United States
Environmental Protection Office of Water EPA 815-R-98-003
Agency 4607 September 1998
&EPA Variance Technology
Findings for
Contaminants Regulated
Before 1996
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ii
List of Figures and Tables iv
1. Introduction 2
Section 1.1: Safe Drinking Water Act Implementation 2
Section 1.2: Need for a Small System Technology Requirement 3
Section 1.3: Small System Treatment Technology Requirements
of the 1996 SDWA 4
Section 1.4: Point-of-Entry and Point-of-Use Treatment Units as
Compliance Technologies 10
Section 1.5: Format and Content of this Small System Compliance
Technology List 11
Section 1.6: Stakeholder Involvement 12
Section 1.7: Organization of the Document 12
2. Two-Stage Screening Process
Section 2.1: Overview 14
Section 2.2: Stage 1: Statutory Screens 14
Section 2.3: Stage 2: Affordability Screens 19
Section 2.4: Summary of Screening Process 23
3. National-Level Affordability
Section 3.1: Introduction 35
Section 3.2: Role of National-Level Affordability Criteria 36
Section 3.3: Unit of Measure for the National-Level Affordability Criteria 37
Section 3.4: Derivation of the National-level Affordability Criteria 38
Section 3.5: National-Level Affordability Criteria 48
4. Affordable Technology Determinations
Section 4.1: Overview 52
Section 4.2: Results of SDWIS Run of Violations 52
Section 4.3: Cost Models 53
Section 4.4: Model Systems 54
Section 4.5: Treatment Cost Estimates 56
5. Summary of Variance Technology Findings for Contaminants 60
11
-------
Regulated Before 1996
Appendix A: Relevant Parts of Section 1412 of the 1996 SDWA Amendments 62
Appendix B: Relevant Parts of Section 1415 of the 1996 SDWA Amendments 68
in
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Small System Requirements: Compliance vs.
Variance Technologies 7
Figure 2. Affordable Compliance Technologies 9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Regulated Contaminants and their Eligibility for Variance 24
Technologies after Two-Stage Screening Process
Table 2. Residential Consumption at Small Water Systems 41
Table 3. Baseline Household Water Bills by Source Type 42
Table 4. Baseline Household Water Bills 42
Table 5. Baseline Median Household Income 43
Table 6. Summary of Select Consumer Expenditures for 45
All Consumer Units - 1995$
Table 7. National-Level Affordability Criteria 50
Table 8. Design and Average Daily Flows used for Regulations (pre-1996) 55
Table 9. Design and Average Daily Flows used for Affordable 55
Technology Determinations
Table 10. Number of Households by Size Category for POU/POE Options 56
Table 11. Affordable and Other Compliance Technologies in the 57
25 - 500 Size Category
IV
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Section 1.1: Safe Drinking Water Act Implementation
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments were signed by the President on August
6, 1996. There are over 70 statutory deadlines in the 1996 SDWA for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The Amendments contain a challenging set of activities for EPA,
States, Indian tribes, public water systems, and other stakeholders.
Due to the 1996 SDWA's emphasis on public information and participation, as well as EPA's
desire to seek a broad range of public input, the stakeholder process that was begun during the
1995 drinking water program redirection effort has been greatly expanded. Many of the 70
statutory deadlines have been grouped into twelve project areas. Each of these areas has a broad
set of stakeholders that will provide information and comments.
One of the twelve project areas created by the 1996 SDWA is being addressed by EPA's
Treatment Technology Team. The mission of the Treatment Technology Team is to identify
and/or develop high quality, cost-effective treatment technologies to meet regulation development
and program implementation objectives and deadlines. The short-term goals of this team are to
prepare: (1) by August 6, 1997, the list of technologies that small systems can use to comply with
the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR); (2) by August 6, 1998, the list of technologies that
small systems can use to comply with all of the other pre-1996 National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs); and (3) by August 6, 1998, the list of variance technologies for small
systems for the appropriate pre-1996 NPDWRs. The long-term goals include the identification
of: (1) small system compliance and variance technologies for all future regulations; (2) best
available technologies (BATs) for larger systems in future regulations; and (3) emerging
technologies that should be evaluated as potential compliance or variance technologies for both
existing and future regulations.
EPA met the first of these short-term goals in August, 1997. A Federal Register notice dated
August 11, 1997 published the compliance technology list for the SWTR (EPA, 1997a). The
notice also announced the availability of a guidance manual entitled "Compliance Technology List
for the Surface Water Treatment Rule" (EPA, 1997b). The guidance manual contained more
detailed information on the list of technologies published in the Federal Register notice.
EPA updated the list of compliance technologies for the SWTR and published the list of
compliance technologies for the total coliform rule in a Federal Register notice on August 6, 1998
(EPA, 1998a). EPA is also publishing an update to the guidance manual that supported the
original SWTR list of compliance technologies. The updated guidance manual is entitled
"Compliance Technology List for the Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Total Coliform
Rule" (EPA, 1998b). This document covers both update of the SWTR list and the compliance
technologies identified for the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). These have been grouped into one
publication as they both address microbial contaminants and their indicators in drinking water.
-------
The list of compliance technologies for the TCR is one of the lists required by Section
1412(b)(4)(E)(iii) of the SOW A.
EPA met both the second and third of the short-term goals in August 1998. A Federal
Register notice dated August 6, 1998 published the list of compliance technologies that systems
can use to comply with all of the other NPDWRs and the findings concerning variance
technologies for the contaminants regulated before 1996. EPA did not, at that time, list any
variance technologies for contaminants regulated before 1996. Guidance manuals were developed
to provide more detail on each of these lists. A document entitled "Small System Compliance
Technology List for the Non-Microbial Contaminants Regulated Before 1996" (EPA, 1998c)
provides more detail on the list of compliance technologies for the non-microbial contaminants
regulated before 1996. The current document has been prepared to describe the procedures that
were used to make the determination, at this time, that there would be no variance technologies
for contaminants regulated before 1996.
Section 1.2: Need for a Small System Technology Requirement
The 1986 SDWA identified a process for setting maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) as
close to the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) as is "feasible." The Act states that the
term "feasible" means feasible with the use of the best technology, treatment techniques and other
means which the Administrator finds, after examination for efficacy under field conditions and not
solely under laboratory conditions, are available (taking cost into consideration) [Section
1412(b)(4)(D)]. The technologies that met this feasibility criterion are called "best available
technologies" (BATs) and are listed in the final regulations. This process is retained in the 1996
SDWA. All of the existing NPDWRs covered in this document were developed using this
process, with the exception of three rules described below.
One regulation covered in this document is the lead and copper rule. The Lead and Copper
Rule requires compliance with a treatment technique rule rather than an MCL. Section
1412(b)(7)(A) of the 1986 SDWA listed the conditions under which a treatment technique could
be promulgated in lieu of an MCL. When these conditions are met, the Act states that"... the
Administrator must identify those treatment techniques which, in the Administrator's judgement,
would prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent
feasible". The definition of feasible listed above would also apply in the technology
determinations for the Lead and Copper rule.
The SWTR is another treatment technique rule. It is a treatment technique for microbial
contaminants. The structure of this rule is described in detail in the guidance manual entitled
"Small System Compliance Technology List for the Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Total
Coliform Rule" (EPA, 1998b).
There is one other treatment technique rule in the group of contaminants regulated before
1996. Epichlorohydrin and acrylamide are regulated through treatment techniques rather than
-------
with a MCL. Unlike the SWTR or the Lead and Copper Rule, the treatment techniques for these
two contaminants are not based on the use of technology to remove or reduce the contaminant
concentration. The treatment technique for these two contaminants requires public water systems
to certify annually, in writing, to the State that when acrylamide or epichlorohydrin are used in
drinking water treatment, the combination of dose and monomer level does not exceed specified
levels. Since technologies are not being utilized for these NPDWRs, neither compliance nor
variance technologies will be listed for these contaminants.
Before the 1996 Amendments, cost assessments for the treatment technology feasibility
determinations were based upon impacts to regional and large metropolitan water systems. This
protocol was established when the SDWA was originally enacted in 1974 (Congressional Record,
1974) and was carried over when the Act was amended in 1986 (Congressional Record, 1986).
The population size categories that EPA has used to make feasibility determinations for regional
and large metropolitan water systems has varied among different regulation packages. The most
common population size categories used were 50,000 - 75,000 people and 100,000 - 500,000
people. The technical demands and costs associated with technologies that are feasible based on
regional and large metropolitan water systems often make these technologies inappropriate for
small systems. The 1996 Amendments attempt to redress this problem by having EPA identify
treatment technologies that are suited for small systems (compliance technologies). The two
compliance technology guidance manuals will help small systems comply with existing NPDWRs.
Section 1.3: Small System Treatment Technology Requirements of the 1996 SDWA
Since large systems were used as the basis for the feasibility determinations, the existing
BATs for MCLs and the existing treatment techniques may not be appropriate for small systems.
The 1996 SDWA specifically requires EPA to make technology assessments relevant to the three
categories of small systems respectively for both existing and future regulations, in addition to the
pre-1996 Amendments BAT protocol. The three population-served size categories of small
systems defined by the 1996 SDWA are: 10,000 - 3,301 persons, 3,300 - 501 persons, and 500 -
25 persons.
The 1996 SDWA identifies two classes of technologies for small systems: compliance
technologies and variance technologies. A "compliance technology" may refer to both a
technology or other means that is affordable and that achieves compliance with the MCL and to a
technology or other means that satisfies a treatment technique requirement. Possible compliance
technologies include packaged or modular systems and point-of-entry (POE) or point-of-use
(POU) treatment units [see Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii)]. Variance technologies are only specified
for those system size/source water quality combinations for which there are no listed compliance
technologies [Section 1412(b)(15)(A)]. Thus, the listing of a compliance technology for a size
category/source water combination prohibits the listing of variance technologies for that
combination. While variance technologies may not achieve compliance with the MCL or
treatment technique requirement, they must achieve the maximum reduction or inactivation
efficiency that is affordable considering the size of the system and the quality of the source water.
-------
Variance technologies must also achieve a level of contaminant reduction that is protective of
public health [Section 1412(b)(15)(B)].
The variance procedure for small systems has been significantly revised under the 1996
SDWA. Under the 1986 SDWA, systems were required to install a technology before applying
for a variance; if they were unable to meet the MCL, they could then apply for a variance. The
1996 Amendments have given the variance option additional flexibility in that variances can be
applied for and granted before the variance technology is installed, thus ensuring that the system
will have a variance before it invests in treatment. Under the 1996 SDWA, there is a new
procedure available for small systems (systems serving less than 10,000): the "small system
variance". The difference between a regular variance and a small system variance is the basis for
the feasibility (technical and affordability) determination. For the former, large systems are the
basis; for the latter, small systems are the basis. If there are no affordable compliance
technologies listed by the EPA for a small system size category/source water quality combination,
then the system may apply for a small system variance. One of the criteria for obtaining a small
system variance is that the system must install a variance technology listed for that size
category/source water quality combination [Section 1415(e)(2)(A)]. A small system variance may
only be obtained if alternate source, treatment, and restructuring options are unaffordable at the
system-level.
There are some additional requirements for small system variances that affect the listing of
variance technologies. Small system variances are not available for any MCL or treatment
technique for a contaminant with respect to which a national primary drinking water regulation
was promulgated prior to January 1, 1986 [Section 1415(e)(6)(A)]. The final Variance and
Exemption Rule provides EPA's interpretation of this requirement (EPA, 1998d). Small system
variances would not be available for those contaminants with existing MCLs that were
promulgated prior to January 1, 1986. Small system variances would not be available if the pre-
1986 MCL was retained or raised. Small system variance would only be available if the pre-1986
MCL was lowered (could apply to updates of the existing arsenic and radionuclides MCLs if the
pre-1986 MCLs are lowered). If the Agency revises a pre-1986 MCL and makes it more
stringent, there would be an additional restriction of the availability of small system variances. If
the variance option was available, the finished water quality could not exceed the pre-1986 MCL.
Nor are small system variances available for a NPDWR for a microbial contaminant (including a
bacterium, virus, or other organism) or an indicator or treatment technique for a microbial
contaminant [Section 1415(e)(6)(B)]. The sole purpose of the listing of variance technologies is
to enable small systems to obtain a small system variance. Therefore, when these small system
variances are not available under the SDWA, variance technologies were not specified for those
contaminants.
The process for identifying compliance and variance technologies for future regulations was
summarized in the preceding paragraphs. The language in the 1996 SDWA Amendments is
different for the existing regulations. There are two mandatory lists of compliance technologies
that were developed for the existing rules. By August 6, 1997, the Administrator was required to
-------
list technologies that meet the SWTR for each of the three size categories [Section
1412(b)(4)(E)(v)]. By August 6, 1998, after consultation with the States, the Administrator was
required to issue a list of technologies that achieve compliance with the MCLs or treatment
technique requirements for other existing NPDWRs. By August 6, 1998, after consultation with
the States, the Administrator was required to issue guidance or regulations for variance
technologies for the existing NPDWRs for which a small system variance can be granted. Figure
1 summarizes the requirements for compliance and variance technologies and differentiates
between existing and future regulations.
-------
FIGURE 1
SMALL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
COMPLIANCE VS. VARIANCE TECHNOLOGIES
EXISTING
REGULATIONS:
Meet affordable
technology criteria
Source Water Quality
Endpoint
Health Requirements
Separate from MCL
COMPLIANCE
TECHNOLOGY
GOOD
MCL
NONE
VARIANCE
TECHNOLOGY
Not Explicitly Required Inherently Required
POOR
Maximum Reduction
that is Affordable
Must be protective of
public health
FUTURE
REGULATIONS:
Meet affordable
technology criteria
Source Water Quality
Endpoint
Health Requirements
Separate from MCL
Required
GOOD
MCL
NONE
Required
POOR
Maximum Reduction
that is Affordable
Must be protective of
public health
-------
The two major concerns regarding technologies for small systems are affordability and
technical complexity: per household costs tend to be higher for the smaller system customers for
most central treatment technologies, leading to many cases where small systems simply cannot
afford to install a prescribed technology, and small systems often do not have access to well-
trained water system operators. Although the statute is silent concerning whether small system
compliance technologies for existing regulations should be affordable, EPA believes that the
better approach under the statute is that affordability should be evaluated for future regulations
and existing regulations where the statute allows variance technologies. If the candidate
technologies are not evaluated against an affordable technology criterion, then compliance
technologies would automatically exist for all of the existing regulations regardless of the source
water quality. The existing best available technologies (BATs) or treatment techniques would
become the compliance technologies for small systems, which was the case prior to the 1996
Amendments. EPA does not believe that result to be what Congress intended. As a result, EPA
evaluated small system technologies against an affordable technology criterion for those existing
regulations where small system variances or variance technologies are not prohibited by the
SDWA.
The flow chart in Figure 2 shows the role of the affordable technology criteria in the
treatment technology arena. The primary function of the criteria is to determine whether a system
of a given size/source water quality combination should proceed down the compliance or variance
technology pathway. The secondary function is to define the universe of technologies within the
compliance or variance technology pathway. These affordable technology criteria are different
from the affordability criteria to be used by States in granting small system variances under
Section 1415(e). The criteria used by States will be applicable to individual systems ("system-
level affordability criteria"). Options that States can use for system-level affordability criteria
were developed in the Small System National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC)
Working Group process and are available in "Information for States on Developing Affordability
Criteria for Drinking Water" (EPA, 1998e). This document was published on February 4, 1998
can be downloaded at http://www.epq.gov/OGWDW/smallsys/afford.html. In contrast, the
affordable technology criteria developed under Section 1412(b)(4) can be viewed as "national-
level affordability criteria". Technologies that meet the national-level criteria may not be
affordable for a particular system within the size category. The role of the system-level
affordability criteria is illustrated in Figure 2 as well.
