Friday
February 13, 1998
Part VII
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Consumer Confidence;
Proposed Rule
7605
-------
7606
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday. February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
RIN2040-AC99
[FRL-5967-2]
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Consumer Confidence
Reports
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
alternative definition.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to require
community water systems to prepare
and provide to their customers annual
reports on the quality of the water
delivered by the systems. This action is
mandated by the 1996 amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
These reports would provide valuable
information to consumers of tap water
from community water systems and
allow them to make personal health-
based decisions regarding their drinking
water consumption.
DATES: Written comments on this
proposed rule must be received by EPA
on or before March 30,1998. EPA will
hold a public meeting about the
proposal in Washington, DC on March
3,1998 beginning at 9 a.m. A second
public meeting will take place in San
Francisco, CAon March 10,1998
beginning at 9 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments on
this proposed rule to the Consumer
Confidence Report Comment Clerk:
Water Docket MC-4101 (docket #W-97-
18), Environmental Protection Agency:
401 M Street, S.W., Washington DC
20460. Please submit an original and
three copies of your comments and
enclosures (including references).
Commenters who want EPA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
must enclose a self-addressed, stamped
envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted. Comments may also be
submitted electronically to ow-
docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and forms of encryption.
Electronic comments must be identified
by Docket #W-97-18. Comments and
data will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect in 5.1 format or ASCII file
format. Electronic comments on this
notice may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
The record for this rulemaking has
been established under docket #W-97-
18, and includes supporting
documentation as well as printed paper
versions of electronic comments. The
record is available for review at EPA's
Water Docket: 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington DC 20460. For access to the
Docket materials, call 202-260-3027
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. for an
appointment and reference "Docket
#W-97-18".
The public meetings will take place in
the following locations: Washington,
DC—EPA Auditorium, 401 M St, SW,
Washington, DC. San Francisco—EPA,
1st floor conference rooms, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free
800-426-4791 for general information
about, and copies of, this document. For
technical inquiries, contact: Francoise
M. Brasier 202-260-5668 or Rob Allison
202-260-9836.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority
n. Consultation with Public Water Systems,
State and Local Governments,
Environmental Groups, Public Interest
Groups, and Risk Communication
Experts
HI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Purpose and Applicability
B. Effective Dates and Rationale
C. Rationale for Content of the Reports
D. Required Health Information and
Rationale
E. Report Delivery
F. Special State Primacy Requirements and
Rationale
G. Health Effect Language and Rationale
IV. Request for Public Comments
V. Cost of Rule
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. General
2. Use of Alternative Definition
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Environmental Justice
G. Risk to Children Analysis
H. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Regulated persons
Potentially regulated persons are
community water systems.
Category
Publicly-owned CWSs
Privately-owned CWSs
Ancillary CWSs
Example of regulated entities
Municipalities; County Governments; Water districts; Water and Sewer Authorities.
Private water utilities; homeowners associations.
Persons who deliver drinking water as an adjunct to their priinary business (e g trailer parks retirement homes)
The table is not intended to be
exhaustive. It provides a guide for
readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in this table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in § 141.151 of the
rule. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this section to a
particular entity, consult the persons
listed In the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
COKTACT section.
Consumer Right-To-Know Provisions in
the Safe Drinking Water Act
The 1996 amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act contain extensive
provisions for consumer involvement
and right-to-know that herald a new era
of public participation in drinking water
protection. These provisions are
founded on the principle that
consumers have a right to know what is
in their drinking water and where it
comes from before they turn on the tap.
With the information provided in these
provisions, consumers will be better
able to make health decisions for
themselves and their families.
The Consumer Confidence Reports are
the centerpiece of public right-to-know
in SDWA. The information contained in
these reports can raise consumers'
awareness of where their water comes
from, show them the process by which
safe drinking water is delivered to their
homes, educate them about the
importance of prevention measures such
as source water protection to a safe
drinking water supply. The reports can
be a tool that starts a dialogue between
consumers and their drinking water
utilities, and one that gets consumers
more involved in decisions which may
affect their health. The information can
be a means for consumers, especially
those with special health needs, to make
informed decisions regarding their
drinking water. And finally, the reports
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7607
are a key to unlock more drinking water
information. They will provide access
through references or telephone'
numbers to source water assessments,
health effects data, and additional
information about the water system. The
Agency is considering demonstrating its
support for the consumer confidence
reports by establishing, in consultation
with the states, an award program
which would recognize innovative
reports.
