for fluoride under
EPA's current regulations, and therefore the EPA SMCL notice
requirement does not apply to them. However, EPA recommends that
NTNCWS, particularly schools and day-care centers, provide the special
SMCL notice to persons they serve when they learn they are providing
drinking water with fluoride levels exceeding 2 mg/l.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on whether
EPA should retain the special public notice for exceedance of the
fluoride SMCL and, if retained, whether retaining the requirement
allowing the public notice to be given as soon as practical but no
later than 12 months after the exceedance is known is sufficient. EPA
also requested comment on whether the revised mandatory language better
communicates the purpose of the notice and the cosmetic risks from
drinking the water. Several commenters supported continuation of the
special notice requirement but believed that EPA should require it to
be distributed as a Tier 2 (30-day) notice rather than annually because
of the risk of dental fluorosis in children from relatively short-term
exposure. Other commenters requested that EPA either delete the
requirement outright or somehow merge it with the CCR requirements.
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule carries forward the
principal elements of the proposed notice requirement for exceedances
of the SMCL basically unchanged. In response to comments, however, EPA
did make significant changes to the proposed mandatory notice language
to improve the effectiveness of the notice. Also, in response to
comments, EPA has explicitly authorized the primacy agency to require
the initial notice sooner than 12 months and any repeat notices more
frequently than annually. EPA also restored in the final rule the
language in Sec. 143.5 of the current rule (inadvertently left out of
the proposal) requiring that the notice be distributed not only to
persons served, but also to new billing units and new customers and to
the State health officer.
In addition, EPA agreed with commenters that the proposed standard
language required for violations of the fluoride MCL did not adequately
cover the cosmetic effects from the violation. Accordingly, EPA has
modified in Appendix B of the final rule the standard health effects
language for violations of the fluoride MCL, to include more complete
information on the effects of dental fluorosis. The existing fluoride
language required in the CCR rule was amended as well. This change will
ensure that parents of the children most vulnerable to the cosmetic
effects of fluoride exceedances (i.e., children nine years old and
under) receive information on both the cosmetic and health effects from
fluoride MCL violations.
In response to commenters recommending that the mandatory notice
for exceedance of the fluoride
[[Page 26009]]
SMCL be deleted or somehow combined with the CCR requirements, EPA has
decided to retain the current requirement basically unchanged. EPA sees
no need to question the decision to require this special fluoride
notice made when EPA first published the primary fluoride standard in
1986. EPA continues to believe that consumers have a right to know
about the cosmetic effects from dental fluorosis that may occur in
children from exposure to drinking water exceeding the fluoride SMCL.
EPA encourages community water systems to use the CCR to meet this
special notice requirement, where possible, as long as the CCR is able
to meet the timing and delivery requirements under the public
notification regulation.
In response to comments that the notice be required sooner than 12
months after the exceedance because of the likely effects from exposure
as short as three months, EPA has decided to retain the timing of the
notice as proposed. EPA did, however, add language in the final rule
that explicitly authorizes the primacy agency to require a more
frequent notice when warranted by the specific situation. EPA is aware
of recent studies that indicate possible risk of dental fluorosis from
short-term exposure to fluoride levels above the SMCL, but it has not
done a sufficient review of the various studies to consider changing
the notice timing from what was proposed. Review of the fluoride
standard falls within the required six year review of the existing
national primary drinking water standards under Section 1412(b)(9) of
the SDWA, which is not due to be completed until August 2002. Since
some recent studies do indicate a possible risk of dental fluorosis
from short-term exposure in certain circumstances, EPA believes it is
prudent for a water system with continuous levels of fluoride above the
SMCL to work with the primacy agency to determine when and how often
the notice should be given, based on the severity and persistence of
the fluoride exceedance in the specific situation.
4. Special Notice for Nitrate Exceedances Above the MCL by Non-
Community Water Systems (NCWS), Where Granted Permission by Primacy
Agency Under Sec. 141.11(d) (Sec. 141.209)
Today's Rule: The final rule incorporates into Subpart Q the
current public notification requirement under Sec. 141.11(d) for non-
community water systems (NCWS) that have been granted permission by the
primacy agency to continue to exceed the nitrate MCL of 10 mg/l
(although they must not exceed 20 mg/l). The current rule under
Sec. 141.11(d) sets criteria that primacy agencies must follow in
considering whether to allow NCWS to exceed the nitrate MCL without
incurring a violation. The criteria under Sec. 141.11(d) require that
the water system: (1) Demonstrate that the drinking water will not be
available to children under 6 months of age; (2) provide continuous
posting of the fact that nitrate levels are above 10 mg/l and identify
the potential health effects of exposure; (3) notify local and State
health authorities annually of nitrate levels that exceed 10 mg/l; and
(4) ensure that no adverse health effects shall result. The public
notice provision under Sec. 141.11(d)(2) is revised today to reference
Sec. 141.209 of Subpart Q, which requires that NCWS granted permission
to exceed the MCL follow the Tier 1 notice requirements (including the
deadline, delivery and content) in much the same way as required for
violations of the nitrate MCL. EPA believes incorporating the public
notice requirement under Sec. 141.11(d) into the more specific Tier 1
standard public notification protocol will allow NCWS to more
systematically meet their public notice obligations when allowed to
exceed the MCL.
With today's final rule, EPA is incorporating into Subpart Q all
the public notification requirements currently in other parts of CFR
Part 141, including the requirement in Sec. 141.11(d). See Section IV.L
of this preamble for a summary of these changes. This action does not
substantively change the existing public notification requirement and
therefore requires no prior notice and opportunity to comment.
5. Conditions Under Which the Primacy Agency May Give Notice on Behalf
of Public Water System (Sec. 141.210)
Today's Rule: The final rule retains the provision in the current
rule specifying under what conditions the primacy agency may give
notice on behalf of a public water system. Under this provision, the
primacy agency may give a public notice for the public water system if
all public notification requirements are met. The responsibility to
comply, however, would always remain with the public water system.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the
proposal to retain this provision. Virtually all the comments received
on this provision supported the proposal.
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule is unchanged from what was
proposed.
K. Reporting to the Primacy Agency and Retention of Records
1. Public Water System Reporting to the Primacy Agency (Sec. 141.31(d))
Today's Rule: The final rule amends the existing reporting
requirement under Sec. 141.31(d) by requiring public water systems to
submit a certification to the primacy agency that all public
notification requirements have been met. Under the current
Sec. 141.31(d), public water systems are required to submit copies of
all public notices to the primacy agency within 10 days of completing
each public notice. EPA believes that including a simple certification
of compliance from the public water system with the copies of the
notices will: Encourage voluntary compliance; save primacy agency
resources; and allow better targeting of noncompliers. EPA also
believes that maintaining the existing 10-day reporting deadline allows
the primacy agency to quickly understand how the system met its public
notification obligation and to pursue whatever follow-up is necessary
to ensure the public is effectively informed of the violation. The
opportunity for immediate feedback to the water system and quick
resolution will strengthen the public notification program.
Comments Received on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the timing
and content of the revised reporting requirement, particularly the new
certification requirement. A majority of commenters either requested
clarification on what EPA intended under the new certification
requirement or recommended that EPA delete the new certification
requirement from the final rule altogether. Several commenters also
objected to the 10-day reporting deadline, some wanting a 30-or 60-day
period and others recommending that it be required immediately after
the notice is given.
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule retains the proposed
requirement that public water systems send a certification of
compliance, with copies of the public notices, to the primacy agency
within 10 days after the public notification requirements are completed
for the initial notice and for each repeat notice cycle. EPA made minor
changes to the proposed language to respond to requests that EPA
clarify what the scope of the new certification requirement is and when
the certification must be submitted. In response to comments
questioning the need for this new requirement, EPA believes that a
simple certification sent with copies of the notice will facilitate
compliance monitoring and follow-up by the
[[Page 26010]]
primacy agency. It may also encourage voluntary compliance. In response
to comments that EPA extend the proposed ten-day deadline to 30 or 60
days, EPA believes it is important for primacy agencies to receive the
notices (and assess their adequacy) as soon as possible after the
public water system sends the notice to its customers. The primacy
agency's quick follow-up to an inadequate public notice response to
violations will ensure public health is protected. In response to a
commenter's suggestion of a certification ``box,'' EPA agrees that a
properly worded box that indicates the system complied with all of the
PN requirements would meet the certification requirement. A sample
certification statement for PWSs to use will be included in the final
Public Notification Handbook.
2. Retention of Records by Public Water Systems (Sec. 141.33)
Today's Rule: The final rule requires that public water systems
retain public notification records for three years. Today's action also
amends the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) regulation to change the
public water system record retention requirement from five years to
three years to be consistent with the public notification requirement.
The current public notification regulation has no provision for
retention of public notification records. A record retention
requirement for public notices conforms with the requirements already
in place for other EPA regulatory requirements (e.g., sampling results,
variances and exemptions). The record retention period of no more than
three years is consistent with the limits set in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.5, which
implement the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the
reporting and record keeping proposal, including an alternative to the
proposal to set the retention period for records under the public
notification regulations to five years. EPA also requested comment on
whether the record retention periods required under the related CCR
regulation should be adjusted to three years, if necessary, to be
consistent with the final public notification retention requirement and
Paperwork Reduction Act regulations. Commenters were split on whether a
five- or three-year record retention period should be required, but
virtually all the comments supported requiring the same period under
the CCR rule and public notification rule.
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule setting a three-year
record retention period for public notice records is unchanged from the
proposal. In response to comments on the need to keep the required
record retention period consistent with the CCR rule, EPA is also
amending the CCR rule today to match the three-year period proposed for
the public notification rule. EPA decided to require a three-year
(rather than a five-year) record retention period to be consistent with
the baseline requirement under OMB's paperwork reduction act
guidelines. No comments were received that gave compelling reasons to
deviate from this baseline OMB requirement.
L. Other Changes to the Current Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) To Be
Consistent With the Final Public Notification Regulations
Table C is a listing of the changes made in today's rule to various
provisions in 40 CFR Part 141 to change the public notification
references to the new Subpart Q and to otherwise modify the language to
be consistent with the final public notification regulations. The
amendments do not substantively alter the existing requirements in
these provisions and therefore require no prior notice and opportunity
for comment.
Table C.--Summary of Other Changes to CFR to Be Consistent With Final Public Notification Rule (Part 141,
Subpart Q)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart Q
CFR Section Subject Reference (where Change
applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 141.6(c), Sec. ``The regulations set forth in Sec. 141.201... Delete all reference to Sec.
141.6(g) Effective dates. . . . Sec. 141.32(b)(3) and 141.32. Effective dates for
Sec. 141.32(d) shall take new Subpart Q are contained
effect immediately upon in Sec. 141.201 introductory
promulgation. . . The paragraph.
regulations contained in Sec.
141.32(e)(16), (25-27), and
(46) . . . are effective
January 1, 1993''.
Sec. 141.11(d) Nitrate ``At the discretion of the Sec. 141.209... Change Sec. 141.11(d)(2) to
levels in non-community State, nitrate levels not to require that systems meet PN
systems. exceed 20 mg/l may be allowed requirements under Sec.
in a non-community water 141.209.
system if the supplier of Add new special notice (Sec.
water demonstrates. . . that 141.209), require Tier 1
(1) Such water will not be notification and the ten
available to children under 6 elements required for
months of age; and (2) There violations
will be continuous posting of
the fact that nitrate levels
exceed 10 mg/l and the
potential health effects of
exposure; and local and State
public health authorities will
be notified annually of
nitrate levels. . . and (4) No
adverse health effects shall
result.''.
Sec. 141.21(g)(1) Total ``A public water system which Sec. 141.203 Change reference to ``Sec.
coliform MCL. has exceeded the MCL for total (Tier 2) and 141.32'' to ``subpart Q''
coliform in Sec. 141.63 must Sec. 141.204
report the violation to the (Tier 3).
State no later than the end of
the next business day after it
learns of the violation, and
notify the public in
accordance with Sec. 141.32''.
[[Page 26011]]
Sec. 141.21(g)(2) Coliform ``A public water system which Sec. 141.204 Change reference to ``Sec.
monitoring. has failed to comply with a (Tier 3) or 141.32'' to ``subpart Q''
coliform monitoring Sec. 141.202
requirement, including the (Tier 1).
sanitary survey requirement,
must report the monitoring
violation to the State within
ten days after the system
discovers the violation, and
notify the public in
accordance with Sec. 141.32''.
Sec. 141.22(b) 0Turbidity ``If the monthly average of the Sec. 141.203 Change reference to ``Sec.
MCL. daily samples exceeds the (Tier 2). 141.32'' to ``subpart Q''
maximum allowable limit or if
the average of 2 samples taken
on consecutive days exceeds 5
TU . . . report to the state
and notify the public as
directed in Sec. 141.31 and
Sec. 141.32''.
Sec. 141.23(f)(2) ``Where nitrate or nitrite Sec. 141.202 Change reference to ``Sec.
Confirmation sample for sampling results indicate an (Tier 1). 141.32'' to ``Sec. 141.202
nitrate and nitrate. exceedance of the maximum and meet other requirements
contaminant level, the system under Subpart Q of this
shall take a confirmation part''
sample within 24 hours. . .
Systems unable to comply with
the 24-hour sampling
requirement must immediately
notify consumers served . . .
in accordance with Sec.
141.32 . . .''.
Change ``consumers'' to
``persons''
Add this requirement to Sec.
141.202 along with that for
nitrate MCLs (item 2 of Table
1)
Sec. 141.23(I)(4), Sec. ``If a public water system has Subpart Q....... Delete these sections since
141.24(f)(15)(iii), Sec. a distribution system parallel requirement will be
141.24(h)(11)(iii) Public separable from other parts of included in Sec.
notice to the area affected the distribution system with 141.201(c)(2)
for inorganics, VOCs, and no interconnections, the State
SOCs. may allow the system to give
public notice to only the area
served by that portion of the
system which is out of
compliance''.
Sec. 141.23(n) Inorganics ``When the average of four Sec. 141.203 Change ``Sec. 141.32'' to
MCL. analyses . . . exceeds the (Tier 2). ``Subpart Q''
maximum contaminant level, the
supplier of water shall notify
the State pursuant to Sec.
141.31 and give notice to the
public pursuant to Sec.
141.32''.
Sec. 141.23(o) Nitrate MCL.. ``. . .When a level exceeding Sec. 141.202 Change ``Sec. 141.32'' to
the maximum contaminant level (Tier 1). ``Subpart Q''
for nitrate is found, a second
analysis shall be initiated
within 24 hours, and if the
mean of the two analyses
exceeds the maximum
contaminant level, the
supplier of water shall report
his findings to the State
pursuant to Sec. 141.31 and
shall notify the public
pursuant to Sec. 141.32''.
Sec. 141.26(a)(4) Gross ``If the average annual maximum Sec. 141.203 Change ``Sec. 141.32'' to
alpha or total radium MCL. contaminant level for gross (Tier 2). ``Subpart Q''
alpha particle activity or
total radium . . . is
exceeded, the supplier . . .
shall give notice to the State
pursuant to Sec. 141.31 and
notify the public as required
by Sec. 141.32''.
Sec. 141.26(b)(5) Man-made ``If the average annual maximum Sec. 141.203 Change ``Sec. 141.32'' to
radiation MCL. contaminant level for man-made (Tier 2). ``Subpart Q''
radioactivity . . . is
exceeded, the supplier . . .
shall give notice to the State
pursuant to Sec. 141.31 and
notify the public as required
by Sec. 141.32''.
Sec. 141.30(d) TTHM MCL..... ``If the average of samples Sec. 141.203 Change ``Sec. 141.32'' to
covering any 12 month period (Tier 2). ``Subpart Q''
exceeds the Maximum
Contaminant Level, the
supplier of water shall report
to the State pursuant to Sec.
141.31 and notify the public
pursuant to Sec. 141.32''.
Sec. 141.63(b) Total ``For purposes of the public Sec. 141.202 Change ``Sec. 141.32'' to
coliform MCL (fecal positive notification requirements in (Tier 1). ``Subpart Q''
repeat sample). Sec. 141.32, this is a
violation that may pose an
acute risk to health.''.
[[Page 26012]]
Sec. 141.75(a)(5)(ii) SWTR ``If at any time turbidity Sec. 141.203(b) Change Sec. 141.75(a)(5)(ii)
reporting requirements exceeds 5 NTU, the system must (3). to require consultation with
(unfiltered systems). inform the State as soon as the primacy agency after
possible, but no later than turbidity exceedance above 5
the end of the next business NTU, as soon as practical but
day''. no later than 24 hours in
accordance with the public
notification requirements
under Sec. 141.203(b)(3)
Sec. 141.75(b)(3)(ii) SWTR ``If at any time turbidity Sec. 141.203(b) Change Sec. 141.75(b)(3)(ii)
reporting requirements exceeds 5 NTU, the system must (3). to require consultation with
(filtered systems). inform the State as soon as the primacy agency after
possible, but no later than turbidity exceedance above 5
the end of the next business NTU, as soon as practical but
day''. no later than 24 hours in
accordance with the public
notification requirements
under Sec. 141.203(b)(3)
Sec. 141.133(b)(1) TTHMs and ``If the running annual Sec. 141.203 Change ``Sec. 141.32'' to
HAA5 MCLs. arithmetic average of (Tier 2). ``Subpart Q''
quarterly averages covering
any consecutive four-quarter
period exceeds the MCL, the
system is in violation of the
MCL and must notify the public
pursuant to Sec. 141.32 . .
.''.
Sec. 141.133(b)(2) Bromate ``If the average of samples Sec. 141.203 Change ``Sec. 141.32'' to
MCL. covering any consecutive four- (Tier 2). ``Subpart Q''
quarter period exceeds the
MCL, the system is in
violation of the MCL and must
notify the public pursuant to
Sec. 141.32 . . .''.
Sec. 141.133(b)(3) Chlorite ``If the arithmetic average of Sec. 141.203 Change ``Sec. 141.32'' to
MCL. any three sample set exceeds (Tier 2). ``Subpart Q''
the MCL, the system is in
violation of the MCL and must
notify the public pursuant to
Sec. 141.32. . .''.
Sec. 141.133(c)(1) Chlorine ``If the average of quarterly Sec. 141.203 Change ``Sec. 141.32'' to
and chloramines MRDL. averages covering any (Tier 2). ``Subpart Q''
consecutive four-quarter
period exceeds the MRDL, the
system is in violation of the
MRDL and must notify the
public pursuant to Sec.
141.32 . . .''.
Sec. 141.133(c)(2)(I) ``If any daily sample taken at Sec. 141.202 Change ``Sec.
Chlorine dioxide MRDL. the entrance to the (Tier 1). 141.32(a)(1)(iii)(E)'' to
distribution system exceeds ``Subpart Q''
the MRDL, and on the following
day one (or more) of the three
samples . . . exceed the MRDL,
the system must . . . notify
the public pursuant to the
procedures for acute health
risks in Sec. 141.32(a)(1)
(iii)(E). Failure to take
samples in the distribution
system the day following an
exceedance of the chlorine
dioxide MRDL. . .will also be
considered an MRDL violation
and the system must notify . .