For those existing regulations where the SDWA prohibits small system variances or variance
technologies, the candidate compliance technologies will not be evaluated against an affordable
technology criterion. There are two statutory prohibitions on small system variances and one
prohibition on variance technologies. As previously mentioned, small system variances are not
available for any NPDWR for a microbial contaminant (or indicator). Variance technologies were
not identified for any of the six microbial contaminants that are currently regulated. Small system
variances are also not available for any MCL or treatment technique with respect to which a
NPDWR was promulgated prior to January 1, 1986. Variance technologies were not identified
for any of the 12 contaminants where the pre-1986 MCL has
-------
FIGURE 2
AFFORDABLE COMPLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES*
System Out
of Compliance
Implement
Affordable
variance
technology
*NOTE: This approach covers the regulations that pass all of the
screening criteria for variance technologies.
-------
been retained or raised. The statutory prohibition on variance technologies is found in Section
1412(b)(15)(B) of the SDWA. The Administrator shall not identify any variance technology
under this paragraph, unless the Administrator has determined, considering the quality of the
source water to be treated and the expected useful life of the technology, that the variance
technology is protective of public health. For 19 contaminants, it was determined that, in order to
be protective of public health, the MCL had to be met. Since the MCL is the treatment standard,
compliance technologies are the only alternative. These statutory screens for variance
technologies are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.
Section 1.4: Format of Variance Technology Lists
Section 1412(b)(15)(D) states that the variance technology list for the contaminants
regulated before 1996 can be issued either through guidance or regulations. The three key
requirements of Section 1412(b)(15)(D) on the list format are as follows: "Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this paragraph and after consultation with the States, the
Administrator shall issue guidance or regulations under subparagraph (A) for each national
primary drinking water regulation promulgated prior to the date of enactment of this paragraph
for which a variance may be granted under section 1415(e). The Administrator may, at any time
after a national primary drinking water regulation has been promulgated, issue guidance or
regulations describing additional variance technologies. The Administrator shall, not less often
than every 7 years, or upon receipt of a petition supported by substantial information, review
variance technologies identified under this paragraph."
EPA has chosen the guidance format for a number of reasons. Because this is the first time
that EPA has undertaken the variance technology analysis required under the amended SDWA
(which includes new findings concerning "affordability" and "protectiveness") and given the
relatively short time for development of this analysis, EPA considers the methodology described
here and the resulting finding of no variance technologies to be an initial screening effort, rather
than a final determination of any kind. In addition, by enabling EPA to list variance technologies
through guidance rather than specifying them by regulation, the statute specifically contemplates
that this analysis (and any resulting list) would be subject to revision, based on new information
and petitions from interested parties.
In summary, EPA has chosen to list the variance technology findings through a Federal
Register notice and a guidance document because regulation development is unnecessary and
could considerably delay publication of the criteria used in this screening effort. Issuing the
findings without rule-making allows EPA to meet the statutory deadline and to disseminate the
criteria used to make the "affordability" and "protectiveness" findings. It is much easier and faster
to update a guidance rather than a rule to address pertinent comments received in petitions from
interested parties.
10
-------
Section 1.5: Content of Variance Technology Lists
The SDWA does specify some content requirements for variance technologies. Section
1412(b)(15)(C) states that "The Administrator shall include in the guidance or regulations
identifying variance technologies under this paragraph any assumptions supporting the public
health determination referred to in subparagraph (B), where such assumptions concern the public
water system to which the technology may be applied, or its source waters. The Administrator
shall provide any assumptions used in determining affordability, taking into consideration the
number of persons served by such systems. The Administrator shall provide as much reliable
information as practicable on performance, effectiveness, limitations, costs, and other relevant
factors including the applicability of variance technology to water from surface and underground
sources." EPA interprets this provision as requiring the list of variance technologies to include
information regarding "protectiveness", "affordability", and "performance and effectiveness" of
the listed technologies.
The "protectiveness" criteria are discussed briefly in Chapter 2. The "affordability" criteria
are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. The "performance and effectiveness" criteria are described in
the final Variance and Exemption Rule (EPA, 1998d). When variance technologies are identified,
EPA will provide accompanying guidance. The guidance will identify the typical removal
efficiency achieved by each variance technology, considering the overall capabilities of the
treatment process and the source water on which the technology would typically be applied. The
guidance will also discuss source water characteristics that can adversely affect the removal of the
contaminant by the process. The guidance will discuss the cost estimate for the technology that
was used to determine if the technology was affordable. The guidance will discuss site-specific
factors that can affect technology costs as well as the performance and effectiveness of the
technology.
When variance technologies are identified, the list will not be product-specific. Variance
technologies will be very similar to compliance technologies in that a general technology
designation will be used. However, the guidance will contain more detail on treatment
performance and costs than the compliance technology guidances. The variance technology lists
will not be product-specific because EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water does not
have the resources to review each product for each potential application; nor does EPA feel it
would be appropriate to do so.
Information on specific products will be available through another mechanism. EPA's Office
of Research and Development has a pilot project under the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to provide treatment system purchasers with performance data from
independent third parties. The EPA and National Sanitation Foundation International (NSF) are
cooperatively organizing and conducting this pilot project to allow for verification testing of
packaged drinking water treatment systems for meeting community and commercial needs. This
pilot project includes development of verification protocols and test plans, independent testing
and validation of packaged equipment, conveying and supporting government/industry
11
-------
partnerships to obtain credible cost and performance data, and preparation of product verification
reports for wide-spread distribution.
Section 1.6: Stakeholder Involvement
EPA held a stakeholder meeting on May 18 and 19, 1998. Approximately 50 people
registered and participated in the meeting. Key stakeholders included States, water systems, and
equipment manufacturers. Representatives from nine States were present at the meeting (either at
the meeting or on conference lines) and several others received the material that was sent out
prior to the meeting for review. A draft of the "National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the
1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act" (EPA, 1998f) was sent out prior to the
meeting.
There were two major topics related to variance technology findings that were discussed in
the stakeholder meeting. The first was the two-stage screening process that is discussed in
Chapter 2. The second is the national-level affordability criteria that are discussed in Chapter 3.
Stakeholder comments will be discussed in each of these chapters rather than in Chapter 1.
Section 1.7: Organization of the Document
This document is organized into several chapters describing the variance technology findings
for the contaminants regulated before 1996. Chapter 1 discusses the requirements of the 1996
SDWA and the overall approach EPA is following to meet those requirements. Chapter 2
discusses the two-stage screening process that was used to identify those contaminants that would
have technology costs compared against the national-level affordability criteria. Chapter 3
summarizes the derivation of the national-level affordability criteria. Chapter 4 describes the
affordable technology determinations and how treatment costs are compared against the national-
level affordability criteria. Chapter 5 contains a summary of the variance technology findings for
contaminants regulated before 1996.
12
-------
REFERENCES
Congressional Record. 1974. House of Representatives 93-1185 at 18. The 93rd Congress,
Second Session. 13. Microfilm #H503-28.
Congressional Record. 1986. Vol.132. 99th Congress, Second Session. No. 69. May 21,
1986. P. S6287. Statement of Senator Durenberger. [132 Cong. Reg.]
USEPA. 1997a. Federal Register. 62(154): 42986. August 11, 1987.
USEPA. 1997b. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Surface Water Treatment
Rule. EPA-815-R-97-002. Washington D.C.: Office of Water. August 1997.
USEPA. 1998a. Federal Register. 63(151): 42032. August 6, 1998.
USEPA. 1998b. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Surface Water Treatment
Rule and Total Coliform Rule. EPA-815-R-98-001. Washington D.C.: Office of Water.
September 1998.
USEPA. 1998c. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Non-Microbial Contaminants
Regulated Before 1996. EPA-815-R-98-002. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water. September
1998.
USEPA. 1998d. Federal Register. 63(157): 43834. August 14, 1998.
USEPA. 1998e. Information for States on Developing Affordability Criteria for Drinking Water.
EPA-816-R-98-002. Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Water. February, 1998.
USEPA. 1998f. National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Prepared by International Consultants, Inc., Hagler Bailly Services, Inc. and
Janice A. Beecher, Ph.D. for the EPA. August 1998.
13
-------
2. TWO-STAGE SCREENING PROCESS
Section 2.1: Overview
Chapter 1 discussed the SDWA requirements related to compliance and variance
technologies. Compliance and variance technologies are mutually exclusive for a system size
category/source water quality combination. Since compliance technologies were provided for all
of the regulated contaminants and all classes of small systems, variance technologies will not, at
this time, be listed for any existing NPDWR.
There are NPDWRs for 80 contaminants. The existing regulations can be divided into six
categories: 6 microbial contaminants, 1 disinfection by-product, 21 volatile organic contaminants
(VOCs), 32 synthetic organic contaminants (SOCs), 17 inorganic contaminants (lOCs), and 3
radionuclides. This chapter looks at the screening process that was used to identify the
contaminants that would need to have technology costs compared against the national-level
affordability criteria. Three of the 80 regulated contaminants were removed prior to the two-
stage screening process: total trihalomethanes, acrylamide, and epichlorohydrin.
The current total trihalomethane regulation only applies to systems serving greater than
10,000 people. Therefore, small systems do not have to meet the existing standard, so neither
compliance nor variance technologies will be listed. Compliance technologies and variance
technologies (if appropriate) will be listed when the standard is revised and applied to small
systems.
Acrylamide and epichlorohydrin are compounds associated with chemical additives used in
drinking water treatment. These contaminants are regulated through a treatment technique that
requires a certification that the product of the dose and monomer concentration will not exceed
certain levels. Treatment technology is not installed to remove the contaminants under this
treatment technique. As such, there are no compliance or variance technologies for either of these
two contaminants.
As described above, one disinfection by-product and two of the SOCs were removed prior to
the two-stage screening process. The first stage of the two-stage screening process is an
evaluation of statutory screens. The second stage of the process involved the use of affordability
and occurrence screens. The remaining 77 contaminants proceeded through this two-stage
screening process.
Section 2.2: Stage One of the Screening Process: Statutory Screens
The first stage of the screening process was an evaluation of statutory screens that limit the
availability of small system variances or variance technologies. There are three statutory screens.
The first two prohibit small system variances. The sole purpose of the listing of variance
technologies is to enable small systems to obtain a small system variance. Therefore, when these
14
-------
small system variances are not available under the SDWA, variance technologies will not be
specified. The third statutory screen is a restriction on the listing of variance technologies.
Section 2.2.1: Statutory Screens: Microbial Contaminants
The first statutory screen is in Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of the SDWA. Small system variances
are not available for any microbial contaminant (including a bacterium, virus, or other organism)
or an indicator or treatment technique for a microbial contaminant. This screen removes 6
contaminants from consideration for variance technologies. These contaminants are: Giardia
lamblia, Legionella, heterotrophic plate count bacteria, turbidity, viruses and total coliforms.
Giardia lamblia, Legionella, and viruses are microbial contaminants. Heterotrophic plate count
and total coliforms are indicators for microbial contaminants. Turbidity is used to measure the
effectiveness of filtration in removing microbial contaminants. Filtration is one of the treatment
techniques identified in the surface water treatment rule.
Section 2.2.2: Statutory Screens: Contaminants with NPDWRs Promulgated before 1986
The second statutory screen is in Section 1415(e)(6)(A) of the SDWA. Small system
variances are not available for any MCL or treatment technique with respect to which a NPDWR
was promulgated prior to January 1, 1986. The proposed and final Variance and Exemption Rule
describes EPA's interpretation of this section of the SDWA [(EPA, 1998a) and (EPA, 1998b)].
EPA has interpreted this prohibition to apply to the level at which any contaminant was regulated
before 1986. EPA surmised that the intent behind this provision was to prohibit a public water
system from obtaining a variance for a contaminant for which compliance should have been
achieved long ago. Therefore, small system variances are not be available for those contaminants
where the pre-1986 MCL has been retained or raised. However, if EPA revises a pre-1986 level
and makes it more stringent (i.e., makes the MCL lower), then a variance might be available for
that contaminant, but only up to the pre-1986 MCL.
The second statutory screen removes 12 contaminants from consideration. These
contaminants are: arsenic, beta particle and photon activity, gross alpha particle activity, radium
226 and 228 combined, 2,4,5-TP, endrin, fluoride, barium, chromium, mercury, nitrate, and
selenium. The pre-1986 MCLs were not revised for arsenic and the three radionuclide
contaminants. Revisions to these rules are expected in the future. If the pre-1986 MCL is
lowered, small system variances (and variance technologies) for those contaminants would no
longer be prohibited by this section of the SDWA. A small system variance would be available for
those contaminants, but only up to the pre-1986 MCL. Six of the contaminants had their pre-
1986 MCL raised when the MCL was revised between 1986 and 1996. These six contaminants
are: 2,4,5-TP, endrin, fluoride, barium, chromium, and selenium. Two of the contaminants had
their pre-1986 MCLs retained when the MCL was re-evaluated between 1986 and 1996: mercury
and nitrate.
15
-------
Section 2.2.3: Statutory Screens: Protective of Public Health Requirement
The final statutory screen is in Section 1412(b)(15)(B) of the SDWA. "The Administrator
shall not identify any variance technology under this paragraph, unless the Administrator has
determined, considering the quality of the source water to be treated and the expected useful life
of the technology, that the variance technology is protective of public health." For the two-stage
screening process, a surrogate was used for the "protective of public health" levels. The
procedures for determining an unreasonable risk to health (URTH) were used as the surrogate for
"protective of public health" levels. URTH is a concept that was retained in the 1996 SDWA
from the 1986 SDWA and it applies to the granting of variances under Section 1415(a) or
exemptions. In order to grant a variance under Section 1415(a) or an exemption, the State must
find that the variance or exemption will not result in an unreasonable risk to health. The variances
under Section 1415(a) are different from the small system variances under Section 1415(e).
The procedures for determining URTH values are described in "Toxicological Basis for
Drinking Water: Unreasonable Risk to Health Values" (Orme-Zavaleta, 1992). The procedures in
this paper have been used with the data in "Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories"
(EPA, 1996) to derive URTH values for the regulated contaminants that passed through the first
two statutory screens.
The toxicity or pathogenicity of a contaminant is considered in developing the maximum
contaminant level goal (MCLG), a non-enforceable health goal. As previously discussed, the
MCL is set as close to the MCLG as feasible, taking such factors as analytical capability, cost of
treatment, and treatment availability into account. For most non-carcinogens, the MCL will equal
the MCLG. For carcinogens and a very few non-carcinogens, the MCL is higher than the MCLG
and is based on feasibility. The MCLGs for carcinogens were set at zero and the MCLs had to be
set at a higher level since it is not feasible to achieve a level of zero.
For the regulated contaminants, EPA considered two mechanisms for producing a toxic or
pathogenic response - threshold or non-threshold. For a threshold response, exposure at or
above the threshold level can result in a toxic outcome, whereas for non-threshold response,
exposure at any level except zero can theoretically lead to a toxic outcome. In general, the health
effects for non-carcinogens utilized a threshold approach and the carcinogens utilized a non-
threshold approach.