Other right-to-know provisions in
SDWA include changes to the public
notification requirements, which will
give the consumers of public water
supplies more accurate and timely
information on violations. Persons
served by a public water system must be
given notice within 24 hours of any
violation of a national drinking water
standard "that has the potential to have
serious adverse effects on human health
as a result of short-term exposure."
EPA's regulation making these changes
is scheduled to be promulgated in
August, 1999.
In addition, the public will have
access to the completed source water
assessments. States are required under
the 1996 SDWA amendments to assess
the condition of every public water
supply within the State, including the
boundaries of the source of that water
supply and contamination threats
within that source. The consumer •
confidence reports will provide
information on the availability of the
assessment for that water supply.
By August, 1999, EPA will develop a
national contaminant occurrence data
base, that will provide information on
the occurrence of both regulated and
unregulated contaminants in public
water systems. This information will be
made available to the public through the
Internet.
Finally, the public will be provided
with early information on state variance
decisions involving their public water
system. Public water systems serving
fewer than 10,000 persons that cannot
meet national primary drinking water
regulations may apply for a variance to
use an alternate technology to meet the
regulation. Consumers served by that
water supply have a right to object to
the variance.
All of these public right-to-know
provisions are based on the belief that
accountability to the public and the
understanding and support of the public
will be vital to address and prevent-
threats to drinking water quality in the
years ahead. The provisions provide
unprecedented opportunities for the
public to participate in decisions related
to the protection of their water supplies.
If the public uses the opportunities, they
can ensuretthat the choices made —
particularly by EPA and the states, but
also by water suppliers — respond to the
public's needs and concerns.
I. Statutory Authority
Section 1 1 4 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996 Public
Law 104-182), enacted August 6, 1996,
amends Section 1414(c) of the Act (42
U.S.C. 300g-3(c)). A new section
1414(c)(4) provides for annual consumer
confidence reports by community water
systems to their customers. Section
1414(c)(4)(A) mandates a number of
actions by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, who
is required to develop and issue
regulations within 24 months of the date
of enactment (i.e. in August 1998). The
regulations must be developed in
consultation with public water systems,
environmental groups, public interest
groups, risk communication experts, the
States, and other interested parties. The
regulations must, at a minimum, require
each community water system to mail to
each customer of the system at least
once annually a report on the level of
contaminants in the drinking water
purveyed by that system. The
regulations are required by section
1414(c)(4)(A) to provide a "brief and
plainly worded" definition of four
terms: "maximum contaminant level
goal," "maximum contaminant level,"
"variances," and "exemptions." In
addition, section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires
the regulations to contain brief
statements in plain language regarding
the health concerns that resulted in
regulation of each regulated
contaminant, and a brief and plainly
worded explanation regarding
contaminants that may reasonably be
expected to be present in drinking
water, including bottled water. Finally,-
section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires the
regulations to provide for an EPA toll-
free hotline that consumers can call for
more information and explanation.
Section 1414 of SDWA, as amended,
also provides, in a new section (c)(4)(B)
of the Act, additional specific
requirements for the contents of the
consumer confidence reports. The
reports are required to include, but need
not be limited to, the following
information:
• Information on the source of the
water purveyed, (section
• If any regulated contaminant is
detected in the water purveyed fay the
community water system, a statement
setting forth: (1) the maximum
contaminant level goal, (2) the
maximum contaminant level, (3) die
level of such contaminant in the water
system, and (4) for any regulated
contaminant for which there has been a
violation of the maximum contaminant
level during die year covered by the
report, the brief statement in plain
language regarding the health concerns
that resulted in regulation of that
contaminant, as provided by the
Administrator in regulations under
section 1414(c)(4)(A). (section
A brief and plainly worded
definition of the terms "maximum
contaminant level goal," "maximum
contaminant level," "variances," and
"exemptions," as provided in
regulations by the Administrator.
(section 1414(c)(4)(B)(ii))
Information on compliance with
national primary drinking water
regulations, as required by the
Administrator, and notice if the system
is operating under a variance or
exemption and the basis on which the
variance or exemption was granted.