. in accordance with the
provisions for acute
violations under Sec.
141.32(a)(1)(iii)(E)''.
Sec. 141.133(c)(2)(ii) ``If any two consecutive daily Sec. 141.203 Change ``Sec. 141.32(e)(78)''
Chlorine dioxide MRDL. samples taken at the entrance (Tier 2). to ``Subpart Q''
to the distribution system
exceed the MRDL and all
distribution system samples
are below the MRDL, the system
. . . will notify the public
pursuant to the procedures for
non-acute health risks in Sec.
141.32(e)(78). Failure to
take samples in the
distribution system the day
following an exceedance of the
chlorine dioxide MRDL at the
entrance to the distribution
system . . . is also an MRDL
violation and the system must
notify . . . in accordance
with the provisions for non-
acute violations under Sec.
141.32(e)(78)''.
[[Page 26013]]
Sec. 141.175(c)(1) IESWTR ``If at any time the turbidity Sec. 141.203(b) Change Sec. 141.175(c)(1) to
reporting requirements exceeds 1 NTU in (3). require consultation with the
(filtered systems using representative samples of primacy agency after
conventional or direct filtered water in a system turbidity exceedance above 1
filtration treatment). using conventional filtration NTU, as soon as practical but
treatment or direct no later than 24 hours in
filtration, the system must accordance with the public
inform the State as soon as notification requirements
possible, but no later than under Sec. 141.203(b)(3)
the end of the next business
day''.
Sec. 141.175(c)(2) IESWTR ``If at any time the turbidity Sec. 141.203(b) Change Sec. 141.175(c)(2) to
reporting requirements in representative samples of (3). require consultation with the
(filtered systems using filtered water exceed the primacy agency after
other than conventional or maximum level set by the State turbidity exceedance above
direct filtration treatment). under Sec. 142.173(b) for the maximum level set by the
filtration technologies other State, as soon as practical
than conventional filtration but no later than 24 hours in
treatment, direct filtration, accordance with the public
slow sand filtration, or notification requirements
diatomaceous earth filtration, under Sec. 141.203(b)(3)
the system must inform the
State as soon as possible, but
no later than the end of the
next business day''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Special State/Tribal Primacy Requirements and Rationale (40 CFR Part
142, Subpart B)
Today's Rule: The final rule amends Secs. 142.10 and 142.16 of the
primacy regulations (40 CFR Part 142, Subpart B) to define the
requirements that States (including eligible Indian Tribes) must follow
to incorporate the revised public notification regulations into their
approved primacy program. The final rule also amends Sec. 142.14 to
require that the State retain, for three years, the certifications and
public notices received from the public water systems and any
determinations establishing alternative public notification
requirements. Finally, the final rule amends Sec. 142.15 to reaffirm
the requirement that the State report violations of the public
notification regulations on a quarterly basis to EPA.
Under the primacy regulations, a State is required to adopt, as a
condition of primacy, a State rule that is no less stringent than the
regulation being proposed today. The requirements States must meet to
receive primary enforcement responsibility (``primacy'') are listed in
Sec. 142.10 and requirements to revise an approved primacy program are
in Sec. 142.12. Under Sec. 142.10(b)(6)(v), each State with primary
enforcement responsibility must adopt and implement adequate procedures
to require public water systems to give public notice that is no less
stringent than the EPA public notification requirements. Special
primacy requirements unique to the public notification regulation are
in Sec. 142.16(a).
The final rule amends Sec. 142.10(b)(6)(v) to replace the existing
citation (Sec. 141.32) with the new public notification citation (40
CFR Part 141, Subpart Q). The final rule replaces the existing language
in Sec. 142.16(a) with a new section comprised of two elements.
First, Sec. 142.16(a)(1) requires primacy States to submit requests
for approval of a revised primacy program adopting the new public
notification requirements under 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q. At its
option, a State may establish alternative public notification
requirements with respect to the form and content of the public notice
required under Subpart Q of Part 141. The alternative requirements must
provide the same type and amount of information required under Subpart
Q and must meet the primacy requirements under Sec. 142.10. States will
have two years after the final rule is published in the Federal
Register to submit a complete and final primacy program revision
package to EPA, unless the State requests and EPA approves an extension
of up to two additional years.
Second, Sec. 142.16(a)(2) lists the sections of the final public
notification regulations (Subpart Q of Part 141) where EPA explicitly
authorizes primacy States to augment or otherwise change the EPA
requirements to build a more complete and effective State public
notification program. In some cases, EPA is counting on the States to
augment the EPA regulation by providing authority under their own
regulations for making determinations unique to a specific situation
that are more appropriate than the regulatory default under the EPA
rule (e.g., adding supplemental Tier 1 requirements after consultation
with the public water system; elevating a monitoring violation from a
Tier 3 to a Tier 2). In other cases, the authority given to the State
to deviate from the EPA rule is intended to build in flexibility to
give a ``common sense'' solution to unique situations where the EPA
rule default requirement just does not work. The regulation in some
cases enables the State to tailor the EPA baseline requirements to
increase program flexibility and in other cases recognizes and expects
the State to exercise its option under primacy to be more stringent
than the EPA rule. Building in this flexibility allows the program to
be responsive to different situations. One size does not fit all. Of
course, States are free to establish requirements that are more
stringent and broader in scope than the EPA program without including
them in the approved primacy program. The advantage of including such
more stringent requirements in the approved primacy program is that it
enables EPA and the State to jointly implement and enforce the expanded
program.
Where the State uses the flexibility built into EPA's rule as part
of its approved primacy program, Sec. 142.16(a)(2) requires that a
State establish, as part of its revised primacy program, enforceable
requirements and procedures. The EPA rule provisions that explicitly
authorize primacy States to augment the EPA requirements are as
follows:
Table 1 to 40 CFR 141.201(a) (Item 3v)--To require public
water systems to give a public notice for violations or situations
other than those listed in Appendix A of Subpart Q of Part 141. This
supports existing State authority under primacy to add notice
requirements not explicit in the EPA rule, to tailor its program to
respond to its unique public notification policies and situations.
[[Page 26014]]
40 CFR 141.201(c)(2)--To permit public water systems,
under the specific circumstances listed in Sec. 141.201(c)(2), to limit
the distribution of the public notice to persons served by the portion
of the distribution system that is out of compliance. This authorizes
the State to use its discretion to respond to unique situations where
strict compliance with EPA's baseline requirements may lead to an
ineffective notice or unnecessary costs.
Table 1 of 40 CFR 141.202(a) (Items 5, 6, and 8)--To
require public water systems to give a Tier 1 public notice (rather
than a Tier 2 or Tier 3 notice) for violations or situations listed in
Appendix A of Subpart Q of Part 141 of this chapter. This supports
existing State authority under primacy to elevate specific violations
to Tier 1 where the EPA default Tier requirement does not meet the
State's public health objectives. EPA expects States to use this
authority when needed to respond to situations where there is
significant potential for adverse health effects from short-term
exposure. In particular, EPA needs the State to exercise its authority
to elevate single exceedance turbidity violations to a Tier 1 when
consultation under Sec. 141.203(b)(3) indicates high potential for
short-term health risk.
40 CFR 141.202(b)(3)--To require public water systems to
comply with additional Tier 1 public notification requirements set by
the State subsequent to the initial 24-hour Tier 1 notice, as a result
of their consultation with the State required under Sec. 141.202(b)(2).
This supports existing State authority under primacy to add
supplemental Tier 1 requirements as a result of the Tier 1 consultation
required under Sec. 141.202(b)(2). EPA expects States to use this
authority to ensure effective, enforceable follow-up to the initial
Tier 1 notice. The EPA rule does not require any specific follow-up
action by the water system after the initial Tier 1 notice, deferring
totally to the primacy agency to define all supplemental requirements.
40 CFR 141.202(c), 141.203(c) and 141.204(c)--To require a
different form and manner of delivery for Tier 1, 2 and 3 public
notices. This supports existing State authority under primacy to use
its discretion to tailor the public notice delivery to the specific
situation or specific approach preferred by the State, as long as it
otherwise meets primacy requirements.
Table 1 to 40 CFR 141.203(a) (Item 2)--To require the
public water systems to provide a Tier 2 public notice (rather than
Tier 3) for monitoring or testing procedure violations specified by the
State. This supports existing State authority under primacy to elevate
the notice requirement for a monitoring violation to Tier 2. The
default tier level for all monitoring violations is Tier 3 unless the
primacy agency chooses to elevate the requirement to a Tier 2 notice
when warranted. EPA expects States to build this additional authority
into their approved programs to ensure that notices for monitoring
violations posing potential serious adverse health effects are
delivered within 30 days.
40 CFR 141.203(b)(1)--To grant public water systems an
extension of up to three months for distributing the Tier 2 public
notice, in appropriate circumstances other than those specifically
prohibited by the rule. This authorizes the State to use its
discretion, where appropriate, to extend the Tier 2 notice deadline to
give water systems some relief from EPA's default deadline.
40 CFR 141.203(b)(2)--To grant a different repeat notice
frequency for the Tier 2 public notice in appropriate circumstances
(other than those specifically prohibited by the rule), but no less
frequently than once per year. This authorizes the State to use its
discretion, where appropriate, to allow less frequent repeat notice
frequency for violations to give water systems some relief from EPA's
default repeat notice requirement.
40 CFR 141.203(b)(3)--To respond within 24 hours to a
request for consultation by the public water system to determine
whether a Tier 1 (rather than a Tier 2) notice is required for a
turbidity MCL violation under Sec. 141.13(b) or a SWTR/IESWTR TT
violation due to a single exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity
limit. This ensures that the State is prepared to respond to the
request for consultation from the water system after it learns of a
violation of the turbidity single exceedance limit. EPA expects States
to establish a process that would lead to a determination within the
24-hour window to avoid a ``no action'' default to a Tier 1 notice on
every turbidity single exceedance violation.
40 CFR 141.205(c)(2)--To determine the specific
multilingual requirement for public water systems, including defining
``large proportion of non-English-speaking consumers.'' This supports
existing State authority under primacy to augment the EPA rule to
clarify who must comply with the EPA requirements and how the
requirements will be met. EPA expects States to provide more specific
direction to water systems than is provided under the EPA rule,
particularly by developing criteria for determining which systems serve
a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers.
EPA believes that State adoption and implementation of the revised
public notification rule should, where possible, be coordinated with
the State implementation of the CCR rule. EPA encourages and will
support efforts by the State to merge the adoption and implementation
of the two rules because of the close interrelationship between the two
programs. Merging implementation of the two programs will make both
programs more effective and understandable to the water systems and to
the public.
Although the final date for adoption of the revised public
notification rule is two years from the date of today's rule, States
may adopt the revised public notification requirements earlier. The new
requirements will then go into effect when the State's revised
regulations adopting the new requirements go into effect. EPA
encourages States to take immediate steps to determine how the more
streamlined and effective public notice requirements can be integrated
into both the ongoing public notice programs and the emerging CCR
program. Early adoption of the new rule will enable water systems to
take early advantage of the efficiencies and flexibility built into the
revised program.
EPA expects to issue interim primacy guidance shortly, which will
outline the new requirements and describe how they can most effectively
be adopted and implemented by the States. The guidance will include
recommended steps States can take, at their option, to combine the new
public notification rule with the CCR rule to better coordinate the
related primacy and implementation activities.
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the
proposed requirements States would have to follow to develop the
approved primacy program revision and on other changes to the State
record keeping and reporting requirements related to the public
notification rule. EPA also requested comment on the proposed
interpretation of the primacy standard to be applied for review of
State alternative programs. All comments received on the primacy
proposal were in support of allowing States the full two years to adopt
the revised public notification regulation. Several commenters saw no
need to set special primacy requirements for provisions allowing States
to be more stringent than EPA's rule, since States already have that
authority. Several other commenters asked EPA to establish criteria in
the regulation for when EPA expects States to elevate violations to a
more stringent violation tier. A
[[Page 26015]]
significant minority of commenters asked that EPA set more specific
requirements in the final rule on State compliance reporting and
tracking.
EPA Response to Comments: The final rule retains the requirement,
as proposed, that States must revise their approved primacy programs,
including addressing the new special primacy requirements under Section
142.16(a)(2), to retain primacy. The proposed list of special primacy
conditions was modified in the final rule to conform to changes made in
other sections of the rule and to make other edits to improve the
presentation. The basic primacy requirements, however, were unchanged
from the proposal.
In response to commenters who questioned the need for special
primacy conditions where the State chooses to be more stringent, EPA
has reaffirmed the requirement that the primacy revision package
submitted to EPA for approval must address all the program elements
where EPA explicitly allows the State to set different requirements
from the EPA rule requirements. The advantage of including all the
program elements in the approved primacy program where the State is
explicitly allowed to be different is that it enables EPA and the State
to jointly implement and enforce the expanded program. EPA recommends
that primacy States take advantage of this opportunity to work together
to develop an effective State public notification program. Under the
final rule, States are of course still free to establish more stringent
requirements outside the approved primacy program.
In response to other commenters requesting that the final rule
include criteria for when EPA expects States to be more stringent, EPA
has chosen not to specify additional criteria on how the States should
use the discretion authorized in the EPA rule. The final rule
provisions, in most cases, do establish boundaries on the use of the
State discretion. Beyond that, EPA believes the State program should
work with EPA to address those questions during the primacy revision
approval process. EPA is acutely interested in how the flexibility is
used and how EPA and the States can jointly implement and enforce this
tailored program. EPA wants to work with States individually to fashion
a flexible program which meets the State's needs.
In response to comments concerning EPA's specific expectations
regarding State compliance reporting and tracking, EPA believes that
these questions are most appropriately addressed in the primacy
guidance rather than the regulations. The final rule does reaffirm the
requirement that primacy agencies report public notification violations
to EPA on a quarterly basis. It also requires public water systems to
submit a compliance certification, with copies of the public notices,
to the State within ten days after every public notification event. EPA
will address compliance and reporting strategies in its guidance to
primacy agencies on implementing the PN rule.
V. Changes to Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Regulation To Be
Consistent With the Final Public Notification Regulation
Today's Rule: The Consumer Confidence Report rule is updated today
in several aspects, to be better aligned with the final public
notification rule being published today. First, the three Appendices to
Subpart O, which contain various pieces of information about the
contaminants that EPA regulates, are deleted and the information is
combined into a new, comprehensive Appendix A to Subpart O. This new
single Appendix makes the information more accessible. EPA will
republish the entire table in each final rule that changes the
information it contains. As a result of this change, a number of
references to the three appendices are revised to reflect the new
combined Appendix A. EPA will consider at a later date whether and how
to further align the CCR and public notification rules by combining the
Appendices in the two rules, since much of the information is similar.
Second, the new Appendix A to Subpart O is updated to contain
regulatory and health effects information on each of the disinfectants
and disinfection byproducts regulated in the Stage 1 D/DBP rule that
EPA published in December 1998. The health effects language was
proposed in the public notification rule on May 13, 1999. The final
language being published today in Appendix A to Subpart O is identical
to that which is established through today's public notification
regulations under Subpart Q. Although systems will not be required to
include information in their CCRs on these contaminants until after the
effective date of the new regulations, some systems may choose to do so
earlier.
Third, the standard health effects language for fluoride in the
current CCR regulations is revised to be identical to the health
effects language required for violation of the fluoride MCL in the
public notification rule published today. The revised language
incorporates language on the cosmetic effects (i.e., dental fluorosis)
that may occur at levels above 2 mg/l (the SMCL). The MCL standard is 4
mg/l. With this change, the health effects language required for all
the regulated contaminants in the public notification rule is now
identical to the language required in the CCR rule.
Fourth, the Sec. 141.155(h) requirement that systems retain copies
of their CCRs for at least five years is amended to require retention
for three years. EPA is making this change to slightly reduce the paper
storage burden on water suppliers and to make this requirement
consistent with other drinking water record retention requirements.
Finally, definitions for Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL)
and Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG), modeled on the
current definitions for MCL and MCLG, are added to the regulatory terms
that systems must include in their CCRs under 141.153(c) when reporting
on contaminants governed by them. EPA considers these changes to be
straightforward and noncontroversial. Since the new requirements to
include the definitions for MRDL and MRDLG are consistent with the
similar requirements to include other definitions, EPA believes no
prior notice and opportunity to comment are required.
The final public notification rule is closely related to the
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) regulation promulgated in August, 1998
[63 FR 44511 (August 19, 1998)], as amended today. The final rule uses
identical language from the CCR rule where there is an overlap, defers
to the CCR process where the public notification objectives could be
effectively accomplished through the CCR, and otherwise uses language
consistent with the CCR when appropriate.
Health Effects Language (Sec. 141.205(d)(1), Appendix B to
Subpart Q). Language on potential health effects of violations is
required both for the CCR and public notification. The final rule
requires identical health effects standard language for the public
notice and the CCR rule, as amended today under Appendix A to Subpart
O).
Use of CCR for Some Public Notices (Sec. 141.204(d)). The
CCR requires an annual summary of all violations that have occurred in
the previous year (Sec. 141.153(f)). The final public notification rule
allows community water systems, at their option, to use the Consumer
Confidence Report as the mechanism to notify their customers of any or
all Tier 3 violations, as long as those violations occurred within the
last 12 months, the content requirements of Sec. 141.205 are complied
with, and the delivery requirements under
[[Page 26016]]
Sec. 141.204(c) are met. The final rule also allows public water
systems that are not required to distribute a CCR to use an annual
report of all their Tier 3 violations or variances or exemptions, in
lieu of individual public notices. In all cases, the CCR or other
annual report would have to follow the requirements of the public
notice rule to be used for this purpose.
Notice of the Availability of the Results of Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring (Sec. 141.207). The 1996 SDWA amendments for
both the CCR and public notification contained provisions related to
giving notice of the results of unregulated contaminant monitoring
required by EPA. EPA is deferring to the requirement in the CCR rule
(under Sec. 141.153(d) and (e)) to meet the public notification
statutory provision. The CCR rule requires that such information be
included in the annual CCR for community water systems when
contaminants are detected. The final public notification rule does,
however, contain a special public notice requirement (under
Sec. 141.207) to announce the availability of the results of the
unregulated contaminant monitoring required under the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR).
Certification by PWS That Public Notification Requirements
Are Met (Sec. 141.31(d)). The final rule adds a new requirement that
public water systems provide a certification to the primacy agency,
along with a copy of their public notices, that all requirements have
been met. This is patterned after (although not identical) to the
certification requirement in the CCR regulation (Sec. 141.155(c)).
Use of Multilingual Notices (Sec. 141.205(c)(2)). The CCR
regulation requires that in communities with a large proportion of non-
English speaking residents, as determined by the primacy agency, the
report must contain information in the appropriate language(s)
regarding the importance of the notice or contain a telephone number or
address where persons served may contact the water system to obtain a
translated copy of the notice or to request assistance in the
appropriate language. The final public notification rule uses the exact
language in the CCR rule to set the multilingual requirements. The
public notification rule, however, includes a second provision not in
the CCR rule that requires PWSs to comply with the multilingual
requirements where appropriate, even when the primacy agency opts not
to make a determination. (Sec. 141.153(h)(3)).