For the threshold (non-carcinogenic) contaminants, the MCLG represents a level that is
protective of health effects for up to a lifetime exposure. A lifetime is assumed to be 70 years for
this analysis. One of the key components to determining an URTH value for drinking water
contaminants is the determination of short-term acceptable risk levels. Under the procedures
outlined in the article, a short-term acceptable risk level is defined as the concentration above the
MCL that would not pose a health risk for a short period of time (e.g., up to 7 years, or 10% of
an individual's lifetime). A 7-year period is recommended for both non-carcinogenic and
carcinogenic contaminants. The URTH values were used as a surrogate for the protective of
16
-------
public health requirement of Section 1412(b)(15)(B) because the URTH values are based on a
short-term exposure of up to 7 years. Section 1412(b)(15)(B) requires that the variance
technology be protective of public health for the expected useful life of the technology. Most
technologies will have expected useful lives greater than 7 years, so a concentration that is
protective of public health would need to be less than or equal to the URTH value. The expected
useful life for most treatment technologies for small systems was assumed to be 20 years. There
is an ongoing project to better define the expected useful life for each type of technology. Once
this work is completed, it will be utilized in the development of "protective of public health"
ranges when variance technologies are identified.
Since the concentration that is protective of public health needs to be less than or equal to the
URTH value, contaminants with little or no margin between the MCL and the URTH value could
be removed from consideration for variance technologies. For 19 contaminants, the derived
URTH value was equal to the MCL or very close to the MCL. For these 19 contaminants, it was
determined that in order to be protective of public health, the MCL had to be met. Since the
MCL is the treatment standard, compliance technologies are the only alternative. Variance
technologies are not listed for these contaminants. The process used to derive the URTH values
for all of the contaminants that passed through the first two statutory screens is described in the
following paragraphs.
In developing a short-term acceptable risk level, the toxicity of each contaminant needs to be
evaluated individually. This was done by considering any available risk assessment conducted for
each contaminant (EPA, 1996). Both cancer and non-cancer hazards were considered in the
evaluation of the risk assessments. The type of available risk assessment values used for
developing the short-term acceptable risk levels include: a) the maximum contaminant level goal
(MCLG) and the MCL; b) the drinking water equivalent level (DWEL), which represents a
lifetime exposure concentration protective of adverse, non-cancer health effects, that assumes all
of the exposure to a contaminant is from a drinking water source; c) the longer-term health
advisory for a child; d) the EPA cancer classification and MCLG category I, II, or III; e) the 10"4
excess cancer risk level; and f) the MCLG multiplied by a factor of 1 to 10 for contaminants with
limited evidence of carcinogenicity via ingestion. Rather than describe all of the procedures in
the article on deriving URTH values, this guidance will cover those that were used for the 19
contaminants that were removed from consideration for variance technologies.
The MCLGs for three contaminants were based on acute endpoints of toxicity. For these
contaminants, the MCL is used as the benchmark for the short-term acceptable risk level. These
three contaminants are: copper, nitrite, and nitrate plus nitrite. Copper is also discussed later in
the affordability screen section along with lead.
There are 16 contaminants whose MCLGs were based on chronic health effects. The
MCLGs for 12 of these 16 contaminants were based on carcinogenic risks. The MCLGs for the
remaining 4 contaminants were based on non-carcinogenic risks.
17
-------
For the 12 contaminants whose MCLGs were based on carcinogenic risks, the 10"4 excess
cancer risk level was used to derive the URTH value. When EPA set MCLs for carcinogenic
contaminants, the excess risk of cancer associated with the MCL was within an acceptable range
of 1 cancer in ten thousand people (10"4) to 1 cancer in one million people (10"6). These cancer
risks were estimated for both known and probable human carcinogens via ingestion. For
carcinogens where the MCL is set at a concentration less than the 10"4 risk level, the 10"4 excess
cancer risk level may be used as the short-term acceptable risk level for URTH if this value does
not exceed the DWEL or the longer-term health advisory for a child. The lower of these values is
recommended as the short-term acceptable risk level for URTH. For the 12 contaminants, the
lowest value was the 10"4 excess cancer risk level. For eight of the contaminants, the 10"4 excess
cancer risk level was equivalent to the MCL. These contaminants are: vinyl chloride, styrene,
ethylene dibromide, PCBs, toxaphene, benzo(a)pyrene, 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin), and beryllium.
For four of the contaminants, the 10"4 excess cancer risk level was less than or equal to 1 Mg/L
above the MCL. Since the URTH value was approximately equivalent to the MCL and since the
protective of public health concentration would likely need to be closer to the MCL, the MCL
was selected as being the protective of public health concentration for these contaminants. In
addition, the cost difference between meeting the MCL and a concentration less than 1 //g/L
above the MCL would be negligible for systems that had to install treatment. These contaminants
are chlordane, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, and hexachlorobenzene.
The remaining four contaminants showed no evidence of carcinogenicity via ingestion. The
MCLGs are based on non-carcinogenic risks. For these contaminants, the longer-term health
advisory for a child is recommended for the short-term acceptable risk level. Longer-term health
advisories are derived from subchronic studies that involve exposures for up to 10% of the
animals lifetime. Since the MCL is based on a lifetime exposure of 70 years, the longer-term
health advisory would be appropriate for an exposure period of up to 7 years. The longer-term
health advisory is calculated for both a child and an adult. For a child, adjustments are made for
the child's body weight and average daily water consumption. Alternatively, the DWEL is
recommended for the short-term acceptable risk level when data to calculate a longer-term health
advisory are not available or if the DWEL provides a lower value than the longer-term health
advisory.
The longer-term health advisory for the child is equivalent to the MCL for three of the four
contaminants. There contaminants are: oxamyl, cadmium, and cyanide. For thallium, the DWEL
is approximately equal to the MCL (DWEL = 2.3 //g/L and the MCL = 2 //g/L). Thallium is
unique in that it is the only non-carcinogenic contaminant where the MCL does not equal the
MCLG. The MCLG for thallium is 0.5 //g/L. That is why the DWEL is approximately equal to
the MCL. Since the URTH value was approximately equivalent to the MCL and since the
protective of public health concentration would likely need to be closer to the MCL, the MCL
was selected as being the protective of public health concentration for thallium. In addition, the
cost difference between meeting the MCL and a concentration less than 1 //g/L above the MCL
would be negligible for systems that had to install treatment.
18
-------
EPA is currently evaluating the procedures outlined in the "lexicological Basis for Drinking
Water: Unreasonable Risk to Health Values" paper (Orme-Zaveleta, 1992). EPA will issue a
revised guidance manual for determining URTH as a result of this review process. The URTH
values listed in Table 1 will be modified or recalculated based on revisions to the procedures for
determining URTH values. The 19 contaminants removed by this screen will be examined using
the new procedures to determine if there is a level above the MCL that may be protective of
public health for the expected useful life of a technology.
Variance technologies were not listed for 37 contaminants based on the statutory screens
described in this section. The remaining 40 contaminants proceeded into the second stage of the
screening process.
Section 2.3: Stage Two of the Screening Process: Affordability Screens
The second stage of the screening process involved affordability screens and evaluations.
There were three affordability screens used in this stage of the process. The first screen examined
those contaminants that had a low-cost technology option available. The next screen used
occurrence data to make projections about the likelihood of MCL violations. The third screen
examined violation data for contaminants.
Section 2.3.1: Affordability Screens: Low-Cost Compliance Technology
Since Section 1412(b)(15)(A) of the SDWA authorizes a variance technology listing only
where compliance technologies are unaffordable for any category of small systems, any
contaminant that has a low-cost compliance technology will not have variance technologies.
When a low-cost compliance technology that meets the national-level affordability criteria can be
identified for a system size/source water quality combination, variance technologies are not
available. For this screen, the best available technologies (BATs) listed in the regulations were
examined and technologies that imposed an increase of less than $300/household/year for each
size category were identified to screen for affordability. The "National-Level Affordability
Criteria Under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act" report (EPA, 1998c)
identified options for national-level affordability criteria that ranged from 1.5% to 3% of the
median household income. The cost increase associated with the lowest option (1.5%) translated
into an increase of $270/household/year, which was rounded up to $300/household/year for this
screening analysis in the 25 - 500 size category. For the larger two size categories,
$250/household/year was used for this screen. All of the technology costs were later verified
against the national-level affordability criteria that were selected. The national-level affordability
criteria are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
The BATs were examined for each of the remaining 40 contaminants. Four technologies
were identified as being low-cost technologies for each of the three size categories. These
technologies that met this screening criterion were aeration, aeration plus chlorination, corrosion
control, and oxidation. Diffused aeration and chlorine oxidation technologies can be
19
-------
characterized as requiring basic operator skill with low monitoring requirements, low capital cost
and low relative operating cost [see "Safe Water from Every Tap" (NRC, 1997)]. Corrosion
control using chemical feeders can be characterized as requiring basic operator skill with low
monitoring requirements, low capital costs and medium relative operating cost (NRC, 1997).
Thus, these technologies represent the most basic options available to systems to reduce
contaminant concentrations.
The cost for diffused aeration was estimated to be below $150/household/year for the 25 -
500 category. The cost for diffused aeration plus chlorination were estimated to be below
$250/household/year for the 25 - 500 category. For this analysis, costs were done for a
centralized system (one well) and a decentralized system (two wells). The higher costs for the
decentralized scenario were towards the higher end of the ranges listed above. In the higher size
categories, the costs estimated for diffused aeration and diffused aeration plus chlorination were
below $100/household/year. These cost estimates were verified against the national-level
affordability criteria described in Chapter 3 to ensure that there was an affordable compliance
technology. In addition, these cost estimates were compared against the national-level
affordability criteria to identify affordable compliance technologies. The affordable compliance
technologies for VOCs are discussed in "Small System Compliance Technology List
for the Non-Microbial Contaminants Regulated Before 1996" (EPA, 1998d). Variance
technologies were not available for all of the VOCs based on the affordability of aeration
technologies. There are 21 regulated VOCs. Variance technologies were already not available
for styrene and vinyl chloride because of the statutory screen that requires the variance technology
to be protective of public health. The other 19 VOCs removed by this screen are: benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, cis-l,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-
dichloroethylene, dichloromethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, ethylbenzene, o-dichlorobenzene, p-
dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, andxylenes (total). In addition,
there are three SOCs that can be effectively removed by aeration. These SOCs are:
dibromochloropropane, di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, and hexachlorocyclopentadiene. The
affordability of aeration technologies removed 22 contaminants from consideration.
The listed BAT for glyphosate is oxidation. The oxidation can be accomplished through the
use of either chlorination or ozonation. The costs for chlorination were estimated to be below
$100/household/year for all three size categories. The costs for ozonation were higher than
chlorination, especially in the smallest size category. Since there is an affordable compliance
technology for glyphosate, variance technologies will not be available. The affordability of the
chlorine oxidation removes glyphosate from consideration of variance technologies.
The final contaminant removed from consideration for variance technologies by this screen is
lead. Corrosion control is listed as one of the treatment techniques for both lead and copper
under the lead and copper rule. The lead and copper rule lists three general classes of corrosion
control treatments: alkalinity and pH adjustment, calcium hardness adjustment, and corrosion
inhibitors. The following chemical feed systems can be used for the alkalinity and pH adjustment
20
-------
and the calcium hardness adjustment options: sodium hydroxide, lime, sodium bicarbonate, and
soda ash. The costs for each of these corrosion control feed systems is less than
$100/household/year in all three size categories. The lead and copper rule identifies two types of
corrosion control inhibitors: orthophosphate-based and silicate-based. Annual costs were
estimated for a zinc orthophosphate inhibitor feed system. These costs were also below
$100/household/year in all three size categories. The lead and copper rule envisions that some
systems might need two chemical feed systems for their optimal corrosion control process. The
costs for these combinations will be well under $200/household/year. Since the corrosion control
treatments meet the affordability screen, variance technologies would not be available for lead.
Variance technologies were already not available for copper because of the statutory screen that
requires the variance technology to be protective of public health. Otherwise, copper would be
removed by this screen.
The technologies evaluated for this screen represent simple, low-cost options for compliance
with the rules for 24 contaminants. In addition, aeration and oxidation are very efficient processes
for VOCs and glyphosate, respectively. A variance technology may not achieve compliance with
the MCL or treatment requirement of a regulation, but shall achieve the maximum reduction or
inactivation frequency that is affordable considering the size of the system and the quality of the
source water. Since removal efficiency is not a driving factor in the costs of these technologies, a
contaminant endpoint above the MCL would not significantly reduce household water bills. Thus,
the goal for these systems should be compliance with the standard using one of the identified
compliance technologies.
Section 2.3.2: Affordability Screens: Contaminant Occurrence - No Projected Violations
After the first affordability screen, 16 contaminants remained eligible for consideration for
variance technologies. The next affordability screen involved an evaluation of compliance
monitoring data and National Pesticide Survey data for the remaining 16 contaminants (14
pesticides). The other two contaminants, antimony and asbestos, are inorganic contaminants
(lOCs). EPA assumed that if there were no violations, existing technologies for compliance have
been affordable and variance technologies were not available for these contaminants.
One of the sources of occurrence data used for this screen was the National Pesticide Survey.
The National Pesticide Survey was conducted from April 1988 through February 1990. Drinking
water wells throughout the country were analyzed for 126 pesticides and pesticide degradates,
plus nitrate. During the survey, 783 rural domestic wells and 566 community water system wells
were sampled. Thirteen of the 14 pesticides were included in the National Pesticide Survey. Only
endothall was not included. For each pesticide in the survey, a minimum reporting level (MRL)
was established. The MRL was the minimum concentration at which a pesticide was reported as
detected. Appendix E of the "National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells Phase I
Report" (EPA, 1990) was examined to determine which of the 13 pesticides were detected above
the MRL in the survey.
21
-------
The second data source used for the occurrence screen is compliance monitoring data. EPA
received data from 11 States to assist in the chemical monitoring reform effort in early 1996.
Monitoring data for both pesticides and lOCs were submitted as part of this effort. The States
that supplied occurrence data are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Kansas,
Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin. For the 14 pesticides, data was
submitted based on the analysis of 5,125 to 13,753 samples depending upon the contaminant. For
asbestos, data was submitted on the analysis of 1,225 samples. For antimony, data was submitted
on the analysis of 14,747 samples.
The screening criteria for contaminant occurrence and projected violations was as follows:
no detections in the National Pesticide Survey, MCLs at least one order of magnitude higher than
the reporting limit for the compliance monitoring data, and a low positive rate in the compliance
data with no MCL exceedances. Five pesticides were removed from consideration based on those
criteria: carbofuran, 2,4-D, methoxychlor, dalapon, and picloram. Endothall was also removed
from consideration based solely on the relationship of the reporting limits for the State data and
the MCL and the very low positive rate (e.g., < 0.03%) in the compliance data. Carbofuran was
selected to illustrate this process for the five contaminants included in the National Pesticide
Survey because it had the lowest MCL/detection limit ratio. Detection limits for the regulated
SOCs are found in 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18). The listed detection limit for carbofuran is 0.9 //g/L.
The MCL for carbofuran is 40 //g/L. The MCL is just over 44 times larger than the detection
limit. Carbofuran was detected in 23 out of 10,955 samples (0.23%) in the State compliance data.
None of these samples exceeded the MCL. In addition, carbofuran was not detected in the
National Pesticide Survey, which had a MRL of 1.2 //g/L for carbofuran. Based on the very small
percentage of detections and the large difference between the detection limit and the MCL, no
violations were projected for carbofuran. For endothall, only the compliance monitoring data was
used. The listed detection limit for endothall in 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18) is 9 //g/L. The MCL for
endothall is 100 //g/L. Endothall was only detected in 2 out of 6,218 samples, which converts to
0.03% of the samples. Neither of these samples exceeded the MCL. Based on this data, no MCL
violations were projected for endothall. The listed detection limits for the other four pesticides
removed by this screen can be found in 40 CFR §141.24(h)(18). A summary of the percentage of
positive samples in the compliance monitoring data and the National Pesticide Survey results can
be found in Table 1 at the end of this chapter. This table summarizes the screening process for all
of the 80 contaminants.
