_ _ Fact Sheet: Announcement of the Results of EPA's Review of
\J^CF*m Existing Drinking Water Standards and Request for Public
1. What is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announcing?
The Agency is announcing its preliminary revise/not revise decisions for 68 chemical
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) and the Total Coliform Rule (TCR).
EPA is requesting public comment on these preliminary determinations, the data and information
used to support these determinations, and on the protocol the Agency used to conduct the review.
As a result of the review, the Agency preliminarily believes that the 68 chemical NPDWRs
remain appropriate at this time, and that the TCR should be revised. However, the Agency notes
that there are a number of scientific assessments either planned or underway that may indicate
the need for further revisions for a subset of these 68 regulations in the future.
2. Why did EPA review these NPDWRs?
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA must periodically review existing
NPDWRs and, if appropriate, revise them. This requirement is contained in Section 1412(b)(9)
of SDWA, as amended in 1996, which reads:
The Administrator shall, not less often than every 6 years, review and revise, as appropriate,
each national primary drinking water regulation promulgated under this title. Any revision
of a national primary drinking water regulation shall be promulgated in accordance with
this section, except that each revision shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of
the health of persons.
3. What NPDWRs are covered by this action?
The Six-Year Review process only applies to existing national primary drinking water
regulations (i.e., currently regulated contaminants). Unregulated contaminants, such has those
being evaluated by the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) are not covered by the Six-Year
Review. The current 1996-2002 review addresses NPDWRs promulgated prior to 1997 (referred
to as pre-1997 NPDWRs), with the exception of those regulations that are the subject of recent
or ongoing rulemaking activity (e.g., arsenic, radionuclides, disinfection byproducts, and most
microbiological NPDWRs). EPA will review NPDWRs promulgated after 1997 at a later date.
4. How did EPA review the pre-1997 NPDWRs?
The primary goal of the Six-Year Review was to identify, prioritize and target candidates
for regulatory revision that are most likely to result in an increased level of public health
protection and/or a substantial cost savings while maintaining the level of public health
1
-------
protection. To address this goal, EPA developed a systematic approach, or protocol, for the
review of existing NPDWRs. EPA developed the protocol in consultation with the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) and other stakeholders. The protocol focused on
several key elements that were intended to identify NPDWRs for which there is a health or
technology basis for revising the NPDWR. The review relied upon an evaluation of relevant,
new information for the following key technical elements: health effects, analytical methods
improvements, treatment technology effectiveness, other potential regulatory changes,
occurrence and exposure data, and potential economic impacts. Figure 1 gives a general
overview of the protocol used to make the revise/not revise decisions for the pre-1997 NPDWRs.
-------
Figure 1. Overview of the Protocol for the Revise/Not Revise Decision
NPDWRs under review
Initial Technical Review
Health Effects, analytical methods and
, treatment feasibility, and other regulatory
revisions
Is a health risk assessment
in process/planned?
No
Yes
Pending health
risk assessment
(36)
Does the review suggest possible changes
in MCLG/MCL/TT and or other
regulatory revisions?
No
NPDWR remains appropriate
after data/information review
(17)
Yes
In-depth Technical Analysis
New risk assessment, methods feasibility,
treatment effectiveness, occurrence and exposure
and economic implications.
Is a significant gain in
public health protection or significant
cost savings likely to occur?
Yes
Are the data sufficient to support
regulatory revision ?
Yes
No
Negligible gain in
public health protection
and/or cost savings
(12)
No
Data gaps - determine
research needs
(3)
* Publish FT? notice with preliminary revise/not decisions.
* Review Public Comments and consider revising decisions
in context of new information.
* Publish FR notice with final list of NPDWRs to be revised.
-------
5. What are the preliminary revise/not revise decisions?
Based on its review, EPA believes it is appropriate to revise the Total Coliform Rule.
EPA believes none of the 68 chemical NPDWRs should be revised at this time for one of
the following reasons:
(A) Pending health risk assessments - EPA identified 36 NPDWRs for which the Agency is
in the process of performing health risk assessments. These assessments are not expected
to be complete in time for EPA to make its final revise/not revise decisions in August
2002 time frame. The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to consider revisions to
these NPDWRs while the health risk assessments are in process. When the assessment
for an NPDWR is completed, EPA will review the updated risk assessment during the
next review cycle.
(B) Remains appropriate after data/information review - EPA identified 17 NPDWRs for
which the outcome of the review indicates that the current regulatory requirement
remains appropriate. Any new information available to the Agency supports retaining
the current regulatory requirements.
(C) Negligible gain in public health protection and/or cost savings - EPA identified 12
NPDWRs that have new health, technological, or other information that indicates a
potential revision to a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and/or maximum
contaminant level (MCL); however, the Agency believes any potential revision would
result in a minimal gain in the level of public health protection and/or provide negligible
opportunity for significant cost-savings. EPA, therefore, does not believe revisions are
warranted at this time.
(D) Data gaps - EPA identified 3 NPDWRs that have data gaps or research needs which must
be addressed before EPA can make definitive regulatory decisions. When the data gaps
have been resolved, EPA plans to consider the results in the next review cycle.