Comments Requested on Proposal: EPA requested comment on the
approach in the proposed rule aligning the public notification
requirements with the parallel requirements in the CCR rule for the
five areas and for any other areas that would make compliance with the
two rules more effective and efficient. Commenters overwhelmingly
supported EPA's proposed intention to closely coordinate the CCR and
public notification rule language. A number of commenters, however,
disagreed or questioned how EPA proposed to do this for certain program
elements.
EPA Response to Comments: In the final rule published today, EPA
continues to support a close regulatory relationship between the CCR
and the public notification rules and strongly encourages primacy
agencies and water systems to integrate the two requirements in
implementation where it makes sense. EPA's response to commenters who
questioned how EPA planned to coordinate the CCR and public
notification rules is addressed in the individual preamble sections
related to each program element.
VI. Cost of Rule
EPA has estimated the costs both for public water systems, which
must comply with the requirements of the revised public notification
rule published today, and the primacy agencies, which must implement
the new requirements on behalf of EPA.
For public water systems, the estimated costs of complying with the
new regulation are divided into three component activities: notice
preparation costs, notice distribution costs, and costs of repeat
notices. Only public water systems with a violation or other situation
requiring a public notice incur costs under this rule.
Notice preparation costs include those costs that a public
water system must incur to comply with the requirements regardless of
how many copies of the notice it must deliver. These costs include the
labor hour costs associated with becoming familiar with the
requirements for the notice, collecting data regarding monitoring
results and the violation, consulting with the primacy agency (when
necessary), preparing the technical content of the public notification
in a format suitable for distribution, identifying the recipients of
the notice, and providing instructions about production of the notice.
Notice distribution costs are costs that increase or
decrease along with the number of public notices to be delivered. These
costs include costs of producing the reports (costs of paper and
photocopying or printing), postage costs when the notice is mailed,
costs of posting notices in specified locations, and other labor hour
costs of producing and delivering the notices.
Repeat notice costs involve the costs of updating the
initial notice and delivering a second copy of the notice, if the
violation is not corrected within the specified time period.
For primacy agencies, the estimated incremental costs of
implementing the new requirements are divided into four components:
Cost of revising primacy packages to incorporate the new
requirements;
Costs of consulting with public water systems to clarify
notice requirements on a case-by-case basis;
Costs of receiving and reviewing the public water system
compliance certification and copies of the notices; and
Costs of filing and maintaining the public notification
records.
Table D provides a summary of the estimated average annual cost and
labor hours to public water systems and to the State primacy agencies.
The public water system costs are broken out by size of the system. The
combined total cost per year to both the PWS and the primacy agencies
is $13,543,277. The combined total burden hours are 748,811.
Table D.--Average Annual Cost and Labor Hours for Public Water Systems and Primacy Agencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Total cost per labor Number of Labor hours per Cost per system
Summary table year * (1) hours systems in system (2)/(3) (1)/(3) (5)
(2) violation ** (4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------(3)-----------------------------------------
PWS:
PWS serving 25-500....... $5,218,727.77 515,656 31,187.......... 16.53........... $167.34
PWS serving 501-3,300.... 1,482.639.78 116,007 3,740........... 31.02........... 396.43
[[Page 26017]]
PWS serving 3,301-10,000. 1,052,496.62 28,799 854............. 33.72........... 1,232.43
PWS serving 10,001- 2,074,925.70 27,379 632............. 43.32........... 3,283.11
100,000.
PWS serving over 100,000. 2,171,777.56 2,550 54.............. 47.23........... 40,218.10
Totals for PWS......... 12,000,567.43 690,390 36,467 PWS...... 18.93 hours per 329.08 per PWS
PWS.
State Primacy Agencies....... 1,542,709.87 58,420 56 Primacy 1,043.22 hours 27,548.39 per
agencies. per primacy primacy agency
agency.
Totals................. $13,543,277.30 748,811
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Costs include both labor hour costs and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs.
** Source: FY 1998 inventory and violation data from Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), January,
1999.
The Agency estimates that the average annual cost to all public
water systems with one or more violations during the year is
$12,000,567, including the costs for 690,390 labor hours and the costs
for copying, postage and other related O&M costs. This is an average
annual cost of $329.08 for each of the 36,467 public water systems
required to comply with the public notice requirements because they had
one or more violations during the year. As shown in Table D, the
average annual per system costs and labor hours vary significantly by
size of the water system:
The dollar costs include both labor hour costs and non-
labor costs. The non-labor costs incurred are principally to cover the
costs of copying and mailing the notice. Because the cost of
distribution varies directly with the number of persons served, the
cost per water system for the large and very large water systems is
many times higher than the cost per water system for small and very
small systems (e.g., $167.34 per system serving less than 500 people
vs. $40,218.10 per system serving over 100,000 people).
The labor hours vary by both the type and size of the
water system. For example, a non-community water system may post the
notice, a significantly lower labor hour burden than preparing a
mailing or hand delivering the notice. System size also makes a
significant difference in total labor costs. The labor estimated to
prepare and distribute the notice for a very small system is 16.5
hours. For very large systems, the labor hour estimate is 47.2 hours,
almost three times the rate estimated for the very small systems.
The Agency estimates the annual primacy agency costs and labor
hours to be $1,542,710 and 58,420 hours. The average annual cost per
primacy agency is estimated at $27,548 per primacy agency ($1,542,710
divided by 56) and the annual labor hours per primacy agency are
estimated at 1,043 hours per primacy agency (58,420 divided by 56).
This does not include the costs for EPA direct implementation of the
regulatory program in Wyoming, the District of Columbia, and on Indian
lands.
The paperwork burden associated with the current public
notification requirements, which are being revised by today's action,
was included in the baseline drinking water ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-
0090, EPA ICR# 270.39). The estimated burden under ICR#270.39 was
955,191 hours, and the costs were $21,969,393. This included the
estimated cost to public water systems only. ICR#270.39 did not include
any incremental costs to the primacy agencies.
To estimate the change in the burden for public water systems under
the revised rule, EPA recalculated the burden numbers under ICR#270.39
to provide a common basis for comparison. The ICR burden estimate under
ICR#270.39 could not be used as the basis for comparison because it
used different external cost and workload assumptions. First, the cost
assumptions in ICR#270.39 used lower postage and labor rates than are
currently in place. Second, it assumed the violation levels that were
in place when ICR#270.39 was developed, which are quite different from
the violation levels assumed for the revised ICR. Third, some
activities were omitted from ICR#270.39, such as repeat notices.
The combined changes in the average annual burden and costs to
primacy agencies and PWSs, based on comparing the estimate under the
revised rule to the adjusted estimate under the current rule, are shown
in the table below:
Changes in Average Annual Burden and Cost Estimates (for PWS and primacy agency)
[Rounded to nearest 10,000 for burden and nearest $100,000 for cost]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current rule Percent
(Recalculated) \1\ Revised rule ICR Decrease change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden........................ 955,000 hours......... 748,000 hours......... 206,000 hours........ 21.6
Cost.......................... $22,100,000........... $13,500,000........... $8,600,000........... 38.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To make the current rule estimate and revised rule estimate comparable, the current rule estimate was
adjusted to be the sum of the costs under the revised rule plus the estimated cost savings that will be
realized under the revised rule.
Two programmatic changes associated with the revised rule account
for the bulk of the reduction in burden and cost estimates from the
current rule under Sec. 141.32:
The revised rule changes both the timing and method of
delivery options for Tier 3 violations--
[[Page 26018]]
--The revised rule would require notice within one year after the
occurrence of the violation rather than within three months, as
required by the current rule. Systems with monitoring and testing
procedure violations occurring several times throughout the year are
able, under the revised rule, to consolidate their notices into one
annual notice. The current rule limits the PWS's ability to combine
multiple violations into a single notice to those occurring within the
prior three months. For estimating the burden reduction from this
change, EPA assumes that, under the current rule, systems with
violations send out a statistical average of 1.5 notices per year.
--The revised rule allows community water systems to meet the public
notice requirements for Tier 3 through the existing Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR). Tier 3 violations are primarily monitoring or testing
procedure violations. Systems that would otherwise incur a large labor
burden and postage burden for distributing a mail notice and paying for
a newspaper notice will be able to insert the text of the notice into
the CCR and incur no additional costs. EPA estimates that half of all
community water systems serving less than 10,000 and all community
water systems serving more than 10,000 will use the CCR for Tier 3
notices.
--The average annual estimated burden reduction associated with the
changes to the timing and method of delivery for Tier 3 notices is
approximately 186,000 hours (19.5 percent) and the cost reduction is
approximately $6,300,000 (28.7 percent).
The revised rule changes the required methods of delivery
for Tiers 1 and 2 notices. The current rule requires both newspaper and
mail delivery for all tiers, although the primacy agency could waive
the mail requirement if it determines the violation has been resolved
within a given time. Those systems for whom no newspaper outlet is
available are allowed to hand deliver or post instead of mailing and
using the newspaper. Under the current rule, systems with Tier 1
violations must also issue a notice via television or radio. The
revised rule requires only one method of delivery for Tier 2--mail or
hand delivery (or posting for non-community systems). The burden
reduction for Tier 2 is small, because it eliminates only newspaper
notices, which are estimated to take only 1 hour of labor. For Tier 1,
however, systems will have the option of issuing the notice via
electronic media, hand delivery, or posting. The burden reduction
resulting from the change in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 method of delivery
requirements in the revised rule would be approximately 20,000 hours
(2.1 percent), and the cost reduction would be $2,300,000 (10.2
percent).
The estimated total average annual savings resulting from the above
revisions to the public notification requirements are approximately
206,000 hours (21.6 percent) and $8,600,000 (38.8 percent).
In considering the burden and cost reduction for the revised rule
relative to the current requirements under Sec. 141.32, it is important
to keep in mind that this comparison is based on assuming full
compliance with both rules. In fact, as documented in the 1992 GAO
report on the public notification program (GAO/RCED-92-135, June 1992),
there has been widespread noncompliance with the public notification
requirements. EPA expects that by clarifying and streamlining the
requirements in the revised regulation, the revised rule will result in
a significantly higher level of compliance with the public notification
requirements. To the extent that this occurs, there will also be an
increase in State and water system resources devoted to public
notification, despite the savings estimated here because of the
streamlined revised rule. On the other hand, for those systems that
have been complying with public notice requirements all along, the
revised rule should result in genuine cost and burden savings.
For more information about the costs of the rule and how EPA
developed the estimates, see the Supporting Statement for the EPA
Information Collection Request (ICR #1898.02) and the Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analysis in the EPA docket for this rule.
VII. Other Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of the
recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising
out of the legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this final rule action is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.
It also authorizes an agency to use alternative definitions for each
category of small entity, ``which are appropriate to the activities of
the agency,'' after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the
Federal Register and taking comment (5 U.S.C. secs. 601(3)-(5)). In
addition to the above, to establish an alternative small business
definition, agencies must consult with Small Business Administration's
Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, EPA considered small entities to be public water systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons. In accordance with the RFA
requirements, EPA proposed using this alternative definition in the
Federal Register notice for the proposed Consumer Confidence Report
(CCR) regulation (63 FR 7620, February 13, 1998), requested public
comment, consulted with the Small Business Administration on the
alternative definition for small businesses, and finalized the
alternative definition in the final CCR regulation (63 FR 44511, August
19, 1998). As stated in that Final Rule, the alternative definition
would be applied to other drinking water regulations as well.
[[Page 26019]]
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have
determined that all small entities will experience an impact of much
less than one percent of their annual revenues or expenditures. The
analyses supporting this certification are contained in the
``Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis'' prepared for this final
rule. About 64,000 small water systems are impacted by the revised
public notification rule: 24,000 small governments, 31,000 small
businesses, and 9,000 small non-profit organizations. We compared for
each small entity category the ratio of the average annual per system
compliance costs to the estimated average annual per system revenue and
expenditures. The ratio for small government entities ranged from 0.19
percent for systems serving less than 500 people to 0.02 percent for
systems serving between 3,301 to 10,000 people. The ratio for small
business entities ranged from 0.01 percent for systems serving less
than 500 people to 0.03 percent for systems serving between 3,301 to
10,000 people. The ratio for small non-profit organization entities
ranged from 0.06 percent for systems serving less than 500 people to
0.01 percent for systems serving between 3,301 to 10,000 people.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities by providing
flexibility to public water systems on the method of delivery of the
public notice and by offering all public water systems the opportunity
to use an annual report of violations in lieu of individual Tier 3
notices. In addition, all community water systems are encouraged to use
the CCR to meet the requirements of the public notice rule wherever
appropriate. (Note that to use the CCR, many small systems would have
to distribute their CCR more widely to meet the public notification
distribution requirements.) In addition, if the primacy agency permits,
systems may be allowed to provide notice to only the portion of the
distribution system that is affected by the violation. Finally, small
community water systems and all non-community water systems may hand
deliver or post the notice in lieu of mailing, reducing substantially
their overall cost of compliance with this rule.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2040-0209.
This information is being collected in order to fulfill the
statutory requirements of section 114 of the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments (SDWA) of 1996 (Public Law 104-182) enacted August 6, 1996.
Public notice of violations is an integral part of the public health
protection and consumer right-to-know provisions of the 1996 SDWA
amendments. The public notification requirement is one of six
interrelated provisions now included in the SDWA, related to providing
information to the public. Responses are mandatory. None of the
information submitted under the revised rule is confidential business
information.
The burden to public water systems is based on the cost of the rule
discussed under Section VI of the Preamble. Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing way to comply with any previous
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
The total average annual burden to both public water systems and
primacy agencies is 748,811 hours at an annual cost of $13,543,277. The
cost estimate includes both the labor hour costs and the operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs of implementing the rule.
The average annual burden to public water systems to meet the
requirements of the revised public notification rule is 690,390 hours
at an annual cost of $12,000,567. The burden estimate is the sum of the
costs of three component activities: notice preparation costs; notice
distribution costs; and costs of repeat notices. The costs to the
public water systems include labor and non-labor costs, such as the
costs to copy and mail the public notices where required. Public water
systems are required to comply with the public notification rule if
they have one or more violations of National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWR) or have other situations requiring a public notice.
The number of public water systems estimated to have violations on an
annual basis is 36,467. The annual average burden per public water
system violating one or more drinking water standards is $329.08 and
18.9 hours.
The average annual burden to primacy agencies of implementing the
new public notification regulations is 58,420 hours at an annual cost
of $1,542,710. The burden estimate is the sum of four component
activities: cost of revising primacy packages to incorporate the new
requirements; costs of consulting with public water systems; costs of
receiving and reviewing the compliance certification and notice copies
received from the public water system; and the costs of filing and
maintaining the public water system notification records. The costs to
the primacy agency include labor costs only. Primacy agencies are
required to adopt and implement the new public notification regulation
as a condition of maintaining primacy. Fifty-six States and Territories
currently have primacy under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA directly
implements the regulatory program in Wyoming, Washington, D.C., and the
Indian Lands. The average annual burden for each of the 56 States and
Territories with primacy to implement the revised public notification
rule is $27,548 and 1,043 hours per primacy agency. For additional
detail, see Section VI of this preamble.
An Agency may not conduct, or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. EPA is
amending the table in Part 9 of currently approved ICR control numbers
issued by OMB for various regulations to list the information
requirements contained in this final rule.
D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of
[[Page 26020]]
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule published today
replaces an existing rule and represents a significant streamlining of
requirements from those currently in place. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. Although
section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA
consulted extensively with State and local officials in developing this
rule. See Section II of this preamble for more detail regarding our
work with the State and local government representatives.
E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the Tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected Tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian Tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it impose
substantial direct compliance costs on such communities. The impact on
Tribal governments is not unique in that this rule applies equally to
all public water systems, including those owned and operated by
Federal, State, and local governments. Public water systems on Indian
lands incur costs under the public notification rule only if they
violate a national primary drinking water regulation or have a variance
or exemption from EPA. The public notification requirements will in
most cases be met either through hand delivery of a single notice to
all persons served or by posting the notice in conspicuous locations.
Costs of meeting these requirements will be minimal. In fact, the
public notification costs resulting from this rule are less than those
required for full compliance with the public notification regulations
currently in effect under Sec. 141.32. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this final rule.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal Mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. The estimated total annual average cost of the
final rule is $13,543,277. (See Section VI of the Supplementary
Information.) Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This rule will establish requirements
that affect small community water systems. However, EPA has determined
that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because the
regulation reduces the burden associated with the public notification
regulations currently in effect under Sec. 141.32 and requires a
minimal expenditure of resources. Thus, today's rule is not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
G. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994),
the Agency has considered environmental justice related issues with
regard to the potential impacts of this action on the environmental and
health conditions in low-income and minority communities. The Agency
believes that several of today's requirements will be particularly
beneficial to these communities:
Public water systems would be required to distribute the
notice to all persons served, both through the use of required delivery
methods and through the use of additional measures reasonably
calculated to reach other persons served, if they would not normally be
reached by the required method. In addition, the notice to bill-
[[Page 26021]]
paying customers must include standard language encouraging those
receiving the public notice to make the notice available to other
consumers who are not bill-paying customers (e.g., renters, transients,
students).
Public notices would include information on what the
consumers should do to minimize the health risk from drinking water in
violation of EPA standards and when to seek further medical advice. All
notices would be required to include the name, address, and phone
number of the water system official who can provide further
information.
Public water systems, where appropriate, must include
information on the importance of the notice and other information in
languages other than English. Primacy States may, at their option,
augment these multilingual requirements. For example, a primacy State
could define when a system is serving a population with a large
proportion of non-English speaking consumers. Thus, the State could
specify which water systems must comply with the augmented State
requirements.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866 and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk
to children. The purpose of the public notification rule is to provide
a public notice to persons served when a violation of EPA drinking
water standards occurs, to enable consumers to avoid health and safety
risks from potential exposure to harmful contaminants in the drinking
water. The regulation addresses the particular risks that certain
contaminants may pose by considering such risks in assigning
contaminants to the appropriate tier and by identifying such risks in
the required health effects language, with specific reference to risks
to children, where appropriate. The public notice requirements,
however, apply to potential health and safety risks to all consumers
and all vulnerable populations, and are not targeted specifically to
address a disproportionate risk to children.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No.
104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective June 5, 2000.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians-lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and
record-keeping requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Chemicals, Indians-lands, Radiation protection, Reporting and record-
keeping requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 143
Chemicals, Indians-lands, Water supply.
Dated: April 7, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, 142,
and 143 are amended as follows:
PART 9--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 345a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326 1330, 1324,
1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-
1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-
1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3,
300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 69016992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9501-
9657, 11023, 11048.
2. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended by removing the entries
``Sec. 141.31-141.32'', ``Sec. 141.33-141.35'', ``Sec. 142.10-142.15'',
and ``142.16'' and adding in numerical order new entires under the
indicated heading to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR citation OMB Control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Primary Drinking Water Regulaitons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
141.31(a)-(c)............................. 2040-0090
141.31(d)................................. 2040-0209
141.31(e)................................. 2040-0090
141.32(a)-(g)............................. 2040-0090
141.33(a)-(d)............................. 2040-0090
141.33(e)................................. 2040-0209
* * * * *
141.201-141.210........................... 2040-0209
[[Page 26022]]
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
142.10-142.13............................. 2040-0090
142.14(a)-(e)............................. 2040-0090
142.14(f)................................. 2040-0209
142.14(g)................................. 2040-0090
142.15(a)................................. 2040-0090, 2040-0209
142.15(b)-(d)............................. 2040-0090
142.16(a)................................. 2040-0209
142.16(b)-(e)............................. 2040-0090
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 141 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
2. Section 141.11 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 141.11 Maximum contaminant levels for inorganic chemicals
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) The non-community water system is meeting the public
notification requirements under Sec. 141.209, including continuous
posting of the fact that nitrate levels exceed 10 mg/l and the
potential health effects of exposure; and
* * * * *
3. Sections 141.21(g)(1) and (g)(2), 141.22(b), 141.23(n) and (o),
141.26(a)(4), (b)(5), 141.30(d), 141.63(b), 141.133(b)(1)(i), (b)(2),
(b)(3) and (c)(1)(i) are amended by revising ``Sec. 141.32'' to read
``subpart Q'' and in Sec. 141.133(c)(2)(i) by revising
``Sec. 141.32(a)(1)(iii)(E) (which appears twice) to ``subpart Q'' and
in Sec. 141.33(c)(2)(ii) by revising ``Sec. 141.133(e)(78)'' to read
``subpart Q.''
Secs. 141.21, 141.22, 141.23, 141.26, 141.30, 141.63, and
141.133, [Amended]
4. Section 141.23 is amended by removing paragraph (i)(4) and
revising paragraph (f)(2), to read as follows:
Sec. 141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) Where nitrate or nitrite sampling results indicate an
exceedance of the maximum contaminant level, the system shall take a
confirmation sample within 24 hours of the system's receipt of
notification of the analytical results of the first sample. Systems
unable to comply with the 24-hour sampling requirement must immediately
notify persons served by the public water system in accordance with
Sec. 141.202 and meet other Tier 1 public notification requirements
under Subpart Q of this part. Systems exercising this option must take
and analyze a confirmation sample within two weeks of notification of
the analytical results of the first sample.
* * * * *
Sec. 141.24 [ Amended]
5. Part 141 is amended by removing Secs. 141.24(f)(15)(iii) and
141.24(h)(11)(iii).
6. In Part 141, the heading for Subpart D is revised to read as
follows:
Subpart D--Reporting and Record Keeping
7. Section 141.31 is amended by revising paragraph (d), to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.31 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(d) The public water system, within 10 days of completing the
public notification requirements under Subpart Q of this part for the
initial public notice and any repeat notices, must submit to the
primacy agency a certification that it has fully complied with the
public notification regulations. The public water system must include
with this certification a representative copy of each type of notice
distributed, published, posted, and made available to the persons
served by the system and to the media.
* * * * *
8. Section 141.32 is amended by revising the introductory
paragraph, to read as follows:
Sec. 141.32 Public notification.
The requirements in this section apply until the requirements of
Subpart Q of this part are applicable. Public water systems where EPA
directly implements the public water system supervision program must
comply with the requirements in Subpart Q of this part on October 31,
2000. All other public water systems must comply with the requirements
in Subpart Q of this part on May 6, 2002 or on the date the State-
adopted rule becomes effective, whichever comes first.
* * * * *
9. Section 141.33 is amended by adding paragraph (e), to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.33 Record maintenance.
* * * * *
(e) Copies of public notices issued pursuant to Subpart Q of this
part and certifications made to the primacy agency pursuant to
Sec. 141.31 must be kept for three years after issuance.
10. Section 141.75 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5)(ii) and
(b)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.75 Reporting and record keeping requirements.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) If at any time the turbidity exceeds 5 NTU, the system must
consult with the primacy agency as soon as practical, but no later than
24 hours after the exceedance is known, in accordance with the public
notification requirements under Sec. 141.203(b)(3).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) If at any time the turbidity exceeds 5 NTU, the system must
consult with the primacy agency as soon as practical, but no later than
24 hours after the exceedance is known, in accordance with the public
notification requirements under Sec. 141.203(b)(3).
* * * * *
11. Section 141.153 is amended by:
a. Revising (c)(3) introductory text.
b. Adding paragraphs (c)(3)(iii) and (c)(3)(iv).
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(4)(ix) and (d)(6).
d. Revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4).
The additions and revisions are as follows:
Sec. 141.153 Content of the reports.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) A report that contains data on contaminants that EPA regulates
using any of the following terms must include the applicable
definitions:
* * * * *
(iii) Maximum residual disinfectant level goal or MRDLG: The level
of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or
expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use
of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.
(iv) Maximum residual disinfectant level or MRDL: The highest level
of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing
evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of
microbial contaminants.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Contaminants subject to a MCL, action level, maximum residual
[[Page 26023]]
disinfectant level, or treatment technique (regulated contaminants).
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(ix) The likely source(s) of detected contaminants to the best of
the operator's knowledge. Specific information regarding contaminants
may be available in sanitary surveys and source water assessments, and
should be used when available to the operator. If the operator lacks
specific information on the likely source, the report must include one
or more of the typical sources for that contaminant listed in appendix
A to this subpart that is most applicable to the system.
* * * * *
(6) The table(s) must clearly identify any data indicating
violations of MCLs, MRDLs, or treatment techniques, and the report must
contain a clear and readily understandable explanation of the violation
including: the length of the violation, the potential adverse health
effects, and actions taken by the system to address the violation. To
describe the potential health effects, the system must use the relevant
language of appendix A to this subpart.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) Lead and copper control requirements prescribed by subpart I of
this part. For systems that fail to take one or more actions prescribed
by Secs. 141.80(d), 141.81, 141.82, 141.83 or 141.84, the report must
include the applicable language of appendix A to this subpart for lead,
copper, or both.
(4) Treatment techniques for Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin
prescribed by subpart K of this part. For systems that violate the
requirements of subpart K of this part, the report must include the
relevant language from appendix A to this subpart.
* * * * *
12. Section 141.154 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.154 Required additional health information.
* * * * *
(e) Community water systems that detect TTHM above 0.080 mg/l, but
below the MCL in Sec. 141.12, as an annual average, monitored and
calculated under the provisions of Sec. 141.30, must include health
effects language for TTHMs prescribed by appendix A.
13. Section 141.155 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.155 Report delivery and record keeping.
* * * * *
(h) Any system subject to this subpart must retain copies of its
Consumer Confidence Report for no less than 3 years.
14. Appendix A to Subpart O is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 26024]]
Appendix A to Subpart O.--Regulated Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditional MCL To convert for Major sources in Health effects
Contaminant (units) in mg/L CCR, multiply by MCL in CCR units MCLG drinking water language
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbiological contaminants:
Total Coliform Bacteria... MCL: (systems ................. MCL: (systems 0................ Naturally present in Coliforms are
that collect 40 thn-eq>40 naturally present in
samples/month) samples/month) the environment and
5% of monthly 5% of monthly are used as an
samples are samples are indicator that
positive; positive; other, potentially-
(systems that (systems that harmful, bacteria
collect 40 collect 40 may be present.
samples/month) 1 samples/month) 1 Coliforms were found
positive monthly positive monthly in more samples than
sample. sample. allowed and this was
a warning of
potential problems.
Fecal coliform and E. coli 0................ ................. 0................ 0................ Human and animal Fecal coliforms and
fecal waste. E. coli are bacteria
whose presence
indicates that the
water may be
contaminated with
human or animal
wastes. Microbes in
these wastes can
cause short-term
effects, such as
diarrhea, cramps,
nausea, headaches,
or other symptoms.
They may pose a
special health risk
for infants, young
children, some of
the elderly, and
people with severely-
compromised immune
systems.
Total organic carbon (ppm) TT............... ................. TT............... N/A.............. Naturally present in Total organic carbon
the environment. (TOC) has no health
effects. However,
total organic carbon
provides a medium
for the formation of
disinfection by
products. These
byproducts include
trihalomethanes
(THMs) and
haloacetic acids
(HAAs). Drinking
water containing
these byproducts in
excess of the MCL
may lead to adverse
health effects,
liver or kidney
problems, or nervous
system effects, and
may lead to an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
Turbidity (NTU)........... TT............... ................. TT............... N/A.............. Soil runoff.......... Turbidity has no
health effects.
However, turbidity
can interfere with
disinfection and
provide a medium for
microbial growth.
Turbidity may
indicate the
presence of disease-
causing organisms.
These organisms
include bacteria,
viruses, and
parasites that can
cause symptoms such
as nausea, cramps,
diarrhea and
associated
headaches.
[[Page 26025]]
Radioactive contaminants:
Beta/photon emitters (mrem/ 4 mrem/yr........ ................. 4................ N/A.............. Decay of natural and Certain minerals are
yr). man-made deposits. radioactive and may
emit forms of
radiation known as
photons and beta
radiation. Some
people who drink
water containing
beta and photon
emitters in excess
of the MCL over many
years may have an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
Alpha emitters (pCi/l).... 15 pCi/l......... ................. 15............... N/A.............. Erosion of natural Certain minerals are
deposits. radioactive and may
emit a form of
radiation known as
alpha radiation.
Some people who
drink water
containing alpha
emitters in excess
of the MCL over many
years may have an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
Combined radium (pCi/l)... 5 pCi/l.......... --............... 5................ N/A.............. Erosion of natural Some people who drink
deposits. water containing
radium 226 or 228 in
excess of the MCL
over many years may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer
Inorganic contaminants:
Antimony (ppb)............ .006............. 1000............. 6................ 6................ Discharge from Some people who drink
petroleum water containing
refineries; fire antimony well in
retardants; excess of the MCL
ceramics; over many years
electronics; solder. could experience
increases in blood
cholesterol and
decreases in blood
sugar.
Arsenic (ppb)............. .05.............. 1000............. 50............... N/A.............. Erosion of natural Some people who drink
deposits; Runoff water containing
from orchards; arsenic in excess of
Runoff from glass the MCL over many
and electronics years could
production wastes. experience skin
damage or problems
with their
circulatory system,
and may have an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
Asbestos (MFL)............ 7 MFL............ ................. 7................ 7................ Decay of asbestos Some people who drink
cement water mains; water containing
Erosion of natural asbestos in excess
deposits. of the MCL over many
years may have an
increased risk of
developing benign
intestinal polyps.
Barium (ppm).............. 2................ ................. 2................ 2................ Discharge of drilling Some people who drink
wastes; Discharge water containing
from metal barium in excess of
refineries; Erosion the MCL over many
of natural deposits. years could
experience an
increase in their
blood pressure.
Beryllium (ppb)........... .004............. 1000............. 4................ 4................ Discharge from metal Some people who drink
refineries and coal- water containing
burning factories; beryllium well in
Discharge from excess of the MCL
electrical, over many years
aerospace, and could develop
defense industries. intestinal lesions
Cadmium (ppb)............. .005............. 1000............. 5................ 5................ Corrosion of Some people who drink
galvanized pipes; water containing
Erosion of natural cadmium in excess of
deposits; Discharge the MCL over many
from metal years could
refineries; Runoff experience kidney
from waste batteries damage.
and paints.
[[Page 26026]]
Chromium (ppb)............ .1............... 1000............. 100.............. 100.............. Discharge from steel Some people who use
and pulp mills; water containing
Erosion of natural chromium well in
deposits. excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
allergic dermatitis.
Copper (ppm).............. AL=1.3........... ................. AL=1.3........... 1.3.............. Corrosion of Copper is an
household plumbing essential nutrient,
systems; Erosion of but some people who
natural deposits; drink water
Leaching from wood containing copper in
preservatives. excess of the action
level over a
relatively short
amount of time could
experience
gastrointestinal
distress. Some
people who drink
water containing
copper in excess of
the action level
over many years
could suffer liver
or kidney damage.
People with Wilson's
Disease should
consult their
personal doctor.
Cyanide (ppb)............. .2............... 1000............. 200.............. 200.............. Discharge from steel/ Some people who drink
metal factories; water containing
Discharge from cyanide well in
plastic and excess of the MCL
fertilizer factories. over many years
could experience
nerve damage or
problems with their
thyroid.
Fluoride (ppm)............ 4................ ................. 4................ 4................ Erosion of natural Some people who drink
deposits; Water water containing
additive which fluoride in excess
promotes strong of the MCL over many
teeth; Discharge years could get bone
from fertilizer and disease, including
aluminum factories. pain and tenderness
of the bones.
Fluoride in drinking
water at half the
MCL or more may
cause mottling of
children's teeth,
usually in children
less than nine years
old. Mottling, also
known as dental
fluorosis, may
include brown
staining and/or
pitting of the
teeth, and occurs
only in developing
teeth before they
erupt from the gums.
Lead (ppb)................ AL=.015.......... 1000............. AL=15............ 0................ Corrosion of Infants and children
household plumbing who drink water
systems; Erosion of containing lead in
natural deposits. excess of the action
level could
experience delays in
their physical or
mental development.
Children could show
slight deficits in
attention span and
learning abilities.
Adults who drink
this water over many
years could develop
kidney problems or
high blood pressure.
[[Page 26027]]
Mercury [inorganic] (ppb). .002............. 1000............. 2................ 2................ Erosion of natural Some people who drink
deposits; Dis charge water containing
from refineries and inorganic mercury
factories; Runoff well in excess of
from landfills; the MCL over many
Runoff from cropland. years could
experience kidney
damage.
Nitrate (ppm)............. 10............... ................. 10............... 10............... Runoff from Infants below the age
fertilizer use; of six months who
Leaching from septic drink water
tanks, sew age; containing nitrate
Erosion of natural in excess of the MCL
deposits. could become
seriously ill and,
if untreated, may
die. Symptoms
include shortness of
breath and blue baby
syndrome.
Nitrite (ppm)............. 1................ ................. 1................ 1................ Runoff from Infants below the age
fertilizer use; of six months who
Leaching from septic drink water
tanks, sew age; containing nitrite
Erosion of natural in excess of the MCL
deposits. could become
seriously ill and,
if untreated, may
die. Symptoms
include shortness of
breath and blue baby
syndrome.
Selenium (ppb)............ .05.............. 1000............. 50............... 50............... Discharge from Selenium is an
petroleum and metal essential nutrient.
refineries; Erosion However, some people
of natural deposits; who drink water
Discharge from mines. containing selenium
in excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
hair or fingernail
losses, numbness in
fingers or toes, or
problems with their
circulation.
Thallium (ppb)............ .002............. 1000............. 2................ 0.5.............. Leaching from ore- Some people who drink
processing sites; water containing
Discharge from thallium in excess
electronics, glass, of the MCL over many
and drug factories. years could
experience hair
loss, changes in
their blood, or
problems with their
kidneys, intestines,
or liver.
Synthetic organic contaminants
including pesticides and
herbicides:
2,4-D (ppb)............... .07.............. 1000............. 70............... 70............... Runoff from herbicide Some people who drink
used on row crops. water containing the
weed killer 2,4-D
well in excess of
the MCL over many
years could
experience problems
with their kidneys,
liver, or adrenal
glands.
2,4,5-TP [Silvex](ppb).... .05.............. 1000............. 50............... 50............... Residue of banned Some people who drink
herbicide. water containing
silvex in excess of
the MCL over many
years could
experience liver
problems.
Acrylamide................ TT............... ................. TT............... 0................ Added to water during Some people who drink
sewage/wastewater water containing
treatment. high levels of
acrylamide over a
long period of time
could have problems
with their nervous
system or blood, and
may have an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
[[Page 26028]]
Alachlor (ppb)............ .002............. 1000............. 2................ 0................ Runoff from herbicide Some people who drink
used on row crops. water containing
alachlor in excess
of the MCL over many
years could have
problems with their
eyes, liver,
kidneys, or spleen,
or experience
anemia, and may have
an increased risk of
getting cancer.
Atrazine (ppb)............ .003............. 1000............. 3................ 3................ Runoff from herbicide Some people who drink
used on row crops. water containing
atrazine well in
excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
problems with their
cardiovascular
system or
reproductive
difficulties.
Benzo(a)pyrene [PAH] .0002............ 1,000,000........ 200.............. 0................ Leaching from linings Some people who drink
(nanograms/l). of water storage water containing
tanks and benzo(a)pyrene in
distribution lines. excess of the MCL
over many years may
experience
reproductive
difficulties and may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
Carbofuran (ppb).......... .04.............. 1000............. 40............... 40............... Leaching of soil Some people who drink
fumigant used on water containing
rice and alfalfa. carbofuran in excess
of the MCL over many
years could
experience problems
with their blood, or
nervous or
reproductive
systems.
Chlordane (ppb)........... .002............. 1000............. 2................ 0................ Residue of banned Some people who drink
termiticide. water containing
chlordane in excess
of the MCL over many
years could
experience problems
with their liver or
nervous system, and
may have an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
Dalapon (ppb)............. .2............... 1000............. 200.............. 200.............. Runoff from herbicide Some people who drink
used on rights of water containing
way. dalapon well in
excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
minor kidney
changes.
Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate .4............... 1000............. 400.............. 400.............. Discharge from Some people who drink
(ppb). chemical factories. water containing di
(2-ethylhexyl)
adipate well in
excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
general toxic
effects or
reproductive
difficulties.
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate .006............. 1000............. 6................ 0................ Discharge from rubber Some people who drink
(ppb). and chemical water containing di
factories. (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate in excess
of the MCL over many
years may have
problems with their
liver, or experience
reproductive
difficulties, and
may have an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
[[Page 26029]]
Dibromochloropropane (ppt) .0002............ 1,000,000........ 200.............. 0................ Runoff/leaching from Some people who drink
soil fumigant used water containing
on soybeans, cotton, DBCP in excess of
pineapples, and the MCL over many
orchards. years could
experience
reproductive
problems and may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
Dinoseb (ppb)............. .007............. 1000............. 7................ 7................ Runoff from herbicide Some people who drink
used on soybeans and water containing
vegetables. dinoseb well in
excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
reproductive
difficulties.
Diquat (ppb).............. .02.............. 1000............. 20............... 20............... Runoff from herbicide Some people who drink
use. water containing
diquat in excess of
the MCL over many
years could get
cataracts.
Dioxin [2,3,7,8-TCDD] .00000003........ 1,000,000, 000... 30............... 0................ Emissions from waste Some people who drink
(ppq). incineration and water containing
other combustion; dioxin in excess of
Discharge from the MCL over many
chemical factories. years could
experience
reproductive
difficulties and may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
Endothall (ppb)........... .1............... 1000............. 100.............. 100.............. Runoff from herbicide Some people who drink
use. water containing
endothall in excess
of the MCL over many
years could
experience problems
with their stomach
or intestines.