Section 2.3.3: Affordability Screens: No Violations
Only 10 contaminants remained after the projected violation screen was applied. EPA's Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) contains data on the compliance status of drinking
water systems. A query on violations for the 10 remaining contaminants was run on December
16, 1997 (EPA, 1997). This query looked for either of the following types of violation types: a
single sample violation of the MCL or an MCL violation based on the average of the most recent
four quarters of data. The other two violation types in SDWIS are monitoring and reporting
violations. Data on those violation types were not used for this screen, since MCL exceedances
22
-------
cannot be predicted from that data. Since only systems with violations of the MCL will require
treatment, 5 contaminants were removed because there were no MCL violations. The violation
data on the 5 contaminants with MCL exceedances will be used in the affordable technology
determination described in Chapter 4. The contaminants that did not have any MCL exceedances
in SDWIS are all pesticides: alachlor, pentachlorophenol, dinoseb, diquat, and simazine.
For these 5 contaminants, the lack of violations was not the sole reason for removing them
from consideration for variance technologies. The compliance monitoring data from the 11 States
was also examined along with the SDWIS data. Alachlor and dinoseb had positive rates below
0.25% and no detections above the MCL. There were data submitted from 5,125 samples for
diquat. There were 60 positive samples (1.17%) between the detection limit of 0.4 //g/L and the
MCL of 20 jUg/L. There was one positive sample (0.02%) reported that exceeded the MCL.
Both pentachlorophenol and simazine had lower percentages of positive samples, but each had
very limited MCL exceedances. Table 1 at the end of this chapter provides more details on the
screens that were applied to each contaminant. Since the occurrence data was from 1996 and the
violation data in SDWIS was late 1997, it was assumed that the positives in the compliance data
were not MCL exceedances that would require treatment. However, violation data on all 5 of
these contaminants will be reviewed over the next year to see if new violations have been
recorded in SDWIS. If violations are found for these contaminants, that data would be used to
perform an affordable technology analysis, which is described in Chapter 4.
Section 2.4: Summary of Screening Process
Three contaminants were removed from consideration for variance technologies prior to the
screening process. The two-stage screening process evaluated the eligibility of the remaining 77
regulated contaminants for variance technologies. The results of the two-stage screening process
were that only five contaminants remained eligible for variance technologies. These five
contaminants were: antimony, asbestos, atrazine, di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and lindane. These
contaminants proceeded through a more extensive affordability analysis where technology cost
estimates were compared with the national-level affordability criteria to determine if there is an
affordable compliance technology. This process is described in Chapter 4.
The entire screening process was presented at the May 18 and 19, 1998 stakeholder meeting.
The two affordability screens that utilized occurrence data (lack of projected violations and lack
of violations) generated comments from stakeholders and States. Both were concerned that
systems with problems could be overlooked in the data sources used by EPA. EPA stated that the
lists are not static documents and that they can be updated if new data are received. For variance
technologies, this new data is not limited to technology performance. EPA noted that if data are
received showing violations for contaminants removed by the occurrence screens, then EPA
would use this data to determine if the system needed a variance technology. As was previously
noted, EPA believes that the results of this analysis would be subject to revision based on new
information and petitions from interested parties.
23
-------
TABLE 1
REGULATED CONTAMINANTS AND THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR
VARIANCE TECHNOLOGIES AFTER TWO-STAGE SCREENING PROCESS
Contaminant1
Arsenic (pre-1986)
Beta particle & photon
radioactivity (pre-1986)
Gross alpha particle
activity (pre-1986)
Radium 226 & 228
(combined) (pre-1986)
Total Trihalomethanes
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
p-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Tri chloroethy 1 ene
Are Variance
Technologies an Option?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Rationale
Section 1415(e)(6)(A) of SOW A
(pre-1986 MCL not revised)2
Section 1415(e)(6)(A) of SOW A
(pre-1986 MCL not revised)2
Section 1415(e)(6)(A) of SOW A
(pre-1986 MCL not revised)2
Section 1415(e)(6)(A) of SOW A
(pre-1986 MCL not revised)2
MCL does not apply (applies only
to systems > 10,000 people)
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
MCL
• • (Mg/L) '
50
4 mrem
15 pCi/L
5pCi/L
100
5
5
75
5
7
200
5
URTH Value3
' (M8/L) ••'
4 mrem
15pCi/L
20 pCi/L
200
30
750
40
70
1,000
300
24
-------
Contaminant1
Vinyl Chloride
Chlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1,2-Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Di chl orom ethane
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Giardia lamblia
Legionella
Are Variance
Technologies an Option?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Rationale
URTH = MCL and Aeration is
affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
URTH = MCL and Aeration is
affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Aeration is affordable
Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of SOW A
Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of SOW A
MCL
C^S/L)
2
100
600
70
100
5
700
100
5
1,000
10,000
5
70
5
NA
NA
URTH Value3
• •'.' (MB/L>.
2
700
3,000
400
600
60
1,000
100
70
2,000
40,000
500
100
30
25
-------
Contaminant1
Standard Plate Count
Turbidity
Viruses
Total Coliform
Alachlor
Atrazine
Carbofuran
Chlordane
Dibromochloropropane
Are Variance
Technologies an Option?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
Rationale
Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of SOW A
Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of SOW A
Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of SOW A
Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of SOW A
Detected in NFS above MRL of
0.5 //g/L5, 0.13% positives: all
below MCL (State data)6, No
MCL exceedances in 12/97
SDWIS run10
Detected in NFS above MRL of
0.12 //g/L5, 1.34% positives: all
below MCL (State data)6, MCL
exceedances in 12/97 SDWIS
run10
Not detected in NFS with MRL
of 1.2 //g/L5, 0.21% positives: all
below MCL (State data)6
URTH « MCL (< 1 //g/L
difference)
Aeration is affordable
MCL
C^S/L)
NA
NA
NA
< 5% positives
2
3
40
2
0.2
URTH Value3
• •'. (MB/L>.
40
30
50
3
O
26
-------
Contaminant1
2,4-D
Ethylene Dibromide
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Pentachlorophenol
Are Variance
Technologies an Option?
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
Rationale
Not detected in NFS with MRL
of 0.25 Mg/L5, 0.36% positives:
all below MCL (State data)6
URTH = MCL and aeration is
affordable
URTH « MCL (< 1 //g/L
difference)
URTH « MCL (< 1 //g/L
difference)
Detected in NFS above MRL of
0.043 //g/L5, 0.15% positives: all
below MCL (State data)6, MCL
exceedances in 12/97 SDWIS
run10
Not detected in NFS with MRL
of 0.30 //g/L5, 0.07% positives:
all below MCL (State data)6
URTH = MCL
Not detected in NFS with MRL
of 0.10 //g/L5, 0.34% positives:
0.02% > MCL, 0.32% < MCL
(State data)6, No MCL
exceedances in 12/97 SDWIS
run10
MCL
C^S/L)
70
0.05
0.4
0.2
0.2
40
0.5
1
URTH Value3
• •'.' (MB/L>.
100
0.05
0.8
0.4
2
50
0.5
30
27
-------
Contaminant1
Toxaphene
2,4,5-TP
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dalapon
Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Dinoseb
Diquat
Endothall
Are Variance
Technologies an Option?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
Rationale
URTH = MCL
Section 1415(e)(6)(A) applies
because pre-1986 MCL raised2
URTH = MCL
Not detected in NFS5, 0.42%
positives: all below MCL (State
data)6
Aeration is affordable
3.72% positives: 0.98% > MCL,
2.74% < MCL (State data)6,
MCL exceedances in 12/97
SDWIS run10
Detected in NFS above MRL of
1.3 Mg/L5, 0.26% positives: all
below MCL (State data)6, No
MCL exceedances in 12/97
SDWIS run10
1.19% positives: 0.01% > MCL,
1 . 1 8% < MCL (State data)6, No
MCL exceedances in 12/97
SDWIS run10
0.03% positives: all below MCL
(State data)6
MCL
C^S/L)
O
50
0.2
200
400
6
7
20
100
URTH Value3
• •'.' (MB/L>.
o
70
0.2
300
3,000
300
10
80
200
28
-------
Contaminant1
Endrin
Glyphosate
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Oxamyl
Picloram
Simazine
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
Acrylamide
Epichlorohydrin
Fluoride
Are Variance
Technologies an Option?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Rationale
Section 1415(e)(6)(A) applies
because pre-1986 MCL raised2,
URTH « MCL (< 1 //g/L)
Treatment option is affordable
URTH « MCL (< 1 //g/L
difference)
Aeration is affordable
URTH = MCL
Not detected in NFS with MRL
of 0.5 Mg/L5, 0.13% positives: all
below MCL (State data)6
Detected in NFS with MRL of
0.38 Mg/L5, 0.64% positives:
0.01% > MCL, 0.65% < MCL
(State data)6, No MCL
exceedances in 12/97 SDWIS
run10
URTH = MCL
Not a technology-based NPDWR9
Not a technology-based NPDWR9
Section 1415(e)(6)(A) applies
because pre-1986 MCL raised2
MCL
C^S/L)
2
700
1
50
200
500
4
3 x ID'5
TT
TT
4,000
URTH Value3
• •'.' (MB/L>.
o
1,000
2
200
200
700
40
3 x ID'5
1
70
5,000
29
-------
Contaminant1
Asbestos
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Total Nitrate & Nitrite (as N)
Selenium
Are Variance
Technologies an Option?
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Rationale
5.71% positives: 0.41% > MCL,
5.30 % < MCL (State data)7,
MCL exceedances in 12/97
SDWIS run10
Section 1415(e)(6)(A) applies
because pre-1986 MCL raised2
URTH = MCL
Section 1415(e)(6)(A) applies
because pre-1986 MCL raised2
Section 1415(e)(6)(A) applies
because pre-1986 MCL retained2,
URTH = MCL
Section 1415(e)(6)(A) applies
because pre-1986 MCL retained2,
URTH = MCL, acute effect
URTH = MCL, acute effect
URTH = MCL, acute effect
Section 1415(e)(6)(A) applies
because pre-1986 MCL raised2
MCL
C^S/L)
7MFL
2,000
5
100
2
10,000
1,000
10,000
50
URTH Value3
• •'.' (MB/L>.
70MFL
5,000
5
200
2
10,000
1,000
10,000
200
30
-------
Contaminant1
Antimony
Beryllium
Cyanide (as free cyanide)
Thallium
Lead
Copper
Are Variance
Technologies an Option?
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Rationale
2.08% positives: 0.24% > MCL,
1.84% < MCL (State data)8,
MCL exceedances in 12/97
SDWIS run10
URTH = MCL
URTH = MCL and treatment
option is affordable
URTH « MCL (< 1 //g/L
difference)
Corrosion Treatment is affordable
URTH = Action level, acute
effect, Treatment is affordable
MCL
C^S/L)
6
4
200
2
15 (TT)
1,300 (TT)
URTH Value3
• •'.' (MB/L>.
10
44
200
2.3
30
1,300
NOTES:
1) Aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone, and nickel are not included since the MCLs for these contaminants are not in
effect.
2) Section 1415(e)(6)(A) states that a small system variance shall not be available for any maximum contaminant level or
treatment technique for a contaminant with respect to which a national primary drinking water regulation was promulgated
prior to January 1, 1986. See text for details on the interpretation of this requirement.
3) These URTH values have been estimated using the procedures in "Toxicological Basis for Drinking Water: Unreasonable Risk
31
-------
to Health Values" (Orme-Zavaleta, 1992) and the health advisory data in "Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories"
(EPA, 1996). The calculation of URTH values is currently under review at EPA. EPA will issue a revised guidance manual
for determining URTH as a result of that process. The URTH values listed in this table will be modified or recalculated based
on revisions to the procedures for determining URTH values. The values in this table should be considered an interim
estimate for URTH and will be replaced by the values in the forthcoming URTH guidance. This guidance manual will be
updated to incorporate the revised URTH values.
4) The URTH for beryllium was estimated at the MCL because the 10"4 cancer risk level is lower than the MCL, even though the
MCLG was set based on Category II process. The derivation of the MCLG included a safety factor of 10 to account for
possible carcinogenic effects of beryllium via ingestion since the data did not support classifying beryllium as a carcinogen
through ingestion. However, the URTH guidance states that the safety factor can be removed as long as the 10"4 risk level is
not exceeded.
5) These analytes were included in the National Pesticide Survey [National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells] that
was conducted by EPA and examined both Community Water System wells and rural domestic wells. The MRL is the
minimum reporting limit used for the analytes in the NFS. All positive samples would have concentrations at or above the
MRL.
6) Compliance monitoring data from 11 States were submitted to assist EPA in the development of Chemical Monitoring
Reform. For these pesticides, the total number of sites monitored ranged from 5,125 to 13,753 depending upon the
contaminant. The States that submitted data are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi,
Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
7) Compliance monitoring data from the same 11 States were also submitted on asbestos. The percentages are based on data
from 1,225 sites.
8) Compliance monitoring data from the same 11 States were also submitted on antimony. The percentages are based on data
from 14,747 sites.
9) The NPDWRs for acrylamide and epichlorohydrin are treatment techniques that require a certification that when they are used
in drinking water, the product of dose and monomer does not exceed certain levels. Since this is not a technology-based
32
-------
standard, there are no compliance or variance technologies.
10) A 12/16/97 run of SDWIS (EPA, 1997) was done for ten contaminants to determine if there were MCL exceedances.
33
-------
REFERENCES
Orme-Zavaleta, Jennifer. 1992. Toxicological Basis for Drinking Water: Unreasonable Risk to
Health Values. Journal of the American College of Toxicology. 11(3): 325 - 329.
National Research Council (NRC). 1997. Safe Water from Every Tap: Improving Water Service
to Small Communities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
USEPA. 1990. National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells Phase I Report. EPA
570/9-90-015. Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Water and Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
USEPA. 1996. Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. EPA 822-B-96-002.
Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Water.
USEPA. 1997. Unpublished data from the Safe Drinking Water Information System.
Washington, D.C.: EPA. December 16, 1997.
USEPA. 1998a. Federal Register 63(75): 19442. April 20, 1998.
USEPA. 1998b. Federal Register 63(157): 43834. August 14, 1998.
USEPA. 1998c. National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Prepared by International Consultants, Inc., Hagler Bailly Services, Inc. and
Janice A. Beecher, Ph.D. for the EPA. August 1998.
USEPA, 1998d. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Non-Microbial Contaminants
Regulated before 1996. EPA 815-R-98-002. Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Water.
September 1998.
34
-------
3.0 NATIONAL-LEVEL AFFORD ABILITY
Section 3.1: Introduction
Section 1412(b)(15)(C) of the SDWA requires EPA to list any assumptions used in
determining affordability, taking into consideration the number of persons served by such systems
when variance technologies are listed. Even though EPA did not list variance technologies in the
August 6, 1998 Federal Register notice (EPA, 1998a), the affordability criteria used by EPA for
these findings were included in the notice. These affordability criteria were used to identify
affordable compliance technologies for some of the regulated contaminants. EPA compared
technology cost estimates for each small size category against an affordable technology criterion
for those regulations where a small system variance could be granted. The affordable compliance
technologies are discussed in "Small System Compliance Technology List for the Non-Microbial
Contaminants" (EPA, 1998b).