(section 1 4 1 4(c) (4) (B) (iv))
• Information on the levels of
unregulated contaminants for which
monitoring is required under section
1445 (a) (2) (including levels of
Cryptosporidium and radon where
States determine they may be found.)
(section 1414(c)(4)(B)(v))
• A statement that the presence of
contaminants in drinking water does not
necessarily indicate that the drinking
water poses a health risk and that more
information about contaminants and
potential health effects can be obtained
by calling the Safe Drinking Water
hotline, (section 1414(c)(4)(B)(vi))
Section 1414(c)(4)(B) also provides
that a community water system may
include any additional information that
it deems appropriate for public
education. In addition, the
Administrator may require, through
regulation, a consumer confidence
report to include for not more than three
regulated contaminants, a brief
statement in plain language regarding
the health concerns that resulted in
regulation of the contaminant even if
there has not been a violation of the
maximum contaminant level during the
year concerned.
Section 1414(c)(4)(C) authorizes the
Governor of a State to determine not to
apply the mailing requirement to
community water systems serving fewer
than 10,000 persons. Such systems then
would be required to inform their
customers that die system will not be
mailing the report; make the report
available on request to the public; and
publish the report annually in one or
more local newspapers serving the areas
in which the systems' customers are
located.
-------
7608
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
Section 1414(c)(4)(D) allows those
community water systems that are not
required to meet the mailing
requirements, and which serve 500
persons or fewer, to meet their
consumer confidence report obligation
by preparing an annual report and
providing notice at least once per year
to each customer by mail, by door-to-
door delivery, by posting, or by any
other means authorized in the
regulations, that the consumer
confidence report is available upon
request.
Section 1414(c)(4)(E) provides that a
State exercising primary enforcement
responsibility may establish by rule,
after public notice and comment.
alternative requirements with respect to
the form and content of the consumer
confidence reports.
This rule, when issued in final form,
is intended to fulfill the rulemaking
requirements outlined in amended
section 1414(c)(4).
II. Consultation With Public Water
Systems, State and Local Governments,
Environmental Groups, Public Interest
Groups, and Risk Communication
Experts
As required under section 1414 of
SDWA. as amended, the Agency has met
extensively with a broad range of groups
in the development of this proposed
rule. Early in the regulatory
development process, EPA held a series
of meetings with community water
system operators and customers located
in California, to obtain information
about California's annual Water Quality
Reports requirement, which has been in
effect since 1990, and to learn from the
California program's experiences. In
particular. EPA held meetings with
operators of small rural public water
systems at the California Rural Water
Association Annual Meeting held in
February 1997. Also in February 1997,
EPA met with a focus group of water
customers in California to obtain
information about their reactions to
receiving annual reports about drinking
water quality and how such reports
should be structured and used. Finally,
EPA met with members of the
Association of California Water
Agencies, primarily including
representatives from large public water
systems, public utility commissions,
cities, and metropolitan areas.
The Agency met four times between
February and July 1997 with a special
working group of the National Drinking
Water Advisory Council (NDWAC). The
Advisory Council has been established
under Section 10(a)(2) of Public Law
92-423, "The Federal Advisory
Committee Act" and SDWA. By law.
NDWAC is empowered to provide
advice to EPA on regulatory issues. The
Consumer Confidence Report Working
Group, in turn, was established by
NDWAC to provide advice to it on the
particular issues raised in the
development of EPA's regulation on
consumer confidence reports.
The NDWAC Consumer Confidence
Report Working Group was composed of
a designated Federal officer; three
NDWAC members who served as liaison
between the full NDWAC and the
Working Group; and eighteen other
members. The Working Group
contained members from public health
organizations; local, State, and Federal
government agencies with
responsibilities for supervising public
drinking water providers; operators of
large and small drinking water systems;
consumer representatives;
environmental organizations; and
business and trade associations. The
Working Group met in four two-day
sessions, between February and July
1997, to discuss issues raised by the
consumer confidence report
requirements in the 1996 SDWA
amendments and to analyze and debate
initial proposals for the consumer
confidence report regulatory
requirements. At the end of the Working
Group meetings, in July 1997, the group
submitted a draft of the regulations
highlighting unresolved issues to the
full NDWAC for its review. NDWAC in
turn presented its recommendations to
EPA on the regulation being proposed
today in a NDWAC report submitted in
August 1997. These documents are
available in the Docket for this
rulemaking.