The Agency's commitment to completing ongoing or planned assessments and filling
data gaps reflects its commitment to sound science and its desire to make regulatory information
based upon the best available information and data. Table 1 provides a more detailed list of the
69 NPDWRs and the placement of each NPDWR with respect to the revise/not revision decision.
6. Will EPA consider reviewing any NPDWRs before the next review cycle?
If the result of any health risk assessment currently in process or the resolution of data
gaps/research needs indicate that significant or compelling new information is available that will
change the basis for an NPDWR, the Agency may decide to accelerate the review schedule.
-------
Table 1: Preliminary Revise/Not Revise Decisions for the 68 Chemical NPDWRs and TCR
Not
Appropriate
for Revision
at this Time
Risk assessment in process:
chemical currently
undergoing an EPA health
risk assessment;
includes the three initiated as
a result of this review '
(36 NPDWRs)
NPDWR remains appropriate
after data/information review
(17 NPDWRs)
New
information,
but no revision
recommended
because:
Negligible
gain in health
protection
(12 NPDWRs)
Information
gaps
(3 NPDWRs)
Acrylamide (TT)2 (2004 / 2005)
Alachlor (2002 72003)
Antimony (2002 72003)
Asbestos (2004 7 2005)
Atrazine (2002)
Benzo[a]pyrene (2002 7 2003)
Cadmium (2002 7 2003)
Carbofuran (2002 7 2003)
Carbon tetrachloride (2002 7 2003)
Copper (TT)2 (2002 7 2003)
Cyanide (2004 7 2005)1
2,4-0(2003/2004)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene (2002 7 2003)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (2002 7 2003)
1,2-Dichloroethane (2002 7 2003)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (2002 7 2003)
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate (2003 72004)1
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (2002/2003)
Diquat (2002)
Endothall (2003 7 2004)
Ethylbenzene (2002 / 2003)
Ethylene dibromide (2002 / 2003)
Glyphosate (2002 / 2003)
Lindane (2003 / 2004)
Methoxychlor (2002 / 2003)
Pentachlorophenol (2002 / 2003)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (2002 / 2003)
Simazine (2003 / 2004)
Styrene (2002/2003)
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) (2002/2003)
Tetrachloroethylene (2002 / 2003)
Thallium (2004/2005)1
Toluene (2002/2003)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (2003/2004)
Trichloroethylene (2002 / 2003)
Xylenes (2002/2003)
Barium
Dalapon
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Dinoseb
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin (TT)2
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Lead (TT)2
Mercury
Monochlorobenzene
Nitrate
Nitrite
Selenium
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Vinyl chloride
Benzene
Beryllium
Chlordane
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Oxamyl
Picloram
Toxaphene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Chromium
Dichloromethane3
Fluoride4
Candidates
for Revision
Based on other
regulatory revisions
(1 NPDWR)
Total Coliform Rule (TCR)
1 New information was identified for cyanide, di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate, and thallium as a result of the six-year health effects
review. The Agency has initiated new risk assessments for these three contaminants.
2 TT designates treatment-technique rules (i.e., those NPDWRs for which a treatment technique has been set in place of an MCL).
3 Preliminary analysis indicates that there may be an opportunity for improvement in public health protection if the PQL/MCL
were lowered. Additional data are needed to support such a change.
4 EPA plans to ask NAS to update the risk assessment for fluoride.
-------
7. What are the next steps?
EPA plans to hold a 60-day public comment period after the publication of the Federal
Register with the preliminary revise/not revise decisions. During the public comment period, the
Agency also intends to hold a stakeholder meeting and consult with the Science Advisory Board
(SAB). After taking public comments into consideration, the Agency plans to publish its final
revise/not revise decisions for the 69 pre-1997 NPDWRs in the Federal Register in the August
2002 time frame.
8. Where can I find more information about this notice and the Six-Year Review?
For general information on the Six-Year Review, please visit the EPA Safewater Web
site at http://www.epa. gov/safewater or contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-
426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. In addition to this fact sheet, the following
documents are electronically available to the public at EPA's web site on the Six-Year Review:
(A) The Federal Register announcing the preliminary revise/not revise decisions for the Six-
Year Review; and
(B) The technical support documents for the Six-Year Review:
• • EPA's Protocol for the Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (EPA 815-D-02-004)
Six-Year Review - Chemical Contaminants: Health Effects (EPA 822-R-02-001)
• • Analytical Feasibility Support Document for the Six-Year Review of Existing
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (EPA 815-D-02-002)
Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support Document (EPA 815-D-02-001)
• • Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Chemical Contaminants in
Support of the Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(EPA815-D-02-003)
• • Occurrence Estimation Methodology and Occurrence Findings Report for the Six-
Year Regulatory Review (EPA 815-D-02-005)
• • Occurrence Summary and Use Support Document for the Six-Year Regulatory
Review (EPA 815-D-02-006)
For a hard copy of this fact sheet (EPA 815-F-02-002), the Federal Register notice,
and/or any of the Six-Year supporting documents, please contact EPA's Water Resource Center
at 1-800-832-7828.
United States Environmental Protection Agency March 2002
Office of Water (4607M) EPA 815-F-02-002
vwwv.epa.gov/water 6
------- |