The size category-dependent affordable technology criteria are collectively referred to as
"national-level affordability criteria." This nomenclature has been used to distinguish the national-
level affordability criteria from the "system-level affordability criteria" that States will use for
determinations affecting individual systems. EPA published information regarding these system-
level affordability criteria in February, 1998 (EPA, 1998c). This information was required by
Section 1415(e)(7)(B) of the SDWA. There are three provisions of the SDWA that refer to these
system-level affordability criteria. Section 1415(e) provides for affordability-based variances,
under certain circumstances, for small drinking water systems. Section 1416 allows for
exemptions that provide systems facing compelling economic factors additional time to comply
with SDWA requirements. Small systems could receive as long as nine additional years to
comply. Finally, Section 1452(b) provides that affordability on a per household basis shall be one
of the three factors used to prioritize systems for assistance from the new Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF). The system-level affordability criteria can be different for different
purposes. For example, States can use different affordability criteria to make decisions about
whether a system should receive a small system variance and when a system should receive
additional subsidization from the DWSRF. In fact, the threshold used for additional assistance for
systems meeting a NPDWR would likely be lower than the threshold used to determine when a
system would operate at a level that does not provide an equivalent level of protection as meeting
the MCL.
The national-level affordability criteria for the affordable variance technology determinations
will also be different from the system-level criteria used by the State to determine if a system
should receive a small system variance. Technologies determined to be "unaffordable" under the
national-level affordability criteria may still be affordable for a specific system within the size
category, in which case the system may install that technology if it so chooses. Conversely, if a
financially disadvantaged small water system out of compliance with a NPDWR cannot afford any
of the compliance technologies that are determined to be "affordable," one option for that system
would be to apply to the State for an exemption. This process is available for regulations
35
-------
promulgated after 1996. Such a system cannot apply for a new exemption for the regulations
issued prior to August 6, 1998. Those small systems with existing exemptions for rules in effect
on August 6, 1998 may continue to get renewals of their exemptions until the exemption period
has run out. That means that a small system can have no more than 9 years after the Section 1412
compliance date to meet the applicable MCL/treatment technique even if the exemption was
issued prior to the 1996 SDWA Amendments.
Section 3.2: Role of National-Level Affordability Criteria
The role of the national-level affordability criteria was discussed briefly in Section 1.3 of this
document. Figure 2 in that section showed the role that national-level affordability criteria play in
the treatment technology arena. The primary function of the criteria is to determine whether a
system of a given size/source water quality combination should proceed down the compliance or
variance technology pathway. The secondary function is to define the universe of technologies
within the compliance or variance technology pathway. Since affordable compliance technologies
were identified for all of the regulated contaminants, the variance technology pathway will not be
utilized at this time. The secondary function of the national-level affordability criteria is
demonstrated in the compliance technology tables (EPA, 1998b). For the smallest size category,
technologies that met the national-level affordability criteria and those that did not meet the
national-level affordability criteria were identified.
The primary function of the national-level affordability criteria is to determine whether the
treatment goal of the water system should be compliance with the NPDWR or whether the system
should proceed down the variance pathway towards obtaining a small system variance. A
variance technology must be installed to obtain a small system variance. The variance technology
may not achieve compliance with the NPDWR, but will achieve the maximum reduction or
inactivation that is affordable considering the size of the system and the quality of the source
water. Thus, the treatment objective for a variance technology might be a concentration that is
higher than the MCL. This higher concentration must be protective of public health, considering
the quality of the source water and the expected useful life of the technology. Variance
technologies cannot be identified if they are not protective of public health [see Section
1412(b)(15)(B) of the SDWA]. The treatment goal under a small system variance is to be within
the range identified as being protective of public health. This range would start at the MCL and
would go up to the maximum concentration that is still protective of public health based on the
expected useful life of the technology. The actual treatment goal is to be as close to the MCL as
is affordable within the protective of public health range.
The national-level affordability criteria help define the range of options available to a small
system that is out of compliance with a NPDWR. The overall range of options are: 1) install a
technology to comply with the NPDWR; 2) receive an exemption and then install a technology to
comply with the NPDWR; or 3) obtain a small system variance (if option is available). For the
two compliance options, the system is not required to install a compliance technology identified
by EPA. The compliance technology list is intended as guidance to provide small systems with
36
-------
information concerning the types of technologies that can be used to comply with the NPDWR.
Systems can install other technologies that are not on the list to comply with the NPDWR.
Alternate source and regionalization options are also available for a system to comply with a
NPDWR. The compliance option can be characterized as a "pay now" approach. The exemption
followed by compliance option can be characterized as a "pay later" approach. The small system
variance option can be characterized as "pay less for less" approach. These systems will not have
the same level of protection as systems complying with the NPDWR during the duration of the
small system variance. Households in these systems will likely have lower water bills than they
would if the system were in full compliance with the NPDWR. There are NO no-cost options
available for violations of NPDWRs. All three options have treatment costs associated with them.
When a variance technology is installed, there are additional administrative costs associated with
the small system variance procedures. These procedures are detailed in the final Variance and
Exemption Rule (EPA, 1998d). The national-level affordability criteria will determine when the
"pay less for less" option will be available.
Section 3.3: Unit of Measure for the National-Level Affordability Criteria
Public water systems fall into one of three categories. A community water system (CWS) is
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 non-transient non-community water system
(NTNCWS) is a public water system that is not a community water system and that regularly
serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year. A transient non-community water
system (TNCWS) is a non-community water system that does not regularly serve at least 25 of
the same persons over six months per year.
Community water systems can absorb water service cost increases by directly charging their
customers in the form of increased water bills. Community water systems serve both residential
and non-residential customers. The majority of the customers in small systems are residential or
household connections. System size and the percentage of non-residential customers are directly
related. Thus, the typical system in the smallest size category relies almost exclusively on
residential customers. Since there are so few non-residential customers, the ability of these
systems to spread the cost of SDWA compliance beyond the household level is restricted. The
other two size categories have a larger percentage of non-residential customers, but residential
customers still account for the majority of the revenues received by the water system. The
national-level affordability criteria for CWSs are based on the ability of household customers to
shoulder the additional costs of installing a technology to meet a NPDWR. For more information
on the selection of the household as the most sensitive user for cost increases, see "National-Level
Affordability Criteria Under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking water Act" (EPA,
1998e).
For non-community water systems, the operation of the system is generally peripheral to
some other type of business or activity. These systems are generally engaged in an enterprise
other than water supply and do not rely directly on households to recover water production costs.
37
-------
A second document evaluated non-community water systems (NCWS) and compared their
vulnerability to cost increases with households in community water systems [see background
document entitled "An Assessment of the Vulnerability of Non-community Water Systems to
SDWA Cost Increases" (EPA, 1998f)]. The conclusion was that the categories of NCWSs were
either not vulnerable to SDWA-related treatment cost increases or were less vulnerable to
SDWA-related treatment cost increases than a typical household.
One other element in the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA provides a very cost-effective
solution for NTNCWSs. Since variance technologies are only an option for chronic contaminants,
point-of-use devices are an available compliance technology option. Most NTNCWSs only
provide a very small portion of the water for drinking purposes. Point-of-use devices could be
installed on all taps where water is used for human consumption or food preparation. Treatment
costs would be much higher if all the water provided by the system was treated to meet drinking
water standards.
TNCWSs are only required to treat for acute contaminants. These include microbial
contaminants and nitrate. As discussed in Chapter 2, there are statutory prohibitions against
variance technologies for these contaminants. Therefore, variance technologies are not an option
and national-level affordability criteria are not needed for this category of public water systems.
Since the household was determined to be more vulnerable to treatment cost increases than
the various categories of non-community water systems, national-level affordability based on
households would serve as an adequate surrogate for NTNCWSs as well as CWSs. Therefore,
whether treatment is affordable depends upon how treatment costs compare with existing
household water costs. The selected approach was to equate user burden to the increase in
annual household water bills that would result from installation of treatment. To determine if
there are any affordable compliance technologies for a given NPDWR, the national-level
affordability criteria are compared against the cost projections for the applicable treatment
technologies. If there are no affordable compliance technologies, then variance technologies
would become an option.
Section 3.4: Derivation of the National-Level Affordability Criteria
A summary of the methodology used to determine the national-level affordability criteria is
described below. The household is the focus of the national-level affordability analysis.
Treatment technology costs are presumed affordable to the typical household if they can be shown
to be within an affordability index range (defined as a range of percentages of median household
income) that appears reasonable when compared to other household expenditures. This approach
is based on the assumption that affordability to the median household served by the CWS can
serve as an adequate proxy for the affordability of technologies to the system itself. EPA has
chosen to express the water system financial and operational characteristics using their median
values, which is a measure of their respective central tendencies. EPA believes that the national-
level affordability criteria should describe the characteristics of typical systems and should not
38
-------
address extreme situations where costs might be extremely low or excessively burdensome.
The national-level affordability criteria have two major components: current annual water
bills (baseline) and the affordability threshold (upper limit for water bills). The current annual
household water bills were subtracted from the affordability threshold to determine the maximum
increase that can be imposed by treatment and still be considered affordable. This difference was
compared with the converted treatment costs to make the affordable technology determinations.
This difference is called the available expenditure margin.
The affordability threshold was determined by comparing the cost of public water supply for
households with other household expenditures and risk-averting behavior (such as use of bottled
water or point-of-use devices). National expenditure estimates were derived to illustrate the
current allocation of household income across a range of general household expenditures. This
consumer expenditure data provided a basis for determining the affordability threshold by
comparing baseline household water costs to median household income (MHI) to determine the
financial impact of increased water costs on households.
Section 3.4.1: Derivation of Baselines
Baselines were determined for the three parameters needed to perform the affordable
technology analysis. These parameters are: annual household consumption, current annual water
bills, and median household income. Separate baselines for the three parameters were established
for each of the three system size categories. Annual household consumption was used to convert
treatment cost increases into household impacts as discussed in Section 4.4 of this document.
Current annual water bills were subtracted from the affordability threshold to determine the
available expenditure margin. The median household income was used to translate the threshold
percentage into an actual dollar figure.
The baselines for annual household water consumption and the current annual water bills
were derived from data in the 1995 Community Water System (CWS) Survey. EPA began the
1995 CWS Survey in the fall of 1994. In June 1995, the surveys were distributed to a stratified
random sample of 3,700 water systems nationwide. Community water system respondents had
until February 1996 to return the completed questionnaires. Slightly more than 54 percent of the
systems that received questionnaires responded to the survey. For more information on the 1995
CWS Survey and an overview of the results, see "Community Water System Survey Volume I:
Overview" (EPA, 1997a). For detailed survey result tables and copies of the survey
questionnaires, see "Community Water System Survey Volume II: Detailed Survey Result Tables
and Methodology Report" (EPA, 1997b).
EPA's goal was to define a typical system within each small system category for affordability
purposes. This is very similar to the model systems approach that is used to evaluate the cost of
treatment. Under that approach, a typical system is created with the following parameters: design
flow, average daily flow, and population served within the size category. Water systems that
39
-------
purchase 90% or more of their water were excluded from the baseline determinations. These
systems were assumed to obtain high quality finished water from larger systems that can achieve
economies of scale necessary to mitigate the increased cost of SDWA treatment requirements.
Data from water systems with zero values for critical variables were also excluded from the
baseline determinations. The data for current household water bills was one such critical variable.
The remaining observations were graphed as a scatter plot to examine the dispersion of data
points. After evaluating this data, all data outside of three standard deviations (+/-) of the mean
value were excluded from the analysis.
Two data sources were required to derive the median household income (MHI) for small
systems. The median household income data were derived by linking the CWSS data with data in
the 1990 Census using zip codes. The CWS Survey provided information on zip codes served by
individual water systems. The Census income data were converted from 1990 dollars to 1995
dollars using the consumer price index to facilitate comparison with the CWS Survey data. Some
data had to be excluded from this analysis because it did not represent a typical small system. Zip
codes were reported using either the three-digit zip codes or five-digit zip codes depending upon
the water system's service area. The use of the three-digit zip code placed several large
metropolitan areas in the overall sample. Because the three-digit zip codes observed in the CWS
Survey data consistently represent large metropolitan area, these values were removed from the
analysis of small system income.
The "National-Level Affordability Under the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA" (EPA,
1998e) presents data for the annual water consumption, current water bills and median household
income. Both means and medians were determined for each parameter for each size category.
Mean values can be considered better estimates of items in their given distributions and are better
suited to further mathematical manipulation. However, median values, are considered a better
estimate of typical systems because the median represents the middle value and are not affected by
extremely high or low values. Stakeholders were asked whether mean or median values for the
three parameters should be used to establish the national-level affordability criteria. Stakeholders
recommended consistency rather than a preference for using means or medians. EPA selected
median values for all three parameters. EPA has chosen to express the water system financial and
operational characteristics using their median values, which is a measure of their respective central
tendencies. EPA believes that the national-level affordability criteria should describe the
characteristics of typical systems and should not address extreme situations where costs might be
extremely low or excessively burdensome. The mean values were higher than the median values
for all of the parameters and size categories. For a given affordability threshold, the available
expenditure margin was lower when median values were used.
The annual water consumption rates derived from the CWS Survey data are contained in
Table 2. Only the median values for water consumption are included for each size category. The
data are reported in 1,000 gallons per connection (kgal/connection). These consumption rates are
considerably lower than the 100,000 gallons per household per year that was used in the
development of the regulations before 1996. This consumption rate was based on large systems
40
-------
and was extrapolated to all system size categories. The use of the annual consumption rate in
making affordable technology determinations is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
Table 2
Residential Consumption at Small Water Systems
System Size Category
(Population Served)
25 - 500
501 -3,300
3,301 - 10,000
Median Annual Consumption
(kgal/connection)
72
74
77
The current annual water bills were also derived from the CWS Survey data. The CWS
Survey did not directly ask for data on annual water bills. The CWS Survey did ask for data on
annual sales revenue per connection by customer type. The data on residential connections were
used to represent the total amounts that customers were billed during the year.
EPA evaluated the effect of source type on current annual water bills during the development
of the national-level affordability criteria. Since the surface water treatment rule was promulgated
in 1989, in-place treatment might be much more extensive in surface water systems than ground
water systems. Since existing treatment would likely lead to higher costs, EPA looked at current
water bills in both types of systems. For this analysis, the ground water systems were those
systems that relied exclusively on ground water. All mixed systems were placed in the surface
water system category. Ground water systems significantly outnumbered the surface water
systems in all three size categories, even with the inclusion of mixed systems in the surface water
category. This relationship is consistent with the profile of CWS in that ground water dominates
as the source in smaller systems and surface water dominates as the source in larger systems.
Table 3 contains the current annual water bills by source type for each size category. Table 4
contains the current annual water bills for all systems for each size category.
41
-------
Table 3
Baseline Household Water Bills by Source Type
System Size Category
(Population Served)
25 - 500
501 -3,300
3,301 - 10,000
Current Annual Water Bills
($/household/yr)
Surface Water Systems
$179
$228
$225
Ground Water Systems
$211
$183
$173
Stakeholders were asked if separate baselines should be established for ground water systems
and surface water systems. Stakeholders stated that separate baselines should be established, but
that the distinction between ground water and surface water systems was less significant in small
systems because most rely on ground water. EPA evaluated the data in Table 3 and determined
that there was very little distinction between current annual water bills for ground water systems
as compared to surface water systems. Thus, separate baselines were not established and the data
in Table 4 were used for each size category. If separate baselines are established in the future, an
in-place treatment baseline would also need to be established for surface water systems since most
filtration technologies can be modified to remove other contaminants. Thus, future treatment
decisions would likely involve modification of the existing process rather than installation of a
new process. The technology cost evaluation is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
Table 4
Baseline Household Water Bills
System Size Category
(Population Served)
25 - 500
501 -3,300
3,301 - 10,000
Median Current Annual Water Bills
($/household/yr)
$211
$184
$181
The baseline annual household water bills include existing water quality, water production,
and water distribution costs. Water production costs include labor and energy for pump
operation to supply water to customers. Water distribution costs include costs of infrastructure
repair (mains and service lines) and administrative costs (customer billing and meter checking).