Endrin (ppb).............. .002............. 1000............. 2................ 2................ Residue of banned Some people who drink
insecticide. water containing
endrin in excess of
the MCL over many
years could
experience liver
problems.
Epichlorohydrin........... TT............... ................. TT............... 0................ Discharge from Some people who drink
industrial chemical water containing
factories; An high levels of
impurity of some epichlorohydrin over
water treatment a long period of
chemicals. time could
experience stomach
problems, and may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
Ethylene dibromide (ppt).. .00005........... 1,000,000........ 50............... 0................ Discharge from Some people who drink
petroleum refineries. water containing
ethylene dibromide
in excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
problems with their
liver, stomach,
reproductive system,
or kidneys, and may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
Glyphosate (ppb).......... .7............... 1000............. 700.............. 700.............. Runoff from herbicide Some people who drink
use. water containing
glyphosate in excess
of the MCL over many
years could
experience problems
with their kidneys
or reproductive
difficulties.
Heptachlor (ppt).......... .0004............ 1,000,000........ 400.............. 0................ Residue of banned Some people who drink
pesticide. water containing
heptachlor in excess
of the MCL over many
years could
experience liver
damage and may have
an increased risk of
getting cancer.
[[Page 26030]]
Heptachlor epoxide (ppt).. .0002............ 1,000,000........ 200.............. 0................ Breakdown of Some people who drink
heptachlor. water containing
heptachlor epoxide
in excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
liver damage, and
may have an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
Hexachlorobenzene (ppb)... .001............. 1000............. 1................ 0................ Discharge from metal Some people who drink
refineries and water containing
agricultural hexachlorobenzene in
chemical factories. excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
problems with their
liver or kidneys, or
adverse reproductive
effects, and may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene .05.............. 1000............. 50............... 50............... Discharge from Some people who drink
(ppb). chemical factories. water containing
hexachlorocyclopenta
diene well in excess
of the MCL over many
years could
experience problems
with their kidneys
or stomach.
Lindane (ppt)............. .0002............ 1,000,000........ 200.............. 200.............. Runoff/leaching from Some people who drink
insecticide used on water containing
cattle, lumber, lindane in excess of
gardens. the MCL over many
years could
experience problems
with their kidneys
or liver.
Methoxychlor (ppb)........ .04.............. 1000............. 40............... 40............... Runoff/leaching from Some people who drink
insecticide used on water containing
fruits, vegetables, methoxychlor in
alfalfa, livestock. excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
reproductive
difficulties.
Oxamyl [Vydate] (ppb)..... .2............... 1000............. 200.............. 200.............. Runoff/leaching from Some people who drink
insecticide used on water containing
apples, potatoes and oxamyl in excess of
tomatoes. the MCL over many
years could
experience slight
nervous system
effects.
PCBs [Polychlorinated .0005............ 1,000,000........ 500.............. 0................ Runoff from Some people who drink
biphenyls] (ppt). landfills; Discharge water containing
of waste chemicals. PCBs in excess of
the MCL over many
years could
experience changes
in their skin,
problems with their
thymus gland, immune
deficiencies, or
reproductive or
nervous system
difficulties, and
may have an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
Pentachlorophenol (ppb)... .001............. 1000............. 1................ 0................ Discharge from wood Some people who drink
preserving factories. water containing
pentachlorophenol in
excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
problems with their
liver or kidneys,
and may have an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
[[Page 26031]]
Picloram (ppb)............ .5............... 1000............. 500.............. 500.............. Herbicide runoff..... Some people who drink
water containing
picloram in excess
of the MCL over many
years could
experience problems
with their liver.
Simazine (ppb)............ .004............. 1000............. 4................ 4................ Herbicide runoff..... Some people who drink
water containing
simazine in excess
of the MCL over many
years could
experience problems
with their blood.
Toxaphene (ppb)........... .003............. 1000............. 3................ 0................ Runoff/leaching from Some people who drink
insecticide used on water containing
cotton and cattle. toxaphene in excess
of the MCL over many
years could have
problems with their
kidneys, liver, or
thyroid, and may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
Volatile organic contaminants:
Benzene (ppb)............. .005............. 1000............. 5................ 0................ Discharge from Some people who drink
factories; Leaching water containing
from gas storage benzene in excess of
tanks and landfills. the MCL over many
years could
experience anemia or
a decrease in blood
platelets, and may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
Bromate (ppb)............. .010............. 1000............. 10............... 0................ By-product of Some people who drink
drinking water water containing
chlorination. bromate in excess of
the MCL over many
years may have an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
Carbon tetrachloride (ppb) .005............. 1000............. 5................ 0................ Discharge from Some people who drink
chemical plants and water containing
other industrial carbon tetrachloride
activities. in excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
problems with their
liver and may have
an increased risk of
getting cancer.
Chloramines (ppm)......... MRDL = 4......... ................. MRDL = 4......... MRDLG = 4........ Water additive used Some people who use
to control microbes. water containing
chloramines well in
excess of the MRDL
could experience
irritating effects
to their eyes and
nose. Some people
who drink water
containing
chloramines well in
excess of the MRDL
could experience
stomach discomfort
or anemia.
Chlorine (ppm)............ MRDL = 4......... ................. MRDL = 4......... MRDLG = 4........ Water additive used Some people who use
to control microbes. water containing
chlorine well in
excess of the MRDL
could experience
irritating effects
to their eyes and
nose. Some people
who drink water
containing chlorine
well in excess of
the MRDL could
experience stomach
discomfort.
[[Page 26032]]
Chlorite (ppm)............ 1................ ................. 1................ 0.8.............. By-product of Some infants and
drinking water young children who
chlorination. drink water
containing chlorite
in excess of the MCL
could experience
nervous system
effects. Similar
effects may occur in
fetuses of pregnant
women who drink
water containing
chlorite in excess
of the MCL. Some
people may
experience anemia.
Chloride dioxide (ppb).... MRDL = .8........ 1000............. MRDL = 800....... MRDLG = 800...... Water additive used Some infants and
to control microbes. young children who
drink water
containing chlorine
dioxide in excess of
the MRDL could
experience nervous
system effects.
Similar effects may
occur in fetuses of
pregnant women who
drink water
containing chlorine
dioxide in excess of
the MRDL. Some
people may
experience anemia.
Chlorobenzene (ppb)....... .1............... 1000............. 100.............. 100.............. Discharge from Some people who drink
chemical and water containing
agricultural chlorobenzene in
chemical factories. excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
problems with their
liver or kidneys.
o-Dichlorobenzene (ppb)... .6............... 1000............. 600.............. 600.............. Discharge from Some people who drink
industrial chemical water containing o-
factories. dichlorobenzene well
in excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
problems with their
liver, kidneys, or
circulatory systems.
p-Dichlorobenzene (ppb)... .075............. 1000............. 75............... 75............... Discharge from Some people who drink
industrial chemical water containing p-
factories. dichlorobenzene in
excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
anemia, damage to
their liver,
kidneys, or spleen,
or changes in their
blood.
1,2-Dichloroethane (ppb).. .005............. 1000............. 5................ 0................ Discharge from Some people who drink
industrial chemical water containing 1,2-
factories. dichloroethane in
excess of the MCL
over many years may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
1,1-Dichloroethylene (ppb) .007............. 1000............. 7................ 7................ Discharge from Some people who drink
industrial chemical water containing 1,1-
factories. dichloroethylene in
excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
problems with their
liver.
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene .07.............. 1000............. 70............... 70............... Discharge from Some people who drink
(ppb). industrial chemical water containing cis-
factories. 1,2-dichloroethylene
in excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
problems with their
liver.
[[Page 26033]]
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene .1............... 1000............. 100.............. 100.............. Discharge from Some people who drink
(ppb). industrial chemical water containing
factories. trans-1,2-
dichloroethylene
well in excess of
the MCL over many
years could
experience problems
with their liver.
Dichloromethane (ppb)..... .005............. 1000............. 5................ 0................ Discharge from Some people who drink
pharmaceutical and water containing
chemical factories. dichloromethane in
excess of the MCL
over many years
could have liver
problems and may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
1,2-Dichloropropane (ppb). .005............. 1000............. 5................ 0................ Discharge from Some people who drink
industrial chemical water containing 1,2-
factories. dichloropropane in
excess of the MCL
over many years may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
Ethylbenzene (ppb)........ .7............... 1000............. 700.............. 700.............. Discharge from Some people who drink
petroleum refineries. water containing
ethylbenzene well in
excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
problems with their
liver or kidneys.
Haloacetic Acids (HAA) .060............. 1000............. 60............... N/A.............. By-product of Some people who drink
(ppb). drinking water water containing
disinfection. haloacetic acids in
excess of the MCL
over many years may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
Styrene (ppb)............. .1............... 1000............. 100.............. 100.............. Discharge from rubber Some people who drink
and plastic water containing
factories; Leaching styrene well in
from landfills. excess of the MCL
over many years
could have problems
with their liver,
kidneys, or
circulatory system.
Tetrachloroethylene (ppb). .005............. 1000............. 5................ 0................ Discharge from Some people who drink
factories and dry water containing
cleaners. tetrachloroethylene
in excess of the MCL
over many years
could have problems
with their liver,
and may have an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene .07.............. 1000............. 70............... 70............... Discharge from Some people who drink
(ppb). textile-finishing water containing
factories. 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene
well in excess of
the MCL over many
years could
experience changes
in their adrenal
glands.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane .2............... 1000............. 200.............. 200.............. Discharge from metal Some people who drink
(ppb). degreasing sites and water containing
other factories. 1,1,1-
trichloroethane in
excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
problems with their
liver, nervous
system, or
circulatory system.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane .005............. 1000............. 5................ 3................ Discharge from Some people who drink
(ppb). industrial chemical water containing
factories. 1,1,2-
trichloroethane well
in excess of the MCL
over many years
could have problems
with their liver,
kidneys, or immune
systems.
[[Page 26034]]
Trichloroethylene (ppb)... .005............. 1000............. 5................ 0................ Discharge from metal Some people who drink
degreasing sites and water containing
other factories. trichloroethylene in
excess of the MCL
over many years
could experience
problems with their
liver and may have
an increased risk of
getting cancer.
TTHMs [Total 0.10/.080........ 1000............. 100/80........... N/A.............. By-product of Some people who drink
trihalomethanes] (ppb). drinking water water containing
chlorination. trihalomethanes in
excess of the MCL
over many years may
experience problems
with their liver,
kidneys, or central
nervous systems, and
may have an
increased risk of
getting cancer.
Toluene (ppm)............. 1................ ................. 1................ 1................ Discharge from Some people who drink
petroleum factories. water containing
toluene well in
excess of the MCL
over many years
could have problems
with their nervous
system, kidneys, or
liver.
Vinyl Chloride (ppb)...... .002............. 1000............. 2................ 0................ Leaching from PVC Some people who drink
piping; Discharge water containing
from plastics vinyl chloride in
factories. excess of the MCL
over many years may
have an increased
risk of getting
cancer.
Xylenes (ppm)............. 10............... ................. 10............... 10............... Discharge from Some people who drink
petroleum factories; water containing
Discharge from xylenes in excess of
chemical factories. the MCL over many
years could
experience damage to
their nervous
system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key:
AL=Action Level
MCL=Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG=Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MFL=million fibers per liter
MRDL=Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
MRDLG=Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal
mrem/year=millirems per year (a measure of radiation absorbed by the body)
N/A=Not Applicable
NTU=Nephelometric Turbidity Units (a measure of water clarity)
pCi/l=picocuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity)
ppm=parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l)
ppb=parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (g/l)
ppt=parts per trillion, or nanograms per liter
ppq=parts per quadrillion, or picograms per liter
TT=Treatment Technique
[[Page 26035]]
Appendices B and C to Subpart O [Removed]
15. Appendices B and C to Subpart O are removed.
16. Section 141.175 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.175 Reporting and record keeping requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) If at any time the turbidity exceeds 1 NTU in representative
samples of filtered water in a system using conventional filtration
treatment or direct filtration, the system must consult with the
primacy agency as soon as practical, but no later than 24 hours after
the exceedance is known, in accordance with the public notification
requirements under Sec. 141.203(b)(3).
(2) If at any time the turbidity in representative samples of
filtered water exceed the maximum level set by the State under
Sec. 142.173(b) for filtration technologies other than conventional
filtration treatment, direct filtration, slow sand filtration, or
diatomaceous earth filtration, the system must consult with the primacy
agency as soon as practical, but no later than 24 hours after the
exceedance is known, in accordance with the public notification
requirements under Sec. 141.203(b)(3).
17. Part 141 is amended by adding Subpart Q, to read as follows:
Subpart Q--Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations
Sec.
141.201 General public notification requirements.
141.202 Tier 1 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of
notice.
141.203 Tier 2 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of
notice.
141.204 Tier 3 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of
notice.
141.205 Content of the public notice.
141.206 Notice to new billing units or new customers.
141.207 Special notice of the availability of unregulated
contaminant monitoring results.
141.208 Special notice for exceedance of the SMCL for fluoride.
141.209 Special notice for nitrate exceedances above MCL by non-
community water systems (NCWS), where granted permission by the
primacy agency under Sec. 141.11(d).
141.210 Notice by primacy agency on behalf of the public water
system.
Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141--NPDWR Violations and Situations
Requiring Public Notice
Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141--Standard Health Effects
Language for Public Notification
Appendix C to Subpart Q of Part 141--List of Acronyms Used in Public
Notification Regulation
Subpart Q--Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations
Sec. 141.201 General public notification requirements.
Public water systems in States with primacy for the public water
system supervision (PWSS) program must comply with the requirements in
this subpart no later than May 6, 2002 or on the date the State-adopted
rule becomes effective, whichever comes first. Public water systems in
jurisdictions where EPA directly implements the PWSS program must
comply with the requirements in this subpart on October 31, 2000. Prior
to these dates, public water systems must continue to comply with the
public notice requirements in Sec. 141.32 of this part. The term
``primacy agency'' is used in this subpart to refer to either EPA or
the State or the Tribe in cases where EPA, the State, or the Tribe
exercises primary enforcement responsibility for this subpart.
(a) Who must give public notice? Each owner or operator of a public
water system (community water systems, non-transient non-community
water systems, and transient non-community water systems) must give
notice for all violations of national primary drinking water
regulations (NPDWR) and for other situations, as listed in Table 1. The
term ``NPDWR violations'' is used in this subpart to include violations
of the maximum contaminant level (MCL), maximum residual disinfection
level (MRDL), treatment technique (TT), monitoring requirements, and
testing procedures in this part 141. Appendix A to this subpart
identifies the tier assignment for each specific violation or situation
requiring a public notice.
.----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 to Sec. 141.201.--Violation Categories and Other Situations
Requiring a Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) NPDWR violations:
(i) Failure to comply with an applicable maximum contaminant level
(MCL) or maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL).
(ii) Failure to comply with a prescribed treatment technique (TT).
(iii) Failure to perform water quality monitoring, as required by the
drinking water regulations.
(iv) Failure to comply with testing procedures as prescribed by a
drinking water regulation.
(2) Variance and exemptions under sections 1415 and 1416 of SDWA:
(i) Operation under a variance or an exemption.
(ii) Failure to comply with the requirements of any schedule that has
been set under a variance or exemption.
(3) Special public notices:
(i) Occurrence of a waterborne disease outbreak or other waterborne
emergency.
(ii) Exceedance of the nitrate MCL by non-community water systems
(NCWS), where granted permission by the primacy agency under
141.11(d) of this part.
(iii) Exceedance of the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for
fluoride.
(iv) Availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring data.
(v) Other violations and situations determined by the primacy agency
to require a public notice under this subpart, not already listed in
Appendix A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) What type of public notice is required for each violation or
situation? Public notice requirements are divided into three tiers, to
take into account the seriousness of the violation or situation and of
any potential adverse health effects that may be involved. The public
notice requirements for each violation or situation listed in Table 1
of this section are determined by the tier to which it is assigned.
Table 2 of this section provides the definition of each tier. Appendix
A of this part identifies the tier assignment for each specific
violation or situation.
.----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Sec. 141.201.--Definition of Public Notice Tiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Tier 1 public notice--required for NPDWR violations and situations
with significant potential to have serious adverse effects on human
health as a result of short-term exposure.
(2) Tier 2 public notice--required for all other NPDWR violations and
situations with potential to have serious adverse effects on human
health.
(3) Tier 3 public notice--required for all other NPDWR violations and
situations not included in Tier 1 and Tier 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Who must be notified?
(1) Each public water system must provide public notice to persons
served by the water system, in accordance with this subpart. Public
water systems that sell or otherwise provide drinking water to other
public water systems (i.e., to consecutive systems) are required to
give public notice to the owner or operator of the consecutive system;
the consecutive system is responsible for
[[Page 26036]]
providing public notice to the persons it serves.
(2) If a public water system has a violation in a portion of the
distribution system that is physically or hydraulically isolated from
other parts of the distribution system, the primacy agency may allow
the system to limit distribution of the public notice to only persons
served by that portion of the system which is out of compliance.
Permission by the primacy agency for limiting distribution of the
notice must be granted in writing.
(3) A copy of the notice must also be sent to the primacy agency,
in accordance with the requirements under Sec. 141.31(d).
Sec. 141.202 Tier 1 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of
notice.
(a) Which violations or situations require a Tier 1 public notice?
Table 1 of this section lists the violation categories and other
situations requiring a Tier 1 public notice. Appendix A to this subpart
identifies the tier assignment for each specific violation or
situation.
.----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 to Sec. 141.202.--Violation Categories and Other Situations
Requiring a Tier 1 Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Violation of the MCL for total coliforms when fecal coliform or E.
coli are present in the water distribution system (as specified in Sec.
141.63(b)), or when the water system fails to test for fecal coliforms
or E. coli when any repeat sample tests positive for coliform (as
specified in Sec. 141.21(e));
(2) Violation of the MCL for nitrate, nitrite, or total nitrate and
nitrite, as defined in Sec. 141.62, or when the water system fails to
take a confirmation sample within 24 hours of the system's receipt of
the first sample showing an exceedance of the nitrate or nitrite MCL,
as specified in Sec. 141.23(f)(2);
(3) Exceedance of the nitrate MCL by non-community water systems, where
permitted to exceed the MCL by the primacy agency under Sec.
141.11(d), as required under Sec. 141.209;
(4) Violation of the MRDL for chlorine dioxide, as defined in Sec.
141.65(a), when one or more samples taken in the distribution system
the day following an exceedance of the MRDL at the entrance of the
distribution system exceed the MRDL, or when the water system does not
take the required samples in the distribution system, as specified in
Sec. 141.133(c)(2)(i);
(5) Violation of the turbidity MCL under Sec. 141.13(b), where the
primacy agency determines after consultation that a Tier 1 notice is
required or where consultation does not take place within 24 hours
after the system learns of the violation;
(6) Violation of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) or Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment rule (IESWTR) treatment technique
requirement resulting from a single exceedance of the maximum allowable
turbidity limit (as identified in Appendix A), where the primacy agency
determines after consultation that a Tier 1 notice is required or where
consultation does not take place within 24 hours after the system
learns of the violation;
(7) Occurrence of a waterborne disease outbreak, as defined in Sec.