In June 1997, EPA convened a one-
day meeting of a group of private, State,
and Federal experts in public health and
the communication of risk-related
information to general audiences. The
panel critiqued preliminary ideas for the
consumer confidence report regulatory
requirements and provided suggestions
to EPA on effective methods of
communicating risk information.
As it developed today's regulatory
proposal, EPA continued to meet with
water system operators and customers.
In May 1997 the Agency obtained the
views of system operators in Wyoming,
a State chosen because EPA operates the
drinking water program in that State.
The Agency also held a town meeting in
Casper, Wyoming to solicit the views of
water system customers.
EPA also received the views of a
number of organizations on the
potential contents of consumer
confidence reports. In particular,
Agency staff attended a one-day
workshop in May 1997 sponsored by the
Environmental Law Institute in which
water customers and citizens in the
Washington, D.C. area discussed
communication of drinking water
information. EPA also was provided the
results of a series of focus groups held
in six locations across the country by
the American Water Works Association
to obtain information and viewpoints
about drinking water risk
communication issues.
EPA also discussed the proposal with,
and received comments from, another
EPA advisory group, the Local
Government Advisory Committee. EPA
discussed the statute and EPA's plans
for developing the proposal at a meeting
with the Committee in San Francisco in
February 1997, and provided a draft of
the rule to the Committee and discussed
the draft at its meeting in New Orleans
in May 1997.
The rule being proposed today is
based on the NDWAC recommendations
to EPA and has been developed in close
consultation with public water systems,
environmental groups, public interest
groups, risk communication experts, the
States, and other interested parties, as
required by the 1996 Amendments.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Purpose and Applicability
The rule being proposed today
establishes the minimum requirements
for the content of consumer confidence
reports.
The rule would apply to existing and
new community water systems.
"Community water systems" are a
subset of "public water systems." A
"public water system," as defined by
section 1401 of SDWA, is "a system for
the provision of water for human
consumption through pipes or other
constructed conveyances, if such system
has at least fifteen service connections
or regularly serves at least twenty-five
individuals." "Community water
systems" are public water systems
which serve year-round residents. Thus,
systems that do not have 15 or more
service connections used by year-round
residents or regularly supply at least 25
year-round residents are not subject to
today's rule.
Out of the approximately 180
thousand water systems in the United
States, only approximately 60 tnousand
are considered community water
systems. They range from large
municipal systems that serve millions of
persons to small systems, which serve
fewer than 100 persons. Community
water systems can be further categorized
as publicly-owned systems, including
systems owned and operated by
municipalities, townships, counties,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7609
water districts, and water authorities;
privately-owned systems, which may be
owned and operated by groups ranging
from investor owned water companies
to homeowners associations; and
ancillary systems, which are small
systems that provide water as an
ancillary function of their principal
business or enterprise. Ancillary
systems are primarily mobile home
parks and a variety of institutional water
providers. Public, private, and ancillary
community water systems are all subject
to today's rule.
The balance of the water systems in
the United States, or approximately 130
thousand systems, are either so-called
"transient non-community systems"
which do not serve the same people on
a day to day basis (for example, highway
rest stops) or "non-transient non-
community systems" which serve at
least 25 of the same people at least 6
months of the year (for example,
schools). Because today's rule applies
only to community water systems, as
provided by Congress in the 1996
Amendments to SDWA, transient and
non-transient non-community systems
are not covered.
EPA notes that water wholesalers are
also considered community water
systems. However, if such a system did
not retail water to any customer, i.e.
billing unit or drinking water hook-up,
the system would not have to prepare a
consumer confidence report. EPA notes
that these systems already provide
monitoring information to the States.
They would have to provide that
information to the purchaser so that the
purchaser can prepare the consumer
confidence report. In the case of
consecutive systems, i.e. a chain of
utilities which provide water to each
other, the system delivering water to the
customers would be the one preparing
the consumer confidence report.