The existing water quality costs include both treatment and monitoring. The CWS Survey data
42
-------
were collected in 1995, so treatment costs for many of the regulated contaminants may already be
accounted for in the baseline. For the majority of the small systems, the bulk of the current
" annual household water bills are related to water production and distribution. Most ground
water systems do not have extensive treatment trains.
The median household income data were derived from the 1995 CWS Survey and the 1990
Census. The linking procedure was discussed earlier. A MHI value was derived for each zip
code served by the system. An average MHI was then determined for those systems that reported
serving multiple zip codes. Means and medians were determined after the MHIs for each system
were then grouped by size category. The median of the system-MHI values is presented for each
size category in Table 5.
Table 5
Baseline Median Household Income
System Size Category
(Population Served)
25 - 500
501 -3,300
3,301 - 10,000
Median System-MHI
(Census MHI - updated to 1995$)
$30,785
$27,058
$27,641
It should be noted that the data in Table 15 - National-Level Affordability Criteria - published
in the Announcement of Small System Compliance Technology Lists for Existing National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations and Findings Concerning Variance Technologies 63 Fed.
Reg, p. 42046 (August 6, 1998) presented mean values for current water bills instead of median
values. Use of mean values in Table 15 was in error. As stated in the Federal Register notice,
EPA's intent was to use the median values, and this intent has not changed. The data in Table 4
are the median values for current annual water bills. The median household income for the two
smallest size categories in Table 5 is slightly higher than the values in Table 15 of the Federal
Register notice. A verification run of the MHI data produced slightly higher MHIs for these two
size categories. The calculations using the data in Tables 4 and 5 of this document do not alter
the affordability determinations discussed in the Federal Register notice in any way.
Section 3.4.2: Derivation of the Affordability Threshold
The affordability threshold was determined by comparing the cost of public water supply for
households with other household expenditures and risk-averting behavior. National expenditure
estimates were derived to illustrate the current allocation of household income across a range of
general household expenditures. This consumer expenditure data provided a basis for determining
the affordability threshold by comparing baseline household water costs to median household
43
-------
income (MHI) to determine the financial impact of increased water costs on households.
Chapter 3 in "National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the 1996 Amendments to the
SDWA" (EPA, 1998e) describes how comparative household expenditures were used to identify
a range of options for the affordability threshold. The options range from 1.5% to 3.0% MHI.
This approach is summarized below.
Data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) conducted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) were used as the source for many of the household expenditures. The BLS
defines an individual household as any of the following: 1) all members of a particular household
related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangements; 2) a financially independent
person living alone or sharing a household with others, including a private home, lodging house,
or permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel; or 3) two or more individuals living in the same
residence, utilizing their combined income for joint expenditure decisions. For the second
criterion, financial independence is defined as sole responsibility for any two of the following three
expenses: housing, food, and other living expenses.
Direct comparisons between the CES data and the data derived from the CWS Survey are
not possible for several reasons. The BLS's survey methodology is not designed to establish an
exclusive cost for drinking water. CES data are based on reported household expenditures for
water and other public services. This category includes wastewater and solid waste collection
expenditures. In addition, the CES data values represent the average for all consumer units within
specific demographic strata, such as size of consumer unit, income level, and region. Some
expenditures may appear lower than anticipated because the value for this expenditure category is
averaged over all consumer units regardless of whether they purchased the item. Another factor
that may make the water expenditures appear lower is that data from households in large systems
are included in the CES data. These households may experience lower water bills due to the
greater economy-of-scale in large systems. The impact of these two factors is illustrated by
comparing the CES data for water and other public services with the current water bill baseline
for households in small systems. The CES data indicate that households are paying about 0.7% of
their before tax income on water and other public services. Using the data in Tables 4 and 5,
current water bills range from 0.65% to 0.69% of the median household income in the three small
system size categories. Wastewater and solid waste collection will be higher than 0.05%, so
direct comparison of the two data sources is not possible. However, the CES data can be used as
a relative benchmark to compare the cost of water with other expenditures.
The complete range of household expenditures is described in the National-Level
Affordability Document. A subset of the complete list was selected for use as comparable
expenditures. In the CES data, there is a category for utilities, fuels, and other public services.
Water and other public services is included in this category. Expenditures for natural gas,
electricity, and fuel oils and other fuels are also included in this category. These three utilities are
competitors for power and heating, so households that do not purchase one or more of these
utilities would bias the individual percentages. These three utilities were combined into one
44
-------
category called energy and fuels in the analysis in the National-Level Affordability Document
(EPA, 1998e). The subset of comparable expenditures from the CES data is contained in Table 6.
Table 6
Summary of Select Consumer Expenditures for All Consumer Units - 1995$
Item
Housing
Transportation
Food
Energy and Fuels
Telephone
Water and other Public Services
Entertainment
Alcohol and Tobacco
Consumer Expenditure as % of Income before
taxes
28.3%
16.3%
12.2%
3.3%
1.9%
0.7%
4.4%
1.5%
EPA identified an initial range of options using the CES data for the national-level
affordability criteria. A floor of 1.5% of income was based on the expenditures for alcohol and
tobacco in the CES data. The upper limit of 3% was based on rounding down the energy and
fuels percentage listed in Table 6. Stakeholders were presented with an initial range for the
affordability threshold of 1.5% to 3% of the MHI for each size category. Stakeholders, in
general, did not express a strong opinion about where the affordability threshold should be set
within the range. EPA selected 2.5% based on the rationale described below.
The National-Level Affordability Document contained several other comparable expenditures
that were used to identify a specific affordability threshold within the range of 1.5% to 3%. The
telephone expenditures in Table 6 would support an affordability threshold of 2%. The other two
expenditures looked at risk-reduction activities for drinking water. Installation of a point-of-use
device or the use of bottled water as an alternative to the water supplied by the system was
examined.
Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) of the SOW A identifies both Point-of-Entry (POE) and Point-of-
Use (POU) treatment units as options for compliance technologies. A POE treatment device is a
treatment device applied to the drinking water entering a house or building for the purpose of
reducing contaminants in the drinking water distributed throughout the house or building. A POU
treatment device is a treatment device applied to a single tap used for the purpose of reducing
45
-------
contaminants in drinking water at that one tap. POU devices are typically installed at the kitchen
tap.
The SDWA also identifies requirements that must be met when POU or POE units are used
by a water system to comply with a NPDWR. Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) stipulates that "point-of-
entry and point-of-use treatment units shall be owned, controlled, and maintained by the public
water system or by a person under contract with the public water system to ensure proper
operation and maintenance and compliance with the MCL or treatment technique and equipped
with mechanical warnings to ensure that customers are automatically notified of operational
problems." Other conditions in this section of the SDWA include: "If the American National
Standards Institute has issued product standards applicable to a specific type of POE or POU
treatment unit, individual units of that type shall not be accepted for compliance with a MCL or
treatment technique unless they are independently certified in accordance with such standards."
A supporting document entitled "Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options:
Point-of-Use and Point-of-Entry Treatment Units" (EPA, 1998g) summarizes EPA's approach to
meeting the SDWA requirements on these devices as compliance technologies. Since programs
for long-term operation, maintenance, and monitoring must be provided by water utilities, this
option is probably limited to the first size category (25 - 500 people). A system serving 500
people probably has between 150 and 200 households. The system would be responsible for
operation, maintenance, and monitoring of a unit at or in each of these households. This is
probably the realistic upper bound for the effective management of either of these options. The
median number of connections for systems in the 25 - 500 size category is 50. The data in Tables
4.4.3 of the POU/POE report were used to evaluate the cost of centrally-managed POU and POE
options. Household cost increases for this option were developed for several technologies:
reverse osmosis, anion exchange, activated alumina, and granular activated carbon. The
affordability threshold would need to be at or above 2% for the POU treatment units option to be
affordable. The affordability threshold would need to be above 2.5% for the POE treatment unit
option to be affordable once waste disposal costs were included. EPA does not believe that the
affordability threshold should be set so low that two options specifically identified in the SDWA
as compliance technologies would never qualify as compliance technologies. As it is, POE
devices would not be listed as an affordable compliance technology using the selected affordability
threshold. The POU costs support an affordability threshold between 2 and 2.5%. The POE
costs support an affordability threshold of 2.5% or greater.
The cost of bottled water as an alternate source of water that meets the NPDWRs was also
investigated as a risk-reduction activity. For this analysis, a household of three people was
assumed. Water consumption was estimated at 2 liters per person per day. This same assumption
is used to derive the drinking water equivalent level (DWEL) that was discussed briefly in Section
2.2.3. The DWEL is used to determine the MCLG for the regulated non-carcinogenic
contaminants. A cost per gallon rate of $0.98 was used for this analysis. This rate is the average
price for home delivery from the International Bottled Water Association. A cost per household
per year of approximately $570 was derived from these data. The bottled water costs would be in
46
-------
addition to what the household is currently paying for water. The bottled water costs support an
affordability threshold of 2.5% or higher, depending upon the size category.
Another factor in the decision of where to set the affordability threshold was that EPA
believes that small system variances are intended to be very rare, based on the requirements of the
SDWA. Variance technologies are intended for systems with very poor source water such that
the costs of compliance would not be affordable. Thus, the affordability criteria should be set, in
EPA's view, high enough that the majority of the systems will proceed down the compliance
pathway. The compliance and variance pathways are illustrated in Figure 2 in Section 1.3. The
right-hand side of this figure shows the steps that a small system must pass through before
receiving a small system variance and installing a variance technology.
The first step is to determine if there is an affordable compliance technology. Variance
technologies are only identified when there are no affordable compliance technologies. As long as
one potential compliance technology can pass the affordability criteria, there won't be variance
technologies. If there are five potential compliance technologies and only one passes the
affordability criteria, variance technologies would not be identified for that system size/source
water quality combination. This shows that the goal for most systems should be compliance with
the NPDWR, since only one technology needs to meet the affordability criteria to eliminate the
availability of variance technologies. When affordable compliance technologies are not available,
variance technologies will be identified. However, small systems must evaluate the affordability
of treatment, alternate source, and restructuring at the system-level before a small system variance
can be considered. Thus, the structure of the SDWA requirements indicates that small system
variances should be considered as a last resort.
The approach to establishing the national-level affordability criteria did not establish a
baseline for in-place treatment technology. The baseline for annual water bills was determined for
each size category rather than creating many smaller sub-categories based on the degree of
existing treatment. There were two reasons for this approach. The difference between annual
water bills in ground water and surface water systems was not significant even though there
would be differences in existing treatment. The second reason is that the sample size of the data
that would be used to determine the baseline for annual water bills would be very small for some
of the sub-categories. One consequence of this approach is that some of the treatment costs for
the regulations covered in this guidance are already included in the baseline of annual water bills.
The regulations for the contaminants that were initially eligible to receive small system variances
were promulgated between 1986 and 1992. The CWS Survey was conducted in 1995. Some of
the treatment costs are already incorporated into the baseline for current annual water bills. A
group of five small surface water systems with annual water bills above $500 per household per
year were examined. All of these systems had installed disinfection and filtration technologies to
comply with the surface water treatment rule (SWTR). The SWTR was promulgated in 1989.
The treatment cost comparisons in Chapter 4 assumed that there was no existing treatment
capable of removing the contaminant or being modified to remove the contaminant. This is a
conservative assumption for some systems (especially surface water systems) because they have
47
-------
already made an investment in technology that is reflected in the customer's annual water bills.
The assumption that these systems would need to install a new technology overestimates the costs
of compliance for these systems.
Another important factor is that under this approach to national-level affordability criteria,
the affordability threshold is set at 2.5% of MHI for existing and future regulations. The baseline
for annual water bills will increase as treatment is installed to comply with regulations and as
backlog infrastructure needs are met. EPA intends to conduct the Community Water Supply
Surveys every five years and will be able to track the increases in water bills due to treatment or
infrastructure repair. In the interim, between CWS Surveys, EPA will adjust the baseline for
annual water bills to incorporate the projected impact of regulations. For example, if arsenic
follows the disinfection by-product, and radon rules, the impact of these rules will be incorporated
into the baseline annual water bills used to make the affordable technology determinations for
arsenic. Since the baseline water bills will be higher, the available expenditure margins for
comparison with arsenic treatment costs will be lower than that listed in Section 3.5. The
consumer price index data shows water prices increasing at a faster rate than all items over the
last 10 years (EPA, 1998e). This implies that water prices should increase faster than median
household income and that the available expenditure margin will decrease over time. The impacts
of new regulations will further decrease the available expenditure margin over time. Thus, while
variance technologies are not available for the currently regulated contaminants, a decreasing
available expenditure margin increases the likelihood of variance technologies for future
regulations.
The final piece of supporting rationale is that EPA believes that the goal of the SDWA is still
to provide the same high quality drinking water for all customers of public water systems. The
SDWA does not, in EPA's view, envision a two-tiered approach for standards where large
systems are complying with the NPDWR and small systems are operating at some level above the
MCL that is protective of public health for the duration of a small system variance. The small
system variance option should be the exception and not the rule. Ideally, only a small subset of
small systems would ever operate under a small system variance. If the affordability threshold
were set so low that variance technologies were needed for regulations that were promulgated at
least six years ago, then affordability would be a significant issue for all future regulations. Under
such an affordability threshold, the small system variance option would become the rule rather
than the exception.
Section 3.5: National-Level Affordability Criteria
The national-level affordability criteria are based on an affordability threshold of 2.5% of the
median household income (MHI). As discussed in Section 3.4.1, the baseline values for median
household income and current water bills have changed slightly from the Federal Register notice.
The correct baseline water bills ranged from 0.65% to 0.69% MHI in the three size categories.
Thus, the available expenditure margins were approximately 1.8% MHI for each size category.
Table 7 summarizes the national-level affordability criteria and shows the maximum increase that
48
-------
could occur using these criteria.
Most systems would not be expected to actually experience cost increases of this magnitude
if a compliance technology was installed. Many compliance technologies impose substantially
lower household costs. For example, the screening process examined several technologies that
imposed less than $300/household per year increases in all three size categories. The treatment
costs used for the affordable technology determinations were based on treatment of all of the
water to achieve the maximum removal efficiency. Most systems will not need the maximum
removal efficiency to comply with a NPDWR. As was noted in Section III of the August 6, 1998
Federal Register notice, blending is an option to reduce the cost of treatment when lower
removals are needed for compliance. A portion of the influent stream can be treated and blended
with an untreated portion to still meet the MCL. Under this scenario, both capital and operating
and maintenance costs would be lower than the estimates for the full stream treatment. Since
blending would lower the rate increase for water, household costs would be lower.
Another factor that would result in lower household costs is that the approach to establishing
the national-level affordability criteria assumes that all treatment costs are borne by the systems
and passed along to customers. The national-level affordability criteria do not consider the impact
of financial assistance from State Revolving Fund loans or Rural Utility Service. Loans or grants
would reduce the amortized capital costs in these systems. This would lead to lower impacts at
the household level in those systems that qualify for financial assistance. There are other
mitigating measures that can reduce the impact on households. Rate design, consolidation
strategies and regionalization approaches are discussed in Appendix F of the "National-Level
Affordability Criteria Under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act" report.
49
-------
Table 7
National-Level Affordability Criteria
System Size
Population Served
25 - 500
501 -3,300
3,301 - 10,000
Baseline
Mffl
($/yr)
$30,785
$27,058
$27,641
Water Bills
($/hh/yr)
$211
$184
$181
Water Bills
( %MHI)
0.69%
0.68%
0.65%
Affordability
Threshold
(2.5% MHI)
$770
$676
$691
Available Expenditure
Margin
($/hh/year increase)
$559
$492
$474
50
-------
REFERENCES
USEPA. 1997a. Community Water System Survey Volume 1: Overview. EPA 815-R-97-001a.
Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Water. January 1997.
USEPA. 1997b. Community Water System Survey Volume II: Detailed Survey Result Tables
and Methodology Report. EPA 815-R-97-001b. Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Water.
January 1997.
USEPA. 1998a. Federal Register 63(151): 42032. August 6, 1998.
USEPA. 1998b. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Non-Microbial Contaminants
Regulated before 1996. EPA 815-R-98-002. Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Water.
September 1998.
USEPA. 1998c. Information for States on Developing Affordability Criteria for Drinking Water.
EPA-816-R-98-002. Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Water. February, 1998.
USEPA. 1998d. Federal Register. 63(157): 43834. August 14, 1998.
USEPA, 1998e. National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Prepared by International Consultants, Inc., Hagler Bailly Services, Inc. and
Janice A. Beecher, Ph.D. for the EPA. August 1998.
USEPA, 1998f An Assessment of the Vulnerability of Non-Community Water Systems to
SDWA Cost Increases. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation for the EPA.
September 1998.
USEPA, 1998g. Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options: Point-of-Use and Point-
of-Entry Treatment Units. Prepared by The Cadmus Group, Inc. for the EPA.. September 1998.
51
-------
4.0 AFFORDABLE TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATIONS
Section 4.1: Overview
The two-stage screening process for variance technologies was described in Chapter 2. Only
5 of the 80 regulated contaminants passes through this screening process and remained eligible for
variance technologies. These five contaminants were: antimony, asbestos, atrazine, di-(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, and lindane. The national-level affordability criteria were described in
Chapter 3. Table 6 lists the derived criteria for each of the three size categories. This chapter
describes how the affordable technology determinations were made for these five contaminants.
Section 4.2: Results of SDWIS Run of Violations
The last screen in the two-stage screening process utilized the violation data in the Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) to identify systems that might need to install
treatment to comply with one of the existing NPDWRs (EPA, 1997a). MCL violations were
found in SDWIS for the five contaminants that passed through the screening process. There were
142 MCL violations listed for these five contaminants. The breakdown was as follows: 34
violations for antimony, 6 for asbestos, 92 for atrazine, 8 for di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and 2 for
lindane. The concentration listed in SDWIS as the MCL exceedance was examined for all 142
violations. The States were contacted to inquire about the compliance status of the system and to
verify the concentration reported in SDWIS. The compliance status was checked to see how
many of these systems had already complied with the NPDWR after the violation occurred. The
concentration listed in SDWIS was verified because several appeared to be reported using
incorrect units. Some values were reported in //g/L instead of mg/L. It was important to get the
correct units for the violations because this data was used to estimate the removal efficiency
needed to comply with the NPDWR. Asbestos posed a unique problem since it has different units
than the other chemical regulations. The MCL for asbestos is measured in million fibers per liter
rather than milligrams per liter. For asbestos, violations had to be verified because some were
reported as fibers per liter instead of million fibers per liter. The asbestos violations were also
checked to determine the source of the asbestos. Asbestos can be found in the raw water entering
the treatment plant or it can occur from the corrosion of asbestos-cement pipe in the distribution
system. Different treatment technologies would be applied depending upon the source of the
asbestos.
The States indicated that 140 of the 142 systems were back in compliance with the
NPDWRs. The two systems that were not yet in compliance had violations of the asbestos
standard. The source of the asbestos in both of these systems was the corrosion of asbestos-
cement pipe. Even though the vast majority of the systems were back in compliance, the violation
data was used to determine if affordable compliance technologies existed for these five
contaminants. The concentrations for the highest violations (after verification of the units) were
used to compare with the MCL to determine the maximum removal efficiency needed for
compliance. This maximum removal efficiency was used to estimate treatment costs that were
52
-------
compared with the national-level affordability criteria. If the treatment costs for one technology
were found to be affordable, then variance technologies were no longer available. This approach
is very conservative on the cost side because the worst-case system was used to determine the
removal efficiency.
For the five contaminants, the derived maximum removal efficiency exceeded 80 percent.
Since most treatment technologies are generally capable of achieving removal efficiencies between
90 and 95 percent, treatment costs were based on this upper limit of performance. Thus, the costs
assume treatment of all of the water. Treatment of a portion of the influent water and blending it
with an untreated portion to reduce costs was not assumed in the development of the treatment
costs. When the concentration above the MCL is low enough, blending can be used to reduce
costs while still meeting the MCL. Both capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs can
be reduced by blending as described above. For the systems that do not need the maximum
removal efficiency, the treatment costs used to make the affordable technology determinations are
an overestimate of the costs their customers would see if a technology were installed for
compliance.
Section 4.3: Treatment Cost Models
The potential compliance technologies identified for these five contaminants included both
central treatment options and point-of-use (POU) options. Under the central treatment options,
all of the water supplied by the system is treated. Under the POU options, only the water at one
tap within a residence is treated. All of the other water in the house is not treated to reduce
contaminant concentrations. It was assumed that the kitchen tap would be treated for these
options.
For the central treatment options, three cost models were used to make treatment cost
estimates. The cost models have different ranges of applicability based on design flow. The
design flow is related to the production capacity of the treatment unit and is larger than the peak
daily flow for the system. The design flow is used to estimate capital costs for the system. The
average daily flow is used to make estimates for the O&M costs. Thus, the treatment unit is sized
based on production capacity and the operating costs are based on the volume of water being
treated for distribution.
The first cost model is for very small systems with a design flow below 270,000 gallons per
day. The document entitled "Very Small Systems Best Available Technology Document"
provides equations for estimating capital and O&M costs for these systems (EPA, 1993a). The
Water Model is a set of cost curves for various technologies contained in the document entitled
"Small System Water Treatment Costs (EPA, 1984). The third model is the WATERCOST
model (Computer Software for Estimating Water and Wastewater Treatment Costs, Version 2.0,
1994). This is a computer model used for the estimation of costs for systems with flows larger
than 1 million gallons per day. The costing models generate discrete cost estimates corresponding
to specific design and average daily flow inputs.
53
-------
A byproducts stream is produced by some of the technologies used to treat drinking water
contaminants. These byproducts streams are typically associated with the treatment of inorganic
contaminants. Coagulation/filtration and lime softening produce sludges that require disposal.
Membrane technologies produce a concentrate stream. Ion exchange and activated alumina
produce brine streams. Two additional cost models are used to estimate the costs of disposal of
these residual byproduct streams. The document entitled "Small Water System Byproducts
Treatment and Disposal Cost Document" (EPA, 1993b) provides equations for capital and O&M
costs for technologies to dispose of residual byproducts. These cost equations are intended for
systems in the first two size categories (25 - 500 and 501 - 3,300 people). The equations for
capital and O&M costs for systems in the 3,301 - 10,000 people served category were taken from
the document entitled "Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document"
(EPA, 1993c).
For the POU options, the document entitled "Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance
Options: Point-of-Use and Point-of-Entry Treatment Units" (EPA, 1998a) was used. This
document contains capital and O&M cost equations for a variety of POU and POE options.
Table 4.4.3 contains the data on total costs that was used to generate the equations for each of
the processes.
Section 4.4: Model Systems
As described in Section 4.3, the capital costs are based on design flow and the O&M costs
are based on average daily flow. The capital costs were amortized over 20 years at an interest
rate of 7%. The annualized capital costs were combined with the annual O&M costs to determine
the total production costs. The units for the total production cost are dollars per thousand gallons
($/kgal).
In order to derive capital and O&M costs for central treatment options, design and average
daily flows are needed for a typical system within each size category. The selected design and
average daily flows are based on the flows that were used in the regulations developed during the
early 1990s. The design and average daily flows for the five size categories that were used to
derive the flows for this analysis are contained in Table 8. For small systems, the design and
average daily flow are reported in thousand gallons per day (kgpd). Since the categories used in
the regulations are more stratified than the small system categories in the SOW A, a weighted
average of the flows was derived for each of the first two SDWA small system categories from
the data in Table 8. The number of systems within each size category in Table 8 was used for the
weighting factor in determining the flows for the SDWA categories. The design and average daily
flows used to derive costs for the affordable technology determinations are contained in Table 9.
54
-------
Table 8
Design and Average Daily Flows Used for Regulations (early 1990s)
System Size Category
(population served)
25 - 100
101 -500
501- 1,000
1,001 -3,300
3,301 - 10,000
Design Flow
(kgpd)
24
87
270
650
1,800
Average Daily Flow
(kgpd)
5.6
24
86
230
700
Table 9
Design and Average Daily Flows Used for Affordable Technology Determinations
System Size Category
(population served)
25 - 500
501 -3,300
3,301 - 10,000
Design Flow
(kgpd)
58
500
1,800
Average Daily Flow
(kgpd)
15
170
700
As discussed in Section 3.4.2, the centrally-managed point-of-use options is probably only
cost-effective in the 25 - 500 size category. In the POU/POE report (EPA, 1998a), costs for
POU and POE options were compared against central treatment costs. The costs for the
centrally-managed POU option had to be converted to the same flow basis for this comparison
and to make the affordable technology determinations. The cost estimates for the centrally-
managed POU treatment options are presented in dollars per thousand gallons used by the
household. This is very different than the cost per gallon treated by the POU device. By
converting the cost per gallon treated into the cost per thousand gallons used by the household,
the POU costs are comparable with central treatment costs. The breakpoint for POU options was
between 70 and 180 households depending upon the technology. The central treatment costs did
not include waste disposal costs. The inclusion of waste disposal would shift the breakpoint for
central treatment costs being cheaper than centrally-managed POU costs to a higher number of
households. It is unlikely that the centrally-managed POU would be more cost-effective than
55
-------
central treatment after the 25 - 500 size category (upper bound of approximately 200
households). Due to increasing administrative costs and increasing coordination difficulties, it is
not expected that larger communities will find the implementation of centrally-managed POU or
POE devices to be cost-effective. However, affordable technology determinations were made for
the larger size categories.
The POU option cost equations use the number of households as the dependent variable.
The subset of data from the Community Water Supply Survey (EPA, 1997a) that was used to
develop the baseline for current water bills also contained data on residential connections. This
data was used to determine the median number of residential connections within each size
category. The number of connections was assumed to be the number of households for each size
category. The POU costs were derived using the number of households in Table 10.
Table 10
Number of Households by Size Category for POU/POE Options
System Size Category
(population served)
25 - 500
501 -3,300
3,301 - 10,000
Number of Residential Households
(Median for size category)
50
425
1935
Both the central treatment and the POU treatment costs provide the rate increase associated
with the installation of treatment. The treatment cost models produce rate increases measured in
dollars/thousand gallons ($/kgal). Annual household water consumption (kgal/year) is needed to
convert the treatment technology costs into the increase in annual household water bills. The
water consumption data in Table 2 were used with the cost increases derived by the models to
estimate annual household cost increases for each treatment technology. The water consumption
estimates in Table 2 were multiplied by 1.15 to account for lost water due to leaks. Since the
water lost to leaks is unbilled, the water bills for the actual water used were adjusted to cover this
lost water by increasing the household consumption. The adjusted consumption rates were then
multiplied by the rate increase imposed by treatment to determine the annual cost increase for the
household. This annual water bill increase was compared with the available expenditure margin to
determine if there was an affordable technology.
Section 4.5: Treatment Cost Estimates
Affordability only played a role in removing some of the options in the smallest size category.
In the larger two size categories, all of the treatment technologies produced annual household
water bill increases below the available expenditure margin. However, in the smallest size
56
-------
category, the centrally-managed POU option was typically the only affordable option. The cost
estimates for the centrally-managed POU options were all below $400 per household per year in
all of the size categories. For antimony, the only affordable treatment option was the centrally-
managed POU reverse osmosis option. For the three SOCs (atrazine, di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
and lindane), the centrally-managed POU granular activated carbon units were one of the two
technologies identified as affordable in the 25 - 500 size category. The other affordable
compliance technology was powdered activated carbon. This technology is only affordable when
the system already has a process train that includes basins, mixing, precipitation or sedimentation,
and filtration. Since the affordability of this technology is linked to existing treatment, the
centrally-managed POU GAC option is the only affordable option identified for the majority of
the systems in this size category. The affordable compliance technologies and the technologies
that did not pass the affordability criteria are identified in Table 11. For a detailed description of
the compliance technologies for the five contaminants, see the Compliance Technology List for
Non-Microbial Contaminants Regulated Before 1996 (EPA, 1998c).
Table 11
Affordable and Other Compliance Technologies in the 25 - 500 Size Category
Contaminant
Antimony
Asbestos
Atrazine
di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthtalate
Lindane
Affordable Compliance
Technologies
POURO
DF, DBF, CC
POU GAC, PAC
POU GAC, PAC
POU GAC, PAC
Other Compliance
Technologies
RO, C/F
C/F
GAC
GAC
GAC
KEY: POU = Point-of-Use RO = reverse osmosis
C/F = coagulation/filtration DF = direct filtration
DEF = diatomaceous earth filtration CC = corrosion control
PAC = powdered activated carbon (for plants with existing filtration)
GAC = granular activated carbon
As previously discussed, the worst-case system based on occurrence was selected to
determine the removal efficiency for treatment costs. Since many of the other systems that exceed
an MCL would need lower removals to comply with the MCL, other treatment alternatives may
be affordable through the use of blending. Systems and States should consider the technologies in
the "other compliance technologies" category when blending can be performed to reduce costs
while still meeting the MCL.
57
-------
REFERENCES
CWC Engineering Software. 1994. WAV Costs and Design Criteria Guidelines (WATERCOST
Model) User Manual for Computer Software for Estimating Water and Wastewater Treatment
Costs. Version 2.0.
EPA. 1984. Estimation of Small System Water Treatment Costs (Water Model). Cincinnati,
OH: EPA Office of Research and Development.
EPA. 1993a. Very Small Systems Best Available Technology Cost Document. Prepared by
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. for the EPA. September 1993.
EPA. 1993b. Small Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document. Draft
Final. Prepared by DPRA Inc. for the EPA. April 1993.
EPA. 1993c. Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document. Draft Final.
Prepared by DPRA Inc. for the EPA. April 1993.
EPA. 1997a. Unpublished data from the Safe Drinking Water Information System. Washington,
D.C.: EPA. December 16, 1997.
EPA, 1997b. Community Water System Survey Volume II: Detailed Survey Result Tables and
Methodology Report. EPA 815-R-97-001b. Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Water. January
1997.
EPA. 1998a. Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options: Point-of-Use and Point-of-
Entry Treatment Units. Prepared by The Cadmus Group, Inc. for the EPA. September 1998.
EPA, 1998b. National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Prepared by International Consultants, Inc., Hagler Bailly Services, Inc. and
Janice A. Beecher, Ph.D. for the EPA. August 1998.
EPA, 1998c. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Non-Microbial Contaminants
Regulated before 1996. EPA 815-R-98-002. Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Water.
September 1998.
58
-------
5.0 SUMMARY OF VARIANCE TECHNOLOGY FINDINGS FOR CONTAMINANTS
REGULATED BEFORE 1996
As previously discussed, compliance and variance technologies are mutually exclusive. The
two compliance technology lists developed by EPA for contaminants regulated before 1996
identified compliance technologies for all of the 80 regulated contaminants, including affordable
compliance technologies for all classes of small systems where appropriate. The two-stage
screening process removed all but five contaminants. Affordable compliance technologies were
identified for those five contaminants as discussed in Chapter 4. Thus, EPA will not, at this time,
be listing variance technologies for any existing NPDWR..