141.2, or other waterborne emergency (such as a failure or significant
interruption in key water treatment processes, a natural disaster that
disrupts the water supply or distribution system, or a chemical spill
or unexpected loading of possible pathogens into the source water that
significantly increases the potential for drinking water
contamination);
(8) Other violations or situations with significant potential to have
serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short-term
exposure, as determined by the primacy agency either in its regulations
or on a case-by-case basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) When is the Tier 1 public notice to be provided? What
additional steps are required? Public water systems must:
(1) Provide a public notice as soon as practical but no later than
24 hours after the system learns of the violation;
(2) Initiate consultation with the primacy agency as soon as
practical, but no later than 24 hours after the public water system
learns of the violation or situation, to determine additional public
notice requirements; and
(3) Comply with any additional public notification requirements
(including any repeat notices or direction on the duration of the
posted notices) that are established as a result of the consultation
with the primacy agency. Such requirements may include the timing,
form, manner, frequency, and content of repeat notices (if any) and
other actions designed to reach all persons served.
(c) What is the form and manner of the public notice? Public water
systems must provide the notice within 24 hours in a form and manner
reasonably calculated to reach all persons served. The form and manner
used by the public water system are to fit the specific situation, but
must be designed to reach residential, transient, and non-transient
users of the water system. In order to reach all persons served, water
systems are to use, at a minimum, one or more of the following forms of
delivery:
(1) Appropriate broadcast media (such as radio and television);
(2) Posting of the notice in conspicuous locations throughout the
area served by the water system;
(3) Hand delivery of the notice to persons served by the water
system; or
(4) Another delivery method approved in writing by the primacy
agency.
Sec. 141.203 Tier 2 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of
notice.
(a) Which violations or situations require a Tier 2 public notice?
Table 1 of this section lists the violation categories and other
situations requiring a Tier 2 public notice. Appendix A to this subpart
identifies the tier assignment for each specific violation or
situation.
.----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 to Sec. 141.203.--Violation Categories and Other Situations
Requiring a Tier 2 Public Notice
(1) All violations of the MCL, MRDL, and treatment technique
requirements, except where a Tier 1 notice is required under Sec.
141.202(a) or where the primacy agency determines that a Tier 1 notice
is required;
(2) Violations of the monitoring and testing procedure requirements,
where the primacy agency determines that a Tier 2 rather than a Tier 3
public notice is required, taking into account potential health impacts
and persistence of the violation; and
(3) Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of any variance or
exemption in place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) When is the Tier 2 public notice to be provided?
(1) Public water systems must provide the public notice as soon as
practical, but no later than 30 days after the system learns of the
violation. If the public notice is posted, the notice must remain in
place for as long as the violation or situation persists, but in no
case for less than seven days, even if the violation or situation is
resolved. The primacy agency may, in appropriate circumstances, allow
additional time for the initial notice of up to three months from the
date the system learns of the violation. It is not appropriate for the
primacy agency to grant an extension to the 30-day deadline for any
unresolved violation or to allow across-the-board extensions by rule or
policy for other violations or situations requiring a Tier 2 public
notice. Extensions granted by the primacy agency must be in writing.
(2) The public water system must repeat the notice every three
months as
[[Page 26037]]
long as the violation or situation persists, unless the primacy agency
determines that appropriate circumstances warrant a different repeat
notice frequency. In no circumstance may the repeat notice be given
less frequently than once per year. It is not appropriate for the
primacy agency to allow less frequent repeat notice for an MCL
violation under the Total Coliform Rule or a treatment technique
violation under the Surface Water Treatment Rule or Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule. It is also not appropriate for the
primacy agency to allow through its rules or policies across-the-board
reductions in the repeat notice frequency for other ongoing violations
requiring a Tier 2 repeat notice. Primacy agency determinations
allowing repeat notices to be given less frequently than once every
three months must be in writing.
(3) For the turbidity violations specified in this paragraph,
public water systems must consult with the primacy agency as soon as
practical but no later than 24 hours after the public water system
learns of the violation, to determine whether a Tier 1 public notice
under Sec. 141.202(a) is required to protect public health. When
consultation does not take place within the 24-hour period, the water
system must distribute a Tier 1 notice of the violation within the next
24 hours (i.e., no later than 48 hours after the system learns of the
violation), following the requirements under Sec. 141.202(b) and (c).
Consultation with the primacy agency is required for:
(i) Violation of the turbidity MCL under Sec. 141.13(b); or
(ii) Violation of the SWTR or IESWTR treatment technique
requirement resulting from a single exceedance of the maximum allowable
turbidity limit.
(c) What is the form and manner of the Tier 2 public notice? Public
water systems must provide the initial public notice and any repeat
notices in a form and manner that is reasonably calculated to reach
persons served in the required time period. The form and manner of the
public notice may vary based on the specific situation and type of
water system, but it must at a minimum meet the following requirements:
(1) Unless directed otherwise by the primacy agency in writing,
community water systems must provide notice by:
(i) Mail or other direct delivery to each customer receiving a bill
and to other service connections to which water is delivered by the
public water system; and
(ii) Any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons
regularly served by the system, if they would not normally be reached
by the notice required in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. Such
persons may include those who do not pay water bills or do not have
service connection addresses (e.g., house renters, apartment dwellers,
university students, nursing home patients, prison inmates, etc.).
Other methods may include: Publication in a local newspaper; delivery
of multiple copies for distribution by customers that provide their
drinking water to others (e.g., apartment building owners or large
private employers); posting in public places served by the system or on
the Internet; or delivery to community organizations.
(2) Unless directed otherwise by the primacy agency in writing,
non-community water systems must provide notice by:
(i) Posting the notice in conspicuous locations throughout the
distribution system frequented by persons served by the system, or by
mail or direct delivery to each customer and service connection (where
known); and
(ii) Any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons
served by the system if they would not normally be reached by the
notice required in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. Such persons
may include those served who may not see a posted notice because the
posted notice is not in a location they routinely pass by. Other
methods may include: Publication in a local newspaper or newsletter
distributed to customers; use of E-mail to notify employees or
students; or, delivery of multiple copies in central locations (e.g.,
community centers).
Sec. 141.204 Tier 3 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of
notice.
(a) Which violations or situations require a Tier 3 public notice?
Table 1 of this section lists the violation categories and other
situations requiring a Tier 3 public notice. Appendix A to this subpart
identifies the tier assignment for each specific violation or
situation.
.----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 To Sec. 141.204.--Violation Categories and Other Situations
Requiring a Tier 3 Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Monitoring violations under 40 CFR part 141, except where a Tier 1
notice is required under Sec. 141.202(a) or where the primacy agency
determines that a Tier 2 notice is required;
(2) Failure to comply with a testing procedure established in 40 CFR
part 141, except where a Tier 1 notice is required under Sec.
141.202(a)) or where the primacy agency determines that a Tier 2 notice
is required;
(3) Operation under a variance granted under Section 1415 or an
exemption granted under Section 1416 of the Safe Drinking Water Act;
(4) Availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results, as
required under Sec. 141.207; and
(5) Exceedance of the fluoride secondary maximum contaminant level
(SMCL), as required under Sec. 141.208.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) When is the Tier 3 public notice to be provided?
(1) Public water systems must provide the public notice not later
than one year after the public water system learns of the violation or
situation or begins operating under a variance or exemption. Following
the initial notice, the public water system must repeat the notice
annually for as long as the violation, variance, exemption, or other
situation persists. If the public notice is posted, the notice must
remain in place for as long as the violation, variance, exemption, or
other situation persists, but in no case less than seven days (even if
the violation or situation is resolved).
(2) (2) Instead of individual Tier 3 public notices, a public water
system may use an annual report detailing all violations and situations
that occurred during the previous twelve months, as long as the timing
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section are met.
(c) What is the form and manner of the Tier 3 public notice? Public
water systems must provide the initial notice and any repeat notices in
a form and manner that is reasonably calculated to reach persons served
in the required time period. The form and manner of the public notice
may vary based on the specific situation and type of water system, but
it must at a minimum meet the following requirements:
(1) Unless directed otherwise by the primacy agency in writing,
community water systems must provide notice by:
(i) Mail or other direct delivery to each customer receiving a bill
and to other service connections to which water is delivered by the
public water system; and
(ii) Any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons
regularly served by the system, if they would not normally be reached
by the notice required in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of
[[Page 26038]]
this section. Such persons may include those who do not pay water bills
or do not have service connection addresses (e.g., house renters,
apartment dwellers, university students, nursing home patients, prison
inmates, etc.). Other methods may include: Publication in a local
newspaper; delivery of multiple copies for distribution by customers
that provide their drinking water to others (e.g., apartment building
owners or large private employers); posting in public places or on the
Internet; or delivery to community organizations.
(2) Unless directed otherwise by the primacy agency in writing,
non-community water systems must provide notice by:
(i) Posting the notice in conspicuous locations throughout the
distribution system frequented by persons served by the system, or by
mail or direct delivery to each customer and service connection (where
known); and
(ii) Any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons
served by the system, if they would not normally be reached by the
notice required in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. Such persons
may include those who may not see a posted notice because the notice is
not in a location they routinely pass by. Other methods may include:
Publication in a local newspaper or newsletter distributed to
customers; use of E-mail to notify employees or students; or, delivery
of multiple copies in central locations (e.g., community centers).
(d) In what situations may the Consumer Confidence Report be used
to meet the Tier 3 public notice requirements? For community water
systems, the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) required under Subpart O
of this part may be used as a vehicle for the initial Tier 3 public
notice and all required repeat notices, as long as:
(1) The CCR is provided to persons served no later than 12 months
after the system learns of the violation or situation as required under
Sec. 141.204(b);
(2) The Tier 3 notice contained in the CCR follows the content
requirements under Sec. 141.205; and
(3) The CCR is distributed following the delivery requirements
under Sec. 141.204(c).
Sec. 141.205 Content of the public notice.
(a) What elements must be included in the public notice for
violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) or
other situations requiring a public notice? When a public water system
violates a NPDWR or has a situation requiring public notification, each
public notice must include the following elements:
(1) A description of the violation or situation, including the
contaminant(s) of concern, and (as applicable) the contaminant
level(s);
(2) When the violation or situation occurred;
(3) Any potential adverse health effects from the violation or
situation, including the standard language under paragraph (d)(1) or
(d)(2) of this section, whichever is applicable;
(4) The population at risk, including subpopulations particularly
vulnerable if exposed to the contaminant in their drinking water;
(5) Whether alternative water supplies should be used;
(6) What actions consumers should take, including when they should
seek medical help, if known;
(7) What the system is doing to correct the violation or situation;
(8) When the water system expects to return to compliance or
resolve the situation;
(9) The name, business address, and phone number of the water
system owner, operator, or designee of the public water system as a
source of additional information concerning the notice; and
(10) A statement to encourage the notice recipient to distribute
the public notice to other persons served, using the standard language
under paragraph (d)(3) of this section, where applicable.
(b) What elements must be included in the public notice for public
water systems operating under a variance or exemption?
(1) If a public water system has been granted a variance or an
exemption, the public notice must contain:
(i) An explanation of the reasons for the variance or exemption;
(ii) The date on which the variance or exemption was issued;
(iii) A brief status report on the steps the system is taking to
install treatment, find alternative sources of water, or otherwise
comply with the terms and schedules of the variance or exemption; and
(iv) A notice of any opportunity for public input in the review of
the variance or exemption.
(2) If a public water system violates the conditions of a variance
or exemption, the public notice must contain the ten elements listed in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) How is the public notice to be presented?
(1) Each public notice required by this section:
(i) Must be displayed in a conspicuous way when printed or posted;
(ii) Must not contain overly technical language or very small
print;
(iii) Must not be formatted in a way that defeats the purpose of
the notice;
(iv) Must not contain language which nullifies the purpose of the
notice.
(2) Each public notice required by this section must comply with
multilingual requirements, as follows:
(i) For public water systems serving a large proportion of non-
English speaking consumers, as determined by the primacy agency, the
public notice must contain information in the appropriate language(s)
regarding the importance of the notice or contain a telephone number or
address where persons served may contact the water system to obtain a
translated copy of the notice or to request assistance in the
appropriate language.
(ii) In cases where the primacy agency has not determined what
constitutes a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, the
public water system must include in the public notice the same
information as in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, where
appropriate to reach a large proportion of non-English speaking persons
served by the water system.
(d) What standard language must public water systems include in
their public notice? Public water systems are required to include the
following standard language in their public notice:
(1) Standard health effects language for MCL or MRDL violations,
treatment technique violations, and violations of the condition of a
variance or exemption. Public water systems must include in each public
notice the health effects language specified in Appendix B to this
subpart corresponding to each MCL, MRDL, and treatment technique
violation listed in Appendix A to this subpart, and for each violation
of a condition of a variance or exemption.
(2) Standard language for monitoring and testing procedure
violations. Public water systems must include the following language in
their notice, including the language necessary to fill in the blanks,
for all monitoring and testing procedure violations listed in Appendix
A to this subpart:
We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific
contaminants on a regular basis. Results of regular monitoring are
an indicator of whether or not your drinking water meets health
standards. During [compliance period], we ``did not monitor or
test'' or ``did not complete all monitoring or testing'' for
[contaminant(s)], and therefore cannot be sure of the quality of
your drinking water during that time.
(3) Standard language to encourage the distribution of the public
notice to all persons served. Public water systems must include in
their notice the following language (where applicable):
[[Page 26039]]
Please share this information with all the other people who
drink this water, especially those who may not have received this
notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes,
schools, and businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in
a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
Sec. 141.206 Notice to new billing units or new customers.
(a) What is the requirement for community water systems? Community
water systems must give a copy of the most recent public notice for any
continuing violation, the existence of a variance or exemption, or
other ongoing situations requiring a public notice to all new billing
units or new customers prior to or at the time service begins.
(b) What is the requirement for non-community water systems? Non-
community water systems must continuously post the public notice in
conspicuous locations in order to inform new consumers of any
continuing violation, variance or exemption, or other situation
requiring a public notice for as long as the violation, variance,
exemption, or other situation persists.
Sec. 141.207 Special notice of the availability of unregulated
contaminant monitoring results.
(a) When is the special notice to be given? The owner or operator
of a community water system or non-transient, non-community water
system required to monitor under Sec. 141.40 must notify persons served
by the system of the availability of the results of such sampling no
later than 12 months after the monitoring results are known.
(b) What is the form and manner of the special notice? The form and
manner of the public notice must follow the requirements for a Tier 3
public notice prescribed in Secs. 141.204(c), (d)(1), and (d)(3). The
notice must also identify a person and provide the telephone number to
contact for information on the monitoring results.
Sec. 141.208 Special notice for exceedance of the SMCL for fluoride.
(a) When is the special notice to be given? Community water systems
that exceed the fluoride secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of
2 mg/l as specified in Sec. 143.3 (determined by the last single sample
taken in accordance with Sec. 141.23), but do not exceed the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) of 4 mg/l for fluoride (as specified in
Sec. 141.62), must provide the public notice in paragraph (c) of this
section to persons served. Public notice must be provided as soon as
practical but no later than 12 months from the day the water system
learns of the exceedance. A copy of the notice must also be sent to all
new billing units and new customers at the time service begins and to
the State public health officer. The public water system must repeat
the notice at least annually for as long as the SMCL is exceeded. If
the public notice is posted, the notice must remain in place for as
long as the SMCL is exceeded, but in no case less than seven days (even
if the exceedance is eliminated). On a case-by-case basis, the primacy
agency may require an initial notice sooner than 12 months and repeat
notices more frequently than annually.
(b) What is the form and manner of the special notice? The form and
manner of the public notice (including repeat notices) must follow the
requirements for a Tier 3 public notice in Sec. 141.204(c) and (d)(1)
and (d)(3).
(c) What mandatory language must be contained in the special
notice? The notice must contain the following language, including the
language necessary to fill in the blanks:
This is an alert about your drinking water and a cosmetic dental
problem that might affect children under nine years of age. At low
levels, fluoride can help prevent cavities, but children drinking
water containing more than 2 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of fluoride
may develop cosmetic discoloration of their permanent teeth (dental
fluorosis). The drinking water provided by your community water
system [name] has a fluoride concentration of [insert value] mg/l.
Dental fluorosis, in its moderate or severe forms, may result in
a brown staining and/or pitting of the permanent teeth. This problem
occurs only in developing teeth, before they erupt from the gums.
Children under nine should be provided with alternative sources of
drinking water or water that has been treated to remove the fluoride
to avoid the possibility of staining and pitting of their permanent
teeth. You may also want to contact your dentist about proper use by
young children of fluoride-containing products. Older children and
adults may safely drink the water.
Drinking water containing more than 4 mg/L of fluoride (the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's drinking water standard) can
increase your risk of developing bone disease. Your drinking water
does not contain more than 4 mg/l of fluoride, but we're required to
notify you when we discover that the fluoride levels in your
drinking water exceed 2 mg/l because of this cosmetic dental
problem.
For more information, please call [name of water system contact]
of [name of community water system] at [phone number]. Some home
water treatment units are also available to remove fluoride from
drinking water. To learn more about available home water treatment
units, you may call NSF International at 1-877-8-NSF-HELP.''
Sec. 141.209 Special notice for nitrate exceedances above MCL by non-
community water systems (NCWS), where granted permission by the primacy
agency under Sec. 141.11(d)
(a) When is the special notice to be given? The owner or operator
of a non-community water system granted permission by the primacy
agency under Sec. 141.11(d) to exceed the nitrate MCL must provide
notice to persons served according to the requirements for a Tier 1
notice under Sec. 141.202(a) and (b).
(b) What is the form and manner of the special notice? Non-
community water systems granted permission by the primacy agency to
exceed the nitrate MCL under Sec. 141.11(d) must provide continuous
posting of the fact that nitrate levels exceed 10 mg/l and the
potential health effects of exposure, according to the requirements for
Tier 1 notice delivery under Sec. 141.202(c) and the content
requirements under Sec. 141.205.
Sec. 141.210 Notice by primacy agency on behalf of the public water
system.
(a) May the primacy agency give the notice on behalf of the public
water system? The primacy agency may give the notice required by this
subpart on behalf of the owner and operator of the public water system
if the primacy agency complies with the requirements of this subpart.
(b) What is the responsibility of the public water system when
notice is given by the primacy agency? The owner or operator of the
public water system remains responsible for ensuring that the
requirements of this subpart are met.