B. Effective Dates and Rationale
Today's rule would become effective
30 days after publication of die final
rule in the Federal Register and
community water systems would have
to deliver the first report to their
customers within 13 months of the
effective date of the regulations. The
Agency is anxious that these
requirements become effective as soon
as practicable because of the importance
of this provision. The Agency also
believes that the proposed dates are
practicable since they would give
systems a full 14 months to prepare
their first report. Each consumer
confidence report is required to describe
monitoring results for the past twelve-
month period. EPA believes that giving
community water systems a period
slightly longer than a yeat to prepare the
first report ensures that'they will have
the time to assemble the necessary
information, to develop the necessary
report format, and to arrange for
distribution of the consumer confidence
reports. In addition, some States are
already implementing or developing
their own reporting requirements. EPA
also believes that the 14 month period
after enactment of the rule would ensure
that systems that had recently prepared
a State mandated report would not be
required to immediately prepare another
report required by today's rule.
New community water systems, that
is, community water systems that begin
delivering water to customers after the
effective date of today's rule, must
deliver their first report within 18
months of the date that they begin
delivering water to customers. EPA
concluded that the longer period of time
before delivery of the first reports would
allow new systems to initiate and carry
out a broader range of monitoring
activities (some required monitoring
requires at least one year's collection of
data; other required monitoring may
occur over a period in excess of 12
months). In addition, the 18 month
period will allow new systems to
develop and implement procedures for
preparing and distributing the reports.
Some stakeholders argued that the
Agency should propose that all reports
be due on a certain date. They believed
that this would give the reports more
impact by allowing for an orchestrated
outreach campaign at the time of
issuance. The Agency believes however,
that there are merits to allowing some
flexibility since different utilities will
have different start-up needs. States can
make different decisions when they
promulgate their regulations and would
be free to impose a specific date for
issuance of the consumer reports under
their jurisdiction.
C. Rationale for Content of the Reports
In developing today's rule on the
contents of consumer confidence reports
prepared by community water systems,
EPA sought to provide community
water systems with the maximum
amount of flexibility to design their
reports, consistent with the
requirements of the 1996 Amendments.
The Agency therefore generally limited
the requirements for the content of
reports, found in §§ 141.153 and
141.154 of the proposed rule, to a
clarification and explanation of the
requirements in section 114 of the 1996
Amendments. In addition to today's
rule, EPA is planning to prepare and
issue detailed guidance that will
provide supplementary information and
examples of ways in which systems can
prepare and present the data in
consumer confidence reports. The
Agency also will develop, prior to the
effective date of the rule computerized
"fill-in-the-blank" templates that water
systems will be able to use if they are
unable or do not choose to develop their
own consumer confidence report
format. The Agency anticipates that very
small systems, in particular, will be able
to use these templates to minimize the
burden of preparing the reports.
1. Information on the Source of the
Water Purveyed
Consumer confidence reports are
intended primarily to convey
information to persons served by
community water systems about the
quality of the water they are consuming.
Thus, the emphasis of the reports is on
"finished" rather than "source" water.
Congress did, however, require the
reports to include information about the
sources of the water delivered by the
system. In addition, many of the
participants in public meetings on the
consumer confidence reports held by
EPA, and the members of the expert
panel on risk communication convened
by EPA, argued that the reports will be
substantially more interesting and
useful to persons if the reports provide
context for the information about
finished water. Therefore, today's rule
specifies that each report must identify
the sources of the water delivered by the
community water system by providing
information on the type of water (that is,
whether the source is ground water,
surface water, a combination of the two,
or water obtained from another system);
and the commonly used name or names
(if any) and location of the body or
bodies of water. Several commenters on
the report requirements suggested to
EPA that maps of water sources are a
particularly effective means of
communicating this information. The
Agency is encouraging systems to use
maps in the consumer confidence
reports whenever possible, although
maps have not been included in the
mandatory contents of the reports.
One issue raised during the
development of the proposal was
whether the rule should require
information on sources of
contamination that may have an impact
on the quality of the source water used
by a community water system. Some
stakeholders argued that if particular
sources of contamination are known for
the sources of water delivered by the
community water system, the consumer
confidence reports should provide a
concise description of them. The public
frequendy has a general knowledge of
-------
7610
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998 /Proposed Rules
the contamination sources that affect
particular surface water bodies,
according to the advocates of this
provision, and failing to provide
information about them can reduce the
credibility of the reports generally.
Other stakeholders noted that the
consumer confidence reports deal
primarily with the quality of the
finished water as it is delivered to its
consumers. They argued that a
requirement to provide information on
contaminants in source water without
regard to their presence in the finished
water may lead to unnecessary
concerns. The Agency notes the
difficulty of definitively linking
contaminants to specific sources and the
liability issues that may arise if the
reports attempt to do so without
adequate documentation.
The 1996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act created a new
program of source water assessments
under section 1453 of the Act. The
Agency has issued guidance on State
Source Water Assessment and
Protection Programs, under which
States with primary enforcement
authority must: (1) delineate the
boundaries of the areas providing source
waters for public water systems and (2)
identify, to the extent practical, the
origins of regulated and certain
unregulated contaminants in the
delineated area to determine the
susceptibility of public water systems to
such contaminants. Assessments are to
be completed for all public water
systems within two years after EPA's
approval of the State's program with
possible 18 month extensions.
In an effort to balance competing
concerns regarding the provisions of
information on contaminant sources in
the report, today's rule creates a linkage
with this Source Water Assessment
program by requiring that if a source
water assessment has been completed
for the community water system, that
system's consumer confidence report
must notify customers of the availability
of this information and the means to
obtain it This will allow interested
parties to get accurate and detailed
information on the sources of
contaminants.
However, as recommended by the
NDWAC, today's rule does not include
a requirement that consumer confidence
reports contain specific information
about sources of contamination which
may affect the quality of the source
water, although it does require that
generic information be provided about
the likely sources of detected regulated
contaminants. The Agency is inviting
comments on this issue.
2. Definitions
The rule contains definitions in
§ 141.153 (c)(l) and (2) of four terms
that must be used in consumer
confidence reports: "Maximum
contaminant level goal or MCLG,"
"Maximum Contaminant Level or
MCL," "Variances," and "Exemptions."
These definitions differ from those
found in 40 CFR 141.2. The definitions
are designed to explain key components
of the national primary drinking water
regulations in brief, plainly worded
terms. The draft definitions were
examined closely by the NDWAC
Consumer Confidence Reports Working
Group, by the expert panel, and by
EPA's own staff. All of these reviewers
recognized that the definitions,
particularly the definitions for
maximum contaminant level goal
(MCLG) and maximum contaminant
level (MCL), represent dramatic
simplifications of complicated
processes. The expert panel, in
particular, recommended that EPA test
these definitions and, if necessary,
revise them. The Agency therefore is
specifically requesting comments on
these proposed definitions.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or
MCLG is defined by the proposed rule
as "The level of a contaminant in
drinking water below which there is no
known or expected risk to health." This
definition therefore highlights the
requirement in the SDWA that EPA set
MCLGs at a level at which "no known
or anticipated adverse effects on the
health of persons occur and which
allows an adequate margin of safety."
The definition does not attempt to
describe the use of Reference Doses to
determine the MCLG for non-
carcinogenic contaminants and Class C
carcinogens, nor does it specify that for
Class A and B carcinogens the MCLG
must be set at zero. The expert panel
was particularly concerned by the lack
of context in the proposed definition,
noting that it contains no information
about how drinking water is determined
to be safe. At the same time, the Panel
recognized the difficulty of developing
a simple and accurate description of the
process that would be suitable for
inclusion in the reports. Some panel
members suggested that EPA develop a
one-page handout on the process of
setting MCLs and MCLGs, which could
either be included in the reports or
made separately available to drinking
water consumers. EPA is requesting
comment on this issue.
Maximum Contaminant Level or MCL
is defined by the proposed rule as "the
highest level of a contaminant that is
allowed in drinking water." This
definition highlights the function of the
MCL as an enforceable standard under
the primary drinking water regulations.
The agency is aware that this definition
does not provide an explanation of how
the MCLs are set. As provided by
SDWA, EPA sets MCLs as close to the
corresponding MCLGs as "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)."
The expert panel in particular noted
that these definitions do not provide
any content for interpreting the health
significance of a contaminant
concentration above the MCLG but
below the MCL and recommended that
EPA use a longer definition of MCL
such as: "the level determined to
provide the best protection to health,
given cost and treatment feasibility".
The working group, however, was not
able to agree on any characterization of
the MCL beyond a minimal description
of its regulatory function. Some
members wanted to stress the safety
factors built into the MCL setting
process while others believed strongly
that whenever an MCL is set above an
MCLG the best protection to health is
not achieved. One alternative would be
to paraphrase language from the SDWA
to provide additional context for the
definitions. For example, MCLG might
be defined as "The level of a
contaminant in drinking water below
which there is no known or expected
risk to health, allowing an adequate
margin of safety." MCL could then be
defined as "The highest level of a
contaminant that is allowed in drinking
water, which is set as close to the MCL
as feasible using the best available
treatment technology." The Agency
requests comments on the proposed
definitions of both MCL and MCLG.
Commenters should bear in mind that
brevity and plain language are required
by the Statute for these definitions.
The NDWAC Working Group
recommended combining the
definitions of variances and exemptions
into a single definition, since in its
opinion the two terms described a single
concept. "Variances and exemptions"
therefore are defined in the rule as
"State permission not to meet an MCL
or a treatment technique under certain
conditions." Some members of the
Working Group suggested adding the
phrase "provided there is no
unreasonable risk to health" to the
definition, in order to inform report
recipients that this is one of the
statutory conditions for receiving a
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7611
variance or exemption. EPA is
requesting comment on this suggestion.
The definitions section of the
proposed rule also includes two
definitions not mandated by the 1996
Amendments but considered necessary
by EPA to address situations likely to be
encountered by many systems. When an
MCL cannot be established, EPA may
set a treatment technique or action level.
Section 141.153(c)(3) of the proposed
rule states that when a report contains
data on a contaminant for which EPA
has set a treatment technique or an
action level, the report must define
treatment technique as "A required
process intended to reduce the level of
a contaminant in drinking water;" and
must define action level as "The
concentration of a contaminant which
triggers treatment or other requirement
which a water system must follow."
EPA notes that the use of these
definitions in die consumer confidence
reports is not meant in any way to alter
the legal and enforceable definition of
these terms.
3. Level of Detected Contaminants
Sections 1414(c)(4)(B)(iii) and (v) of
SDWA as amended establish reporting
requirements for "regulated" and
"unregulated contaminants" detected in
the water purveyed by a community
water system. The Agency believes dial
information on contaminants detected
by the system is the lynchpin of the
reports. This is the information which
will allow water consumers to make
educated health-related decisions based
on their personal circumstances.
Therefore it is important that die
information be as complete and accurate
as feasible without falling into the trap
of information overload.
As far as accuracy is concerned, the
Agency is aware that choosing one
number to put in the report which gives
a true representation of the water tiiat
customers may have consumed during
the year will sometimes be difficult. The
quality of the water is subject to spatial
and temporal variability. This
variability is magnified in large systems
where blending of several sources may
occur. It is not feasible for the Agency
to lay down hard and fast rules to deal
with all instances where the quality of
the water may be variable; therefore, the
Agency is proposing a performance
standard in § 141.153(d)(l) which
requires operators to provide customers
with an accurate picture of the level of
contaminant they may have been
exposed to during the year. The
quantitative information on levels of
detected contaminants may, however,
provide only part of the picture. The
Agency expects that systems may need
to provide quantitative explanations of
water quality variations as well. These
explanations could, for example,
describe to customers die fact that warm
temperatures facilitate microbial growth
and may necessitate higher levels of
disinfectant in the water. EPA requests
comment on die usefulness of such
information.
EPA recognizes that this rule will
require water system operators to
present information on contaminants
detected at very low levels. The Agency
does not intend tiiat operators report
levels beneath the Minimum Detection
Limits .based upon the analytic
requirements listed in 40 CFR 141
Subpart C, which are levels so low that
they are analytically invalid.
EPA believes that, in order for the
public to make well-informed healtii
decisions, the reports should contain
information available to the systems on
any contaminant which may have an
impact on the health of persons whether
or not monitoring for these
contaminants is currently required by
regulations promulgated under the
SDWA; While section 1414(c)(4) does
not explicitly require that the reports
contain all of this information, EPA
believes that such reporting is
authorized under both section
1414(c)(4)(B) (which states that the
contents of the report must include, but
not be limited to, certain items) and
section 1445(a)(2) (which authorizes the
Administrator to require regulated
systems to report information to the
public on unregulated contaminants).
On the other hand, the Agency does not
want inadvertentiy to stop systems from
performing additional voluntary
monitoring by requiring disclosure of
information the significance of which
they could not explain. Therefore the
Agency is proposing to.include a
provision which strongly encourages
systems to include in the reports any
information indicating a possible health
concern from contaminants for which
EPA has proposed an NPDWR or issued
a health advisory. If, for example, a
contaminant is found at a level
exceeding a proposed MCL or a health
advisory level of concern, EPA believes
that the system should disclose this
result to its customers. On the other
hand, if the system believes that its
voluntary monitoring results are
inconclusive or insignificant from a
health standpoint, it need not report
them.
EPA proposes that the reports
address, in separate sections, (1) the
results of monitoring mandated by
regulation for both regulated and
unregulated contaminants as mandated
by section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iii)and (v), and
(2) the results of voluntary monitoring
performed by the system that has shown
a detection of radon or Cryptosporidium
or the presence of any additional
contaminant which a system elects to
include in the reports.
With respect to the manner in which
data are presented, the proposed rule
contains a number of provisions:
a. The initial report must identify the
twelve-month period that it covers.
Subsequent reports must identify and
cover successive twelve month periods,
to ensure that gaps do not exist between
periods covered by the reports.
b. Data on detected contaminants for
which monitoring is mandatory would
be displayed in a table. These data
include contaminants subject to an
MCL, action level or treatment
technique (regulated contaminants),
contaminants for which monitoring is
required by § 141.40 (unregulated
contaminants), and disinfection
byproducts and microbiological
contaminants (except Cryptosporidium)
for which monitoring is required by
§§ 141.140 and 141.142 (the information
collection rule). The Agency is not
mandating a particular format for the
table. EPA is seeking to leave the
maximum possible amount of flexibility
to drinking water systems to design
effective methods of presenting the
required data. However, the rule would
contain a number of provisions
pertaining to the manner in which the
data is presented.
If a system is allowed to monitor for certain
contaminants less often than once a year, the
report must include the date and results of
the most recent sampling and a brief
explanation (e.g. in a footnote) for why the
sample was not taken within the reporting
period (e.g.. "monitoring only required once
every 3 years").
The MCL for detected regulated
contaminants should be presented in whole
units. EPA has recalculated the MCLs in such
units, and has incorporated them into
Appendix A of the regulation. The MCLG for
each contaminant should be expressed in the
same units as the MCL. Detections also
should be expressed in the same units. The
Agency notes that it will continue to rely on
the numbers reported to the State to comply
with the regulations to determine compliance
and undertake enforcement action if
necessary. In no case would the way in
which data is presented in the consumer
confidence reports affect an enforcement
decision on compliance with MCLs or action
levels.
The expert panel encouraged EPA to allow
community water systems to use illustrative
examples to clarify the meaning of the
detected levels (e.g., "equivalent to one drop
in a railroad tank car"); in contrast, the
NDWAC working group believed that such
illustrations could be subject to
misinterpretation or misuse. The Agency
concluded that it would allow systems the
-------
7612
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
flexibility to adopt such examples, but would
not encourage their use.
For contaminants subject to an NPDWR,
EPA concluded that community water
systems should be required to report "the
highest test result used to determine
compliance with an NPDWR." Thus.
whenever compliance with an MCL is based
on a monthly or quarterly average, the
highest average for the year should be
Included In the table. If compliance is
determined by averaging the results for
various sampling points, only the average
should be reported in the table. Several
members of the NDWAC working group and
members of the expert panel urged, instead,
that ranges of results or highest values should
be reported. Thus, when compliance is based
on an average, in addition to reporting the
average, the system would also report the
highest value detected. The advocates of this
approach noted that for some contaminants,
such as TTHMs, parts of the distribution
system may be exposed to concentrations
above the average. The Agency concluded.
however, that presentation of ranges and
highest values could be confusing. Instead
the Agency is proposing that for these
contaminants, the reports clearly indicate
that the results are based on an average and
explain what an average means. Further,
based on the NDWAC recommendations, the
Agency Is proposing an exception to this
single number reporting. For MCLs such as
TTHMs for which reporting is based on a
system-wide average, and for which
substantial variation of contaminant levels
may occur within the distribution system, the
reports should disclose instances where a
significant portion (10%) of the population is
consistently exposed to a level higher than
the MCL. In such instances the reports would
have to identify the portions of the service
areas where consumers are exposed to these
higher levels and specify what these levels
are. The Agency would like specific
comments on this issue. The Agency notes
that these circumstances should not arise if
the sampling points for