Because this is the first time that EPA has undertaken the variance technology analysis
required under the amended SDWA (which includes new findings concerning "affordability" and
"protectiveness") and given the relatively short time for development of this analysis, EPA
considers the methodology described here and the resulting finding of no variance technologies to
be an initial screening effort, rather than a final determination of any kind. In addition, by enabling
EPA to list compliance and variance technologies rather than specifying them by regulation, the
statute specifically contemplates that this analysis (and any resulting list) will be subject to revision
based on new information and petitions from interested parties. EPA would be very interested in
suggestions from the public, and particularly from States, about how to improve the methodology
outlined here and discussed in the guidance and in variance technologies that EPA should consider
in revising and updating any future variance technology list. EPA identified several elements of
the methodology in this document that would undergo further review over the course of the next
year.
EPA stated in Chapter 2 that the procedures used to determine unreasonable risk to health
(URTH) values were under review. EPA will issue a revised guidance manual for determining
URTH as a result of that process. The URTH values listed in Table 1 will be modified or
recalculated using the new procedures for determining URTH values. The revised URTH values
for the 19 contaminants removed from consideration for variance technologies by the URTH
screen will be examined to see if there is a level above the MCL that may be protective of public
health for the expected useful life of a technology. Contaminants for which this screen is no
longer applicable would continue through the remainder of the screening process before
proceeding into the affordable compliance technology determination step.
EPA stated in Chapter 2 that it would re-examine the SDWIS violation data to see if
violations were reported for the contaminants removed by the "lack of violation" screen. There
were five contaminants removed by this screen. If MCL violations are found in a subsequent
SDWIS run, then the violation data would be used to determine if there is an affordable
compliance technology.
EPA indicated in Chapter 3 that a link was not established between baseline annual water
bills and existing treatment in the national-level affordability criteria. EPA will examine whether
59
-------
this link should be established including an examination of the sample sizes. If a baseline for
treatment is deemed necessary, then separate baselines would need to made for each source type
because surface water systems should have a more extensive treatment technology baseline.
EPA will evaluate the comments that are received on the initial variance technology findings.
If these evaluations indicate a need for variance technologies for the contaminants regulated
before 1996, then a list with variance technologies may be issued in August 1999; or sooner, if
warranted.
60
-------
APPENDIX A
RELEVANT PARTS OF SECTION 1412 OF THE 1996 SDWA AMENDMENTS
61
-------
SEC. 105. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR SMALL SYSTEMS.
Section 1412(b)(4)(E) (42 U.S.C. 300g-l(b)(4)(E)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
"(ii) List of technologies for small
systems.—The Administrator shall include in the
list any technology, treatment technique, or other
means that is affordable, as determined by the
Administrator in consultation with the States, for
small public water systems serving—
"00 a population of 10,000 or
fewer but more than 3,300;
"(II) a population of 3,300 or
fewer but more than 500; and
(III) a population of 500 or fewer
but more than 25;
and that achieves compliance with the maximum
contaminant level or treatment technique,
including packaged or modular systems and point-
of-entry or point-of-use treatment units. Point-
of-entry and point-of-use treatment units shall be
owned, controlled and maintained by the public
water system or by a person under contract with
the public water system to ensure proper operation
and maintenance and compliance with the maximum
contaminant level or treatment technique and
equipped with mechanical warnings to ensure that
customers are automatically notified of
operational problems. The Administrator shall not
include in the list any point-of-use treatment
technology, treatment technique, or other means to
achieve compliance with a maximum contaminant
level or treatment technique requirement for a
microbial contaminant (or an indicator of a
microbial contaminant). If the American National
Standards Institute
[[Page 110STAT. 1626]]
has issued product standards applicable to a
specific type of point-of-entry or point-of-use
treatment unit, individual units of that type
shall not be accepted for compliance with a
62
-------
maximum contaminant level or treatment technique
requirement unless they are independently
certified in accordance with such standards. In
listing any technology, treatment technique, or
other means pursuant to this clause, the
Administrator shall consider the quality of the
source water to be treated.
"(iii) List of technologies that achieve
compliance.—Except as provided in clause (v), not
later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
this clause and after consultation with the
States, the Administrator shall issue a list of
technologies that achieve compliance with the
maximum contaminant level or treatment technique
for each category of public water systems
described in subclauses (I), (II), and (III) of
clause (ii) for each national primary drinking
water regulation promulgated prior to the date of
enactment of this paragraph.
"(iy) Additional technologies.—The
Administrator may, at any time after a national
primary drinking water regulation has been
promulgated, supplement the list of technologies
describing additional or new or innovative
treatment technologies that meet the requirements
of this paragraph for categories of small public
water systems described in subclauses (I), (II),
and (III) of clause (ii) that are subject to the
regulation.
(v) «NOTE: Records.» Technologies that
meet surface water treatment rule.—Within one
year after the date of enactment of this clause,
the Administrator shall list technologies that
meet the Surface Water Treatment Rule for each
category of public water systems described in
subclauses (I), (II), and (III) of clause (ii).".
63
-------
SEC. 111. TECHNOLOGY AND TREATMENT TECHNIQUES.
(a) Variance Technologies.-Section 1412(b) (42 U.S.C. 300g-l(b)) is
amended by adding the following new paragraph after paragraph (14):
"(15) «NOTE: Regulations.» Variance technologies.—
"(A) In general.-At the same time as the
Administrator promulgates a national primary drinking
water regulation for a contaminant pursuant to this
section, the Administrator shall issue guidance or
regulations describing the best treatment technologies,
treatment techniques,
[[Page 110STAT. 1632]]
or other means (referred to in this paragraph as
"variance technology') for the contaminant that the
Administrator finds, after examination for efficacy
under field conditions and not solely under laboratory
conditions, are available and affordable, as determined
by the Administrator in consultation with the States,
for public water systems of varying size, considering
the quality of the source water to be treated. The
Administrator shall identify such variance technologies
for public water systems serving-
"(i) a population of 10,000 or fewer but more
than 3,300;
"(ii) a population of 3,300 or fewer but more
than 500; and
(iii) a population of 500 or fewer but more
than 25,
if, considering the quality of the source water to be
treated, no treatment technology is listed for public
water systems of that size under paragraph (4)(E).
Variance technologies identified by the Administrator
pursuant to this paragraph may not achieve compliance
with the maximum contaminant level or treatment
technique requirement of such regulation, but shall
achieve the maximum reduction or inactivation efficiency
that is affordable considering the size of the system
and the quality of the source water. The guidance or
regulations shall not require the use of a technology
from a specific manufacturer or brand.
(B) Limitation.—The Administrator shall not
64
-------
identify any variance technology under this paragraph,
unless the Administrator has determined, considering the
quality of the source water to be treated and the
expected useful life of the technology, that the
variance technology is protective of public health.
"(Q Additional information.—The Administrator
shall include in the guidance or regulations identifying
variance technologies under this paragraph any
assumptions supporting the public health determination
referred to in subparagraph (B), where such assumptions
concern the public water system to which the technology
may be applied, or its source waters. The Administrator
shall provide any assumptions used in determining
affordability, taking into consideration the number of
persons served by such systems. The Administrator shall
provide as much reliable information as practicable on
performance, effectiveness, limitations, costs, and
other relevant factors including the applicability of
variance technology to waters from surface and
underground sources.
(D) Regulations and guidance.—Not later than 2
years after the date of enactment of this paragraph and
after consultation with the States, the Administrator
shall issue guidance or regulations under subparagraph
(A) for each national primary drinking water regulation
promulgated prior to the date of enactment of this
paragraph for which a variance may be granted under
section 1415(e). The Administrator may, at any time
after a national primary drinking water regulation has
been promulgated, issue guidance or regulations
describing additional variance technologies. The
Administrator shall, not less often than
[[Page 110STAT. 1633]]
every 7 years, or upon receipt of a petition supported
by substantial information, review variance technologies
identified under this paragraph. The Administrator shall
issue revised guidance or regulations if new or
innovative variance technologies become available that
meet the requirements of this paragraph and achieve an
equal or greater reduction or inactivation efficiency
than the variance technologies previously identified
65
-------
under this subparagraph. No public water system shall be
required to replace a variance technology during the
useful life of the technology for the sole reason that a
more efficient variance technology has been listed under
this subparagraph.".
(b) Availability of Information on Small System Technologies.—
Section 1445 (42 U.S.C. 300J-4) is amended by adding the following new
subsection after subsection (g):
"(h) Availability of Information on Small System Technologies.—For
purposes of sections 1412(b)(4)(E) and 1415(e) (relating to small system
variance program), the Administrator may request information on the
characteristics of commercially available treatment systems and
technologies, including the effectiveness and performance of the systems
and technologies under various operating conditions. The Administrator
may specify the form, content, and submission date of information to be
submitted by manufacturers, States, and other interested persons for the
purpose of considering the systems and technologies in the development
of regulations or guidance under sections 1412(b)(4)(E) and 1415(e).".
66
-------
APPENDIX B
RELEVANT PARTS OF SECTION 1415 OF THE 1996 SDWA AMENDMENTS
67
-------
SEC. 116. SMALL SYSTEMS VARIANCES.
Section 1415 (42 U.S.C. 300g-4) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
^(e) Small System Variances. —
"(1) In general. —A State exercising primary enforcement
responsibility for public water systems under section 1413 (or
the Administrator in nonprimacy States) may grant a variance
under this subsection for compliance with a requirement
specifying a maximum contaminant level or treatment technique
contained in a national primary drinking water regulation to—
"(A) public water systems serving 3,300 or fewer
persons; and
"(B) with the approval of the Administrator
pursuant to paragraph (9), public water systems serving
more than 3,300 persons but fewer than 10,000 persons,
if the variance meets each requirement of this subsection.
"(2) Availability of variances.--A public water system may
receive a variance pursuant to paragraph (1), if—
"(A) the Administrator has identified a variance
technology under section 1412(b)(15) that is applicable
to the size and source water quality conditions of the
public water system;
"(B) the public water system installs, operates,
and maintains, in accordance with guidance or
regulations issued by the Administrator, such treatment
technology, treatment technique, or other means; and
"(Q the State in which the system is located
determines that the conditions of paragraph (3) are met.
"(3) Conditions for granting variances.-A variance under
this subsection shall be available only to a system—
(A) that cannot afford to comply, in accordance
with affordability criteria established by the
Administrator (or the State in the case of a State that
has primary enforcement responsibility under section
1413), with a national primary drinking water
regulation, including compliance through—
'" (i) treatment;
[[Page 110STAT. 1642]]
"(ii) alternative source of water supply; or
"(iii) restructuring or consolidation (unless
68
-------
the Administrator (or the State in the case of a
State that has primary enforcement responsibility
under section 1413) makes a written determination
that restructuring or consolidation is not
practicable); and
(B) for which the Administrator (or the State in
the case of a State that has primary enforcement
responsibility under section 1413) determines that the
terms of the variance ensure adequate protection of
human health, considering the quality of the source
water for the system and the removal efficiencies and
expected useful life of the treatment technology
required by the variance.
"(4) Compliance schedules.—A variance granted under this
subsection shall require compliance with the conditions of the
variance not later than 3 years after the date on which the
variance is granted, except that the Administrator (or the State
in the case of a State that has primary enforcement
responsibility under section 1413) may allow up to 2 additional
years to comply with a variance technology, secure an
alternative source of water, restructure or consolidate if the
Administrator (or the State) determines that additional time is
necessary for capital improvements, or to allow for financial
assistance provided pursuant to section 1452 or any other
Federal or State program.
"(5) «NOTE: Review.» Duration of variances.—The
Administrator (or the State in the case of a State that has
primary enforcement responsibility under section 1413) shall
review each variance granted under this subsection not less
often than every 5 years after the compliance date established
in the variance to determine whether the system remains eligible
for the variance and is conforming to each condition of the
variance.
"(6) Ineligibility for variances.—A variance shall not be
available under this subsection for—
(A) any maximum contaminant level or treatment
technique for a contaminant with respect to which a
national primary drinking water regulation was
promulgated prior to January 1, 1986; or
"(B) a national primary drinking water regulation
for a microbial contaminant (including a bacterium,
virus, or other organism) or an indicator or treatment
technique for a microbial contaminant.
69
-------
"(7) Regulations and guidance.—
(A) In general.—Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this subsection and in consultation
with the States, the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations for variances to be granted under this
subsection. The regulations shall, at a minimum,
specify—
'' (i) procedures to be used by the
Administrator or a State to grant or deny
variances, including requirements for notifying
the Administrator and consumers of the public
water system that a variance is proposed to be
granted (including information regarding the
contaminant and variance) and requirements for a
public hearing on the variance before the variance
is granted;
[[Page 110STAT. 1643]]
"(ii) requirements for the installation and
proper operation of variance technology that is
identified (pursuant to section 1412(b)(15)) for
small systems and the financial and technical
capability to operate the treatment system,
including operator training and certification;
"(iii) eligibility criteria for a variance
for each national primary drinking water
regulation, including requirements for the quality
of the source water (pursuant to section
1412(b)(15)(A)); and
"(iy) information requirements for variance
applications.
"(B) «NOTE: Publication.» Affordability
criteria.-Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of
1996, the Administrator, in consultation with the States
and the Rural Utilities Service of the Department of
Agriculture, shall publish information to assist the
States in developing affordability criteria. The
affordability «NOTE: Review.» criteria shall be
reviewed by the States not less often than every 5 years
to determine if changes are needed to the criteria.
"(8) Review by the administrator.—
70
-------
"(A) In general.—The Administrator shall
periodically review the program of each State that has
primary enforcement responsibility for public water
systems under section 1413 with respect to variances to
determine whether the variances granted by the State
comply with the requirements of this subsection. With
respect to affordability, the determination of the
Administrator shall be limited to whether the variances
granted by the State comply with the affordability
criteria developed by the State.
(B) Notice and publication.—If the Administrator
determines that variances granted by a State are not in
compliance with affordability criteria developed by the
State and the requirements of this subsection, the
Administrator shall notify the State in writing of the
deficiencies and make public the determination.
"(9) Approval of variances.—A State proposing to grant a
variance under this subsection to a public water system serving
more than 3,300 and fewer than 10,000 persons shall submit the
variance to the Administrator for review and approval prior to
the issuance of the variance. The Administrator shall approve
the variance if it meets each of the requirements of this
subsection. The Administrator shall approve or disapprove the
variance within 90 days. If
the «NOTE: Notification.» Administrator disapproves a variance
under this paragraph, the Administrator shall notify the State
in writing of the reasons for disapproval and the variance may
be resubmitted with modifications to address the objections
stated by the Administrator.
"(10) Objections to variances. —
"(A) By the administrator.—The Administrator may
review and object to any variance proposed to be granted
by a State, if the objection is communicated to the
State not later than 90 days after the State proposes to
grant the variance. «NOTE: Notification.» If the
Administrator objects to the granting of a variance, the
Administrator shall notify the State in writing of each
basis for the objection and propose a
[[Page 110STAT. 1644]]
modification to the variance to resolve the concerns of
the Administrator. The State shall make the recommended
71
-------
modification or respond in writing to each objection. If
the State issues the variance without resolving the
concerns of the Administrator, the Administrator may
overturn the State decision to grant the variance if the
Administrator determines that the State decision does
not comply with this subsection.
(B) Petition by consumers.—Not later than 30 days
after a State exercising primary enforcement
responsibility for public water systems under section
1413 proposes to grant a variance for a public water
system, any person served by the system may petition the
Administrator to object to the granting of a variance.
The Administrator shall respond to the petition and
determine whether to object to the variance under
subparagraph (A) not later than 60 days after the
receipt of the petition.
"(Q Timing.—No variance shall be granted by a
State until the later of the following:
"(i) 90 days after the State proposes to
grant a variance.
"(ii) If the Administrator objects to the
variance, the date on which the State makes the
recommended modifications or responds in writing
to each object!on.".
72
------- |