[[Page 26040]]
Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141.--NPDWR Violations and Other Situations Requiring Public Notice 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCL/MRDL/TT violations 2 Monitoring & testing procedure
-------------------------------------- violations
Contaminant -------------------------------------
Tier of public Citation Tier of public
notice required notice required Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Violations of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR):
3
A. Microbiological Contaminants
1. Total coliform............... 2 141.63(a) 3 141.21(a)-(e)
2. Fecal coliform/E. coli....... 1 141.63(b) 4 1, 3 141.21(e)
3. Turbidity MCL................ 2 141.13(a) 3 141.22
4. Turbidity MCL (average of 2 5 2, 1 141.13(b) 3 141.22
days' samples >5 NTU)..........
5. Turbidity (for TT violations 6 2, 1 141.71(a)(2), 3 141.74(a)(1),
resulting from a single 141.71(c)(2)(i), 141.74(b)(2),
exceedance of maximum allowable 141.73(a)(2), 141.74(c)(1),
turbidity level)............... 141.73(b)(2), 141.174
141.73(c)(2),
141.73(d),
141.173(a)(2),
141.173(b)
6. Surface Water Treatment Rule 2 141.70-141.73 3 141.74
violations, other than
violations resulting from
single exceedance of max.
allowable turbidity level (TT).
7. Interim Enhanced Surface 2 7 141.170-141.173 3 141.172, 141.174
Water Treatment Rule
violations, other than
violations resulting from
single exceedance of max.
turbidity level (TT)...........
B. Inorganic Chemicals (IOCs)
1. Antimony..................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)
2. Arsenic...................... 2 141.11(b), 3 141.23(a), (l),
141.23(n) (m)
3. Asbestos (fibers >10 m)...........................
4. Barium....................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)
5. Beryllium.................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)
6. Cadmium...................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)
7. Chromium (total)............. 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)
8. Cyanide...................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)
9. Fluoride..................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)
10. Mercury (inorganic)......... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)
11. Nitrate..................... 1 141.62(b) 8 1, 3 141.23(a), (d),
141.23(f)(2)
12. Nitrite..................... 1 141.62(b) 8 1, 3 141.23(a), (e),
141.23(f)(2)
13. Total Nitrate and Nitrite... 1 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a)
14. Selenium.................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)
15. Thallium.................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)
C. Lead and Copper Rule (Action
Level for lead is 0.015 mg/L, for
copper is 1.3 mg/L)
1. Lead and Copper Rule (TT).... 2 141.80-141.85 3 141.86-141.89
D. Synthetic Organic Chemicals
(SOCs)
1. 2,4-D........................ 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
2. 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)............ 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
3. Alachlor..................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
4. Atrazine..................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
5. Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs)........ 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
6. Carbofuran................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
7. Chlordane.................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
8. Dalapon...................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
9. Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate.... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
10. Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
11. Dibromochloropropane........ 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
12. Dinoseb..................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
13. Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)....... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
14. Diquat...................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
15. Endothall................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
16. Endrin...................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
17. Ethylene dibromide.......... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
18. Glyphosate.................. 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
19. Heptachlor.................. 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
20. Heptachlor epoxide.......... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
21. Hexachlorobenzene........... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
22. Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene.. 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
23. Lindane..................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
[[Page 26041]]
24. Methoxychlor................ 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
25. Oxamyl (Vydate)............. 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
26. Pentachlorophenol........... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
27. Picloram.................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
28. Polychlorinated biphenyls 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
(PCBs).........................
29. Simazine.................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
30. Toxaphene................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)
E. Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)
1. Benzene...................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
2. Carbon tetrachloride......... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
3. Chlorobenzene 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
(monochlorobenzene)............
4. o-Dichlorobenzene............ 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
5. p-Dichlorobenzene............ 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
6. 1,2-Dichloroethane........... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
7. 1,1-Dichloroethylene......... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
8. cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene..... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
9. trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
10. Dichloromethane............. 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
11. 1,2-Dichloropropane......... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
12. Ethylbenzene................ 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
13. Styrene..................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
14. Tetrachloroethylene......... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
15. Toluene..................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
16. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene...... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
17. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane....... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
18. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane....... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
19. Trichloroethylene........... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
20. Vinyl chloride.............. 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
21. Xylenes (total)............. 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)
F. Radioactive Contaminants
1. Beta/photon emitters......... 2 141.16 3 141.25(a),
141.26(b)
2. Alpha emitters............... 2 141.15(b) 3 141.25(a),
141.26(a)
3. Combined radium (226 & 228).. 2 141.15(a) 3 141.25(a),
141.26(a)
G. Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs),
Byproduct Precursors, Disinfectant
Residuals. Where disinfection is
used in the treatment of drinking
water, disinfectants combine with
organic and inorganic matter
present in water to form chemicals
called disinfection byproducts
(DBPs). EPA sets standards for
controlling the levels of
disinfectants and DBPs in drinking
water, including trihalomethanes
(THMs) and haloacetic acids
(HAAs).9
1. Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) 2 10 141.12, 3 141.30,
141.64(a) 141.132(a)-(b)
2. Haloacetic Acids (HAA5)...... 2 141.64(a) 3 141.132(a)-(b)
3. Bromate...................... 2 141.64(a) 3 141.132(a)-(b)
4. Chlorite..................... 2 141.64(a) 3 141.132(a)-(b)
5. Chlorine (MRDL).............. 2 141.65(a) 3 141.132(a), (c)
6. Chloramine (MRDL)............ 2 141.65(a) 3 141.132(a), (c)
7. Chlorine dioxide (MRDL), 2 141.65(a), 2 11, 3 141.132(a), (c),
where any 2 consecutive daily 141.133(c)(3) 141.133(c)(2)
samples at entrance to
distribution system only are
above MRDL.....................
8. Chlorine dioxide (MRDL), 12 1 141.65(a), 1 141.132(a), (c),
where sample(s) in distribution 141.133(c)(3) 141.133(c)(2)
system the next day are also
above MRDL.....................
9. Control of DBP precursors-- 2 141.135(a)-(b) 3 141.132(a), (d)
TOC (TT).......................
10. Bench marking and N/A N/A 3 141.172
disinfection profiling.........
11. Development of monitoring N/A N/A 3 141.132(f)
plan...........................
H. Other Treatment Techniques
1. Acrylamide (TT).............. 2 141.111 N/A N/A
2. Epichlorohydrin (TT)......... 2 141.111 N/A N/A
II. Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring: 13
A. Unregulated contaminants......... N/A N/A 3 141.40
B. Nickel........................... N/A N/A 3 141.23(c), (k)
[[Page 26042]]
III. Public Notification for
Variances and Exemptions:
A. Operation under a variance or 3 14 1415, 1416, N/A N/A
exemption..........................
B. Violation of conditions of a 2 1415, 1416, 15 N/A N/A
variance or exemption.............. 142.307
IV. Other Situations Requiring
Public Notification:
A. Fluoride secondary maximum 3 143.3 N/A N/A
contaminant level (SMCL) exceedance
B. Exceedance of nitrate MCL for non- 1 141.11(d) N/A N/A
community systems, as allowed by
primacy agency.....................
C. Availability of unregulated 3 141.40 N/A N/A
contaminant monitoring data........
D. Waterborne disease outbreak...... 1 141.2, N/A N/A
141.71(c)(2)(ii)
E. Other waterborne emergency 16.... 1 N/A N/A N/A
F. Other situations as determined by 17 1, 2, 3 N/A N/A N/A
primacy agency.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A--Endnotes
1. Violations and other situations not listed in this table
(e.g., reporting violations and failure to prepare Consumer
Confidence Reports), do not require notice, unless otherwise
determined by the primary agency. Primacy agencies may, at their
option, also require a more stringent public notice tier (e.g., Tier
1 instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead of Tier 3) for specific
violations and situations listed in this Appendix, as authorized
under Sec. 141.202(a) and Sec. 141.203(a).
2. MCL--Maximum contaminant level, MRDL--Maximum residual
disinfectant level, TT--Treatment technique
3. The term Violations of National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWR) is used here to include violations of MCL, MRDL,
treatment technique, monitoring, and testing procedure requirements.
4. Failure to test for fecal coliform or E. coli is a Tier 1
violation if testing is not done after any repeat sample tests
positive for coliform. All other total coliform monitoring and
testing procedure violations are Tier 3.
5. Systems that violate the turbidity MCL of 5 NTU based on an
average of measurements over two consecutive days must consult with
the primacy agency within 24 hours after learning of the violation.
Based on this consultation, the primacy agency may subsequently
decide to elevate the violation to Tier 1. If a system is unable to
make contact with the primacy agency in the 24-hour period, the
violation is automatically elevated to Tier 1.
6. Systems with treatment technique violations involving a
single exceedance of a maximum turbidity limit under the Surface
Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) or the Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (IESWTR) are required to consult with the primacy
agency within 24 hours after learning of the violation. Based on
this consultation, the primacy agency may subsequently decide to
elevate the violation to Tier 1. If a system is unable to make
contact with the primacy agency in the 24-hour period, the violation
is automatically elevated to Tier 1.
7. Most of the requirements of the Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (63 FR 69477) (Secs. 141.170-141.171, 141.173-
141.174) become effective January 1, 2002 for Subpart H systems
(surface water systems and ground water systems under the direct
influence of surface water) serving at least 10,000 persons.
However, Sec. 141.172 has some requirements that become effective as
early as April 16, 1999. The Surface Water Treatment Rule remains in
effect for systems serving at least 10,000 persons even after 2002;
the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule adds additional
requirements and does not in many cases supercede the SWTR.
8. Failure to take a confirmation sample within 24 hours for
nitrate or nitrite after an initial sample exceeds the MCL is a Tier
1 violation. Other monitoring violations for nitrate are Tier 3.
9. Subpart H community and non-transient non-community systems
serving 10,000 must comply with new DBP MCLs,
disinfectant MRDLs, and related monitoring requirements beginning
January 1, 2002. All other community and non-transient non-community
systems must meet the MCLs and MRDLs beginning January 1, 2004.
Subpart H transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or more
persons and using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must
comply with the chlorine dioxide MRDL beginning January 1, 2002.
Subpart H transient non-community systems serving fewer than 10,000
persons and using only ground water not under the direct influence
of surface water and using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or
oxidant must comply with the chlorine dioxide MRDL beginning January
1, 2004.
10. Sec. 141.12 will no longer apply after January 1, 2004.
11. Failure to monitor for chlorine dioxide at the entrance to
the distribution system the day after exceeding the MRDL at the
entrance to the distribution system is a Tier 2 violation.
12. If any daily sample taken at the entrance to the
distribution system exceeds the MRDL for chlorine dioxide and one or
more samples taken in the distribution system the next day exceed
the MRDL, Tier 1 notification is required. Failure to take the
required samples in the distribution system after the MRDL is
exceeded at the entry point also triggers Tier 1 notification.
13. Some water systems must monitor for certain unregulated
contaminants listed in Sec. 141.40.
14. This citation refers to Secs. 1415 and 1416 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Secs. 1415 and 1416 require that ``a schedule
prescribed . . . for a public water system granted a variance [or
exemption] shall require compliance by the system . . .''
15. In addition to Secs. 1415 and 1416 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, 40 CFR 142.307 specifies the items and schedule
milestones that must be included in a variance for small systems.
16. Other waterborne emergencies require a Tier 1 public notice
under Sec. 141.202(a) for situations that do not meet the definition
of a waterborne disease outbreak given in 40 CFR 141.2 but that
still have the potential to have serious adverse effects on health
as a result of short-term exposure. These could include outbreaks
not related to treatment deficiencies, as well as situations that
have the potential to cause outbreaks, such as failures or
significant interruption in water treatment processes, natural
disasters that disrupt the water supply or distribution system,
chemical spills, or unexpected loading of possible pathogens into
the source water.
17. Primacy agencies may place other situations in any tier they
believe appropriate, based on threat to public health.
[[Page 26043]]
Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141.--Standard Health Effects Language for Public Notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard health effects language for
Contaminant MCLG \1\ mg/L MCL \2\ mg/L public notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations (NPDWR):
A. Microbiological
Contaminants:
1a. Total coliform........ Zero See footnote \3\ Coliforms are bacteria that are naturally
present in the environment and are used
as an indicator that other, potentially-
harmful, bacteria may be present.
Coliforms were found in more samples
than allowed and this was a warning of
potential problems.
1b. Fecal coliform/E. coli Zero Zero Fecal coliforms and E. coli are bacteria
whose presence indicates that the water
may be contaminated with human or animal
wastes. Microbes in these wastes can
cause short-term effects, such as
diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or
other symptoms. They may pose a special
health risk for infants, young children,
some of the elderly, and people with
severely compromised immune systems.
2a. Turbidity (MCL) \4\... None 1 NTU \5\/5 NTU Turbidity has no health effects. However,
turbidity can interfere with
disinfection and provide a medium for
microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate
the presence of disease-causing
organisms. These organisms include
bacteria, viruses, and parasites that
can cause symptoms such as nausea,
cramps, diarrhea and associated
headaches.
2b. Turbidity (SWTR TT) None TT \7\ Turbidity has no health effects. However,
\6\. turbidity can interfere with
disinfection and provide a medium for
microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate
the presence of disease-causing
organisms. These organisms include
bacteria, viruses, and parasites that
can cause symptoms such as nausea,
cramps, diarrhea and associated
headaches.
2c. Turbidity (IESWTR TT) None TT Turbidity has no health effects. However,
\8\. turbidity can interfere with
disinfection and provide a medium for
microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate
the presence of disease-causing
organisms. These organisms include
bacteria, viruses, and parasites that
can cause symptoms such as nausea,
cramps, diarrhea and associated
headaches.
B. Surface Water Treatment
Rule (SWTR) and Interim
Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (IESWTR)
violations:
3. Giardia lamblia (SWTR/ Zero TT \10\ Inadequately treated water may contain
IESWTR). disease-causing organisms. These
organisms include bacteria, viruses, and
parasites which can cause symptoms such
as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and
associated headaches.
4. Viruses (SWTR/IESWTR)..
5. Heterotrophic plate
count (HPC) bacteria \9\
(SWTR/IESWTR).
6. Legionella (SWTR/
IESWTR).
7. Cryptosporidium
(IESWTR).
8. Antimony............... 0.006 0.006 Some people who drink water containing
antimony well in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience increases in
blood cholesterol and decreases in blood
sugar.
9. Arsenic................ None 0.05 Some people who drink water containing
arsenic in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience skin damage or
problems with their circulatory system,
and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
10. Asbestos (10 m). asbestos in excess of the MCL over many
years may have an increased risk of
developing benign intestinal polyps.
11. Barium................ 2 2 Some people who drink water containing
barium in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience an increase in
their blood pressure.
12. Beryllium............. 0.004 0.004 Some people who drink water containing
beryllium well in excess of the MCL over
many years could develop intestinal
lesions.
13. Cadmium............... 0.005 0.005 Some people who drink water containing
cadmium in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience kidney damage.
14. Chromium (total)...... 0.1 0.1 Some people who use water containing
chromium well in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience allergic
dermatitis.
15. Cyanide............... 0.2 0.2 Some people who drink water containing
cyanide well in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience nerve damage
or problems with their thyroid.
16. Fluoride.............. 4.0 4.0 Some people who drink water containing
fluoride in excess of the MCL over many
years could get bone disease, including
pain and tenderness of the bones.
Fluoride in drinking water at half the
MCL or more may cause mottling of
children's teeth, usually in children
less than nine years old. Mottling, also
known as dental fluorosis, may include
brown staining and/or pitting of the
teeth, and occurs only in developing
teeth before they erupt from the gums.
17. Mercury (inorganic)... 0.002 0.002 Some people who drink water containing
inorganic mercury well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
kidney damage.
[[Page 26044]]
18. Nitrate............... 10 10 Infants below the age of six months who
drink water containing nitrate in excess
of the MCL could become seriously ill
and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms
include shortness of breath and blue
baby syndrome.
19. Nitrite............... 1 1 Infants below the age of six months who
drink water containing nitrite in excess
of the MCL could become seriously ill
and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms
include shortness of breath and blue
baby syndrome.
20. Total Nitrate and 10 10 Infants below the age of six months who
Nitrite. drink water containing nitrate and
nitrite in excess of the MCL could
become seriously ill and, if untreated,
may die. Symptoms include shortness of
breath and blue baby syndrome.
21. Selenium.............. 0.05 0.05 Selenium is an essential nutrient.
However, some people who drink water
containing selenium in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience hair or
fingernail losses, numbness in fingers
or toes, or problems with their
circulation.
22. Thallium.............. 0.0005 0.002 Some people who drink water containing
thallium in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience hair loss,
changes in their blood, or problems with
their kidneys, intestines, or liver.
C. Lead and Copper Rule:
23. Lead.................. Zero TT \12\ Infants and children who drink water
containing lead in excess of the action
level could experience delays in their
physical or mental development. Children
could show slight deficits in attention
span and learning abilities. Adults who
drink this water over many years could
develop kidney problems or high blood
pressure.
24. Copper................ 1.3 TT \13\ Copper is an essential nutrient, but some
people who drink water containing copper
in excess of the action level over a
relatively short amount of time could
experience gastrointestinal distress.
Some people who drink water containing
copper in excess of the action level
over many years could suffer liver or
kidney damage. People with Wilson's
Disease should consult their personal
doctor. 11D. Synthetic Organic Chemicals
(SOCs):
25. 2,4-D................. 0.07 0.07 Some people who drink water containing
the weed killer 2,4-D well in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
problems with their kidneys, liver, or
adrenal glands.
26. 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)..... 0.05 0.05 Some people who drink water containing
silvex in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience liver problems.
27. Alachlor.............. Zero 0.002 Some people who drink water containing
alachlor in excess of the MCL over many
years could have problems with their
eyes, liver, kidneys, or spleen, or
experience anemia, and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
28. Atrazine.............. 0.003 0.003 Some people who drink water containing
atrazine well in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience problems
with their cardiovascular system or
reproductive difficulties.
29. Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs). Zero 0.0002 Some people who drink water containing
benzo(a)pyrene in excess of the MCL over
many years may experience reproductive
difficulties and may have an increased
risk of getting cancer.
30. Carbofuran............ 0.04 0.04 Some people who drink water containing
carbofuran in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience problems
with their blood, or nervous or
reproductive systems.
31. Chlordane............. Zero 0.002 Some people who drink water containing
chlordane in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience problems with
their liver or nervous system, and may
have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
32. Dalapon............... 0.2 0.2 Some people who drink water containing
dalapon well in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience minor kidney
changes.
33. Di (2-ethylhexyl) 0.4 0.4 Some people who drink water containing di
adipate. (2-ethylhexyl) adipate well in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
general toxic effects or reproductive
difficulties.
34. Di (2-ethylhexyl) Zero 0.006 Some people who drink water containing di
phthalate. (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in excess of
the MCL over many years may have
problems with their liver, or experience
reproductive difficulties, and may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
35. Dibromochloropropane Zero 0.0002 Some people who drink water containing
(DBCP). DBCP in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience reproductive
difficulties and may have an increased
risk of getting cancer.
36. Dinoseb............... 0.007 0.007 Some people who drink water containing
dinoseb well in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience reproductive
difficulties.
37. Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Zero 3 x 10 -8 Some people who drink water containing
dioxin in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience reproductive
difficulties and may have an increased
risk of getting cancer.
38. Diquat................ 0.02 0.02 Some people who drink water containing
diquat in excess of the MCL over many
years could get cataracts.
[[Page 26045]]
39. Endothall............. 0.1 0.1 Some people who drink water containing
endothall in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience problems with
their stomach or intestines.
40. Endrin................ 0.002 0.002 Some people who drink water containing
endrin in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience liver problems.
41. Ethylene dibromide.... Zero 0.00005 Some people who drink water containing
ethylene dibromide in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience
problems with their liver, stomach,
reproductive system, or kidneys, and may
have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
42. Glyphosate............ 0.7 0.7 Some people who drink water containing
glyphosate in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience problems
with their kidneys or reproductive
difficulties.
43. Heptachlor............ Zero 0.0004 Some people who drink water containing
heptachlor in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience liver damage
and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
44. Heptachlor epoxide.... Zero 0.0002 Some people who drink water containing
heptachlor epoxide in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience liver
damage, and may have an increased risk
of getting cancer.
45. Hexachlorobenzene..... Zero 0.001 Some people who drink water containing
hexachlorobenzene in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience
problems with their liver or kidneys, or
adverse reproductive effects, and may
have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
46. Hexachlorocyclo- 0.05 0.05 Some people who drink water containing
pentadiene. hexachlorocyclopentadiene well in excess
of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their kidneys
or stomach.
47. Lindane............... 0.0002 0.0002 Some people who drink water containing
lindane in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience problems with
their kidneys or liver.
48. Methoxychlor.......... 0.04 0.04 Some people who drink water containing
methoxychlor in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience reproductive
difficulties.
49. Oxamyl (Vydate)....... 0.2 0.2 Some people who drink water containing
oxamyl in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience slight nervous
system effects.
50. Pentachlorophenol..... Zero 0.001 Some people who drink water containing
pentachlorophenol in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience
problems with their liver or kidneys,
and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
51. Picloram.............. 0.5 0.5 Some people who drink water containing
picloram in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience problems with
their liver.
52. Polychlorinated Zero 0.0005 Some people who drink water containing
biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience changes in their
skin, problems with their thymus gland,
immune deficiencies, or reproductive or
nervous system difficulties, and may
have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
53. Simazine.............. 0.004 0.004 Some people who drink water containing
simazine in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience problems with
their blood.
54. Toxaphene............. Zero 0.003 Some people who drink water containing
toxaphene in excess of the MCL over many
years could have problems with their
kidneys, liver, or thyroid, and may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
11E. Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs):
55. Benzene............... Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing
benzene in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience anemia or a
decrease in blood platelets, and may
have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
56. Carbon tetrachloride.. Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing
carbon tetrachloride in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their liver and may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
57. Chlorobenzene 0.1 0.1 Some people who drink water containing
(monochloro- benzene). chlorobenzene in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience problems
with their liver or kidneys.
58. o-Dichlorobenzene..... 0.6 0.6 Some people who drink water containing o-
dichlorobenzene well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their liver, kidneys, or
circulatory systems.
59. p-Dichlorobenzene..... 0.075 0.075 Some people who drink water containing p-
dichlorobenzene in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience anemia,
damage to their liver, kidneys, or
spleen, or changes in their blood.
60. 1,2-Dichloroethane.... Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing
1,2-dichloroethane in excess of the MCL
over many years may have an increased
risk of getting cancer.
61. 1,1-Dichloroethylene.. 0.007 0.007 Some people who drink water containing
1,1-dichloroethylene in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their liver.
[[Page 26046]]
62. cis-1,2- 0.07 0.07 Some people who drink water containing
Dichloroethylene. cis-1,2-dichloroethylene in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
problems with their liver.
63. trans-1,2- 0.1 0.1 Some people who drink water containing
Dichloroethylene. trans-1,2-dichloroethylene well in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver.
64. Dichloromethane....... Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing
dichloromethane in excess of the MCL
over many years could have liver
problems and may have an increased risk
of getting cancer.
65. 1,2-Dichloropropane... Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing
1,2-dichloropropane in excess of the MCL
over many years may have an increased
risk of getting cancer.
66. Ethylbenzene.......... 0.7 0.7 Some people who drink water containing
ethylbenzene well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience
problems with their liver or kidneys.
67. Styrene............... 0.1 0.1 Some people who drink water containing
styrene well in excess of the MCL over
many years could have problems with
their liver, kidneys, or circulatory
system.
68. Tetrachloroethylene... Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing
tetrachloroethylene in excess of the MCL
over many years could have problems with
their liver, and may have an increased
risk of getting cancer.
69. Toluene............... 1 1 Some people who drink water containing
toluene well in excess of the MCL over
many years could have problems with
their nervous system, kidneys, or liver.
70. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.07 0.07 Some people who drink water containing
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene well in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
changes in their adrenal glands.
71. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane. 0.2 0.2 Some people who drink water containing
1,1,1-trichloroethane in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their liver, nervous
system, or circulatory system.
72. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane. 0.003 0.005 Some people who drink water containing
1,1,2-trichloroethane well in excess of
the MCL over many years could have
problems with their liver, kidneys, or
immune systems.
73. Trichloroethylene..... Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing
trichloroethylene in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience
problems with their liver and may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
74. Vinyl chloride........ Zero 0.002 Some people who drink water containing
vinyl chloride in excess of the MCL over
many years may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
75. Xylenes (total)....... 10 10 Some people who drink water containing
xylenes in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience damage to their
nervous system. 11F. Radioactive
Contaminants:
76. Beta/photon emitters.. Zero 4 mrem/yr \14\ Certain minerals are radioactive and may
emit forms of radiation known as photons
and beta radiation. Some people who
drink water containing beta and photon
emitters in excess of the MCL over many
years may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
77. Alpha emitters........ Zero 15 pCi/L \15\ Certain minerals are radioactive and may
emit a form of radiation known as alpha
radiation. Some people who drink water
containing alpha emitters in excess of
the MCL over many years may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
78. Combined radium (226 & Zero 5 pCi/L Some people who drink water containing
228). radium 226 or 228 in excess of the MCL
over many years may have an increased
risk of getting cancer.
G. Disinfection Byproducts
(DBPs), Byproduct Precursors,
and Disinfectant Residuals:
Where disinfection is used in
the treatment of drinking
water, disinfectants combine
with organic and inorganic
matter present in water to
form chemicals called
disinfection byproducts
(DBPs). EPA sets standards
for controlling the levels of
disinfectants and DBPs in
drinking water, including
trihalomethanes (THMs) and
haloacetic acids (HAAs): \16\
79. Total trihalomethanes N/A 0.10/0.08017 18 Some people who drink water containing
(TTHMs). trihalomethanes in excess of the MCL
over many years may experience problems
with their liver, kidneys, or central
nervous system, and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
[[Page 26047]]
80. Haloacetic Acids (HAA) N/A 0.060 \19\ Some people who drink water containing
haloacetic acids in excess of the MCL
over many years may have an increased
risk of getting cancer.
81. Bromate............... Zero 0.010 Some people who drink water containing
bromate in excess of the MCL over many
years may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
82. Chlorite.............. 0.08 1.0 Some infants and young children who drink
water containing chlorite in excess of
the MCL could experience nervous system
effects. Similar effects may occur in
fetuses of pregnant women who drink
water containing chlorite in excess of
the MCL. Some people may experience
anemia.
83. Chlorine.............. 4 (MRDLG) \20\ 4.0 (MRDL) \21\ Some people who use water containing
chlorine well in excess of the MRDL
could experience irritating effects to
their eyes and nose. Some people who
drink water containing chlorine well in
excess of the MRDL could experience
stomach discomfort.
84. Chloramines........... 4 (MRDLG) 4.0 (MRDL) Some people who use water containing
chloramines well in excess of the MRDL
could experience irritating effects to
their eyes and nose. Some people who
drink water containing chloramines well
in excess of the MRDL could experience
stomach discomfort or anemia.
85a. Chlorine dioxide, 0.8 (MRDLG) 0.8 (MRDL) Some infants and young children who drink
where any 2 consecutive water containing chlorine dioxide in
daily samples taken at excess of the MRDL could experience
the entrance to the nervous system effects. Similar effects
distribution system are may occur in fetuses of pregnant women
above the MRDL. who drink water containing chlorine
dioxide in excess of the MRDL. Some
people may experience anemia.
Add for public notification only: The
chlorine dioxide violations reported
today are the result of exceedances at
the treatment facility only, not within
the distribution system which delivers
water to consumers. Continued compliance
with chlorine dioxide levels within the
distribution system minimizes the
potential risk of these violations to
consumers.
85b. Chlorine dioxide, 0.8 (MRDLG) 0.8 (MRDL) Some infants and young children who drink
where one or more water containing chlorine dioxide in
distribution system excess of the MRDL could experience
samples are above the nervous system effects. Similar effects
MRDL. may occur in fetuses of pregnant women
who drink water containing chlorine
dioxide in excess of the MRDL. Some
people may experience anemia.
Add for public notification only: The
chlorine dioxide violations reported
today include exceedances of the EPA
standard within the distribution system
which delivers water to consumers.
Violations of the chlorine dioxide
standard within the distribution system
may harm human health based on short-
term exposures. Certain groups,
including fetuses, infants, and young
children, may be especially susceptible
to nervous system effects from excessive
chlorine dioxide exposure.
86. Control of DBP None TT Total organic carbon (TOC) has no health
precursors (TOC). effects. However, total organic carbon
provides a medium for the formation of
disinfection byproducts. These
byproducts include trihalomethanes
(THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs).
Drinking water containing these
byproducts in excess of the MCL may lead
to adverse health effects, liver or
kidney problems, or nervous system
effects, and may lead to an increased
risk of getting cancer.
H. Other Treatment Techniques:
87. Acrylamide............ Zero TT Some people who drink water containing
high levels of acrylamide over a long
period of time could have problems with
their nervous system or blood, and may
have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
88. Epichlorohydrin....... Zero TT Some people who drink water containing
high levels of epichlorohydrin over a
long period of time could experience
stomach problems, and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B--Endnotes
1. MCLG--Maximum contaminant level goal
2. MCL--Maximum contaminant level
3. For water systems analyzing at least 40 samples per month, no
more than 5.0 percent of the monthly samples may be positive for
total coliforms. For systems analyzing fewer than 40 samples per
month, no more than one sample per month may be positive for total
coliforms.
4. There are various regulations that set turbidity standards
for different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, the 1989
Surface Water Treatment Rule, and the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule. The MCL for the monthly turbidity average is 1
NTU; the MCL for the 2-day average is 5 NTU for systems that are
required to filter but have not yet installed filtration (40 CFR
141.13).
5. NTU--Nephelometric turbidity unit
6. There are various regulations that set turbidity standards
for different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, the 1989
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), and the 1998 Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR). Systems subject to the
Surface Water Treatment Rule (both filtered and unfiltered) may not
exceed 5 NTU. In addition, in filtered systems, 95 percent of
samples each month must not exceed 0.5 NTU in systems using
conventional or direct filtration and must not exceed 1 NTU in
systems using slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration or other
filtration technologies approved by the primacy agency.
7. TT--Treatment technique
8. There are various regulations that set turbidity standards
for different types of
[[Page 26048]]
systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, the 1989 Surface Water Treatment
Rule (SWTR), and the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (IESWTR). For systems subject to the IESWTR (systems serving at
least 10,000 people, using surface water or ground water under the
direct influence of surface water), that use conventional filtration
or direct filtration, after January 1, 2002, the turbidity level of
a system's combined filter effluent may not exceed 0.3 NTU in at
least 95 percent of monthly measurements, and the turbidity level of
a system's combined filter effluent must not exceed 1 NTU at any
time. Systems subject to the IESWTR using technologies other than
conventional, direct, slow sand, or diatomaceous earth filtration
must meet turbidity limits set by the primacy agency.
9. The bacteria detected by heterotrophic plate count (HPC) are
not necessarily harmful. HPC is simply an alternative method of
determining disinfectant residual levels. The number of such
bacteria is an indicator of whether there is enough disinfectant in
the distribution system.
10. SWTR and IESWTR treatment technique violations that involve
turbidity exceedances may use the health effects language for
turbidity instead.
11. The bacteria detected by heterotrophic plate count (HPC) are
not necessarily harmful. HPC is simply an alternative method of
determining disinfectant residual levels. The number of such
bacteria is an indicator of whether there is enough disinfectant in
the distribution system.
12. Millions fibers per liter.
13. Action Level = 0.015 mg/L
14. Action Level = 1.3 mg/L
15. Millirems per years
16. Picocuries per liter
17. Surface water systems and ground water systems under the
direct influence of surface water are regulated under Subpart H of
40 CFR 141. Supbart H community and non-transient non-community
systems serving 10,000 must comply with DBP MCLs and
disinfectant maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) beginning
January 1, 2002. All other community and non-transient noncommunity
systems must meet the MCLs and MRDLs beginning January 1, 2004.
Subpart H transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or more
persons and using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must
comply with the chlorine dioxide MRDL beginning January 1, 2002.
Subpart H transient non-community systems serving fewer than 10,000
persons and systems using only ground water not under the direct
influence of surface water and using chlorine dioxide as a
disinfectant or oxidant must comply with the chlorine dioxide MRDL
beginning January 1, 2004.
18. The MCL of 0.10 mg/l for TTHMs is in effect until January 1,
2002 for Subpart H community water systems serving 10,000 or more.
This MCL is in effect until January 1, 2004 for community water
systems with a population of 10,000 or more using only ground water
not under the direct influence of surface water. After these
deadlines, the MCL will be 0.080 mg/l. On January 1, 2004, all
systems serving less than 10,000 will have to comply with the new
MCL as well.
19. The MCL for total trihalomethanes is the sum of the
concentrations of the individual trihalomethanes.
20. The MCL for haloacetic acids is the sum of the
concentrations of the individual haloacetic acids.
21. MRDLG--Maximum residual disinfectant level goal.
22. MRDL--Maximum residual disinfectant level.
Appendix C to Subpart Q of Part 141--List of Acronyms Used in Public
Notification Regulation
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
CWS Community Water System
DBP Disinfection Byproduct
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HPC Heterotrophic Plate Count
IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
IOC Inorganic Chemical
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
MRDLG Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal
NCWS Non-Community Water System
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NTNCWS Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OW Office of Water
PN Public Notification
PWS Public Water System
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
SOC Synthetic Organic Chemical
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TCR Total Coliform Rule
TT Treatment Technique
TWS Transient Non-Community Water System
VOC Volatile Organic Chemical
PART 142--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 142 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300 g-3, 300g-4, 300
g-5, 300 g-6, 300 j-4, 300 j-9, and 300 j-11.
2. Section 142.10 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(6)(v) to
read as follows:
Sec. 142.10 Requirements for a determination of primary enforcement
responsibility.
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(v) Authority to require public water systems to give public notice
that is no less stringent than the EPA requirements in Subpart Q of
Part 141 of this chapter and Sec. 142.16(a).
3. Section 142.14 is amended by redesignating paragraph (f) as (g)
and adding a new (f), to read as follows:
Sec. 142.14 Records kept by States.
* * * * *
(f) Public notification records under Subpart Q of Part 141 of this
chapter received from public water systems (including certifications of
compliance and copies of public notices) and any state determinations
establishing alternative public notification requirements for the water
systems must be retained for three years.
* * * * *
4. Section 142.15 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1), to read
as follows:
Sec. 142.15 Reports by States.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) New violations by public water systems in the State during the
previous quarter of State regulations adopted to incorporate the
requirements of national primary drinking water regulations, including
violations of the public notification requirements under Subpart Q of
Part 141 of this chapter;
* * * * *
5. Section 142.16 is amended by revising paragraph (a), to read as
follows:
Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
(a) State public notification requirements.
(1) Each State that has primary enforcement authority under this
part must submit complete and final requests for approval of program
revisions to adopt the requirements of Subpart Q of Part 141 of this
chapter, using the procedures in Sec. 142.12(b) through (d). At its
option, a State may, by rule, and after notice and comment, establish
alternative public notification requirements with respect to the form
and content of the public notice required under Subpart Q of Part 141
of this chapter. The alternative requirements must provide the same
type and amount of information required under Subpart Q and must meet
the primacy requirements under Sec. 142.10.
(2) As part of the revised primacy program, a State must also
establish enforceable requirements and procedures when the State adds
to or changes the requirements under:
(i) Table 1 to 40 CFR 141.201(a)(Item (3)(v))--To require public
water systems to give a public notice for violations or situations
other than those listed in Appendix A of Subpart Q of Part 141 of this
chapter;
(ii) 40 CFR 141.201(c)(2)--To allow public water systems, under the
specific circumstances listed in Sec. 141.201(c)(2),
[[Page 26049]]
to limit the distribution of the public notice to persons served by the
portion of the distribution system that is out of compliance;
(iii) Table 1 of 40 CFR 141.202(a) (Items (5), (6), and (8))--To
require public water systems to give a Tier 1 public notice (rather
than a Tier 2 or Tier 3 notice) for violations or situations listed in
Appendix A of Subpart Q of Part 141 of this chapter;
(iv) 40 CFR 141.202(b)(3)--To require public water systems to
comply with additional Tier 1 public notification requirements set by
the State subsequent to the initial 24-hour Tier 1 notice, as a result
of their consultation with the State required under
Secs. 141.202(b)(2);
(v) 40 CFR 141.202(c), 141.203(c) and 141.204(c)--To require a
different form and manner of delivery for Tier 1, 2 and 3 public
notices.
(vi) Table 1 to 40 CFR 141.203(a) (Item (2))--To require the public
water systems to provide a Tier 2 public notice (rather than Tier (3))
for monitoring or testing procedure violations specified by the State;
(vii) 40 CFR 141.203(b)(1)--To grant public water systems an
extension up to three months for distributing the Tier 2 public notice
in appropriate circumstances (other than those specifically excluded in
the rule);
(viii) 40 CFR 141.203(b)(2)--To grant a different repeat notice
frequency for the Tier 2 public notice in appropriate circumstances
(other than those specifically excluded in the rule), but no less
frequently than once per year;
(ix) 40 CFR 141.203(b)(3)--To respond within 24 hours to a request
for consultation by the public water system to determine whether a Tier
1 (rather than a Tier 2) notice is required for a turbidity MCL
violation under Sec. 141.13(b) or a SWTR/IESWTR TT violation due to a
single exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit;
(x) 40 CFR 141.205(c)--To determine the specific multilingual
requirement for a public water system, including defining ``large
proportion of non-English-speaking consumers.''
* * * * *
Sec. 142.16 [Amended]
6. Section 142.16(e) introductory text is amended by removing
``Sec. 141.32''.
PART 143--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 143 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.
Sec. 143.5 [Removed]
2. Part 143 is amended by removing Sec. 143.5.
[FR Doc. 00-9534 Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081024132722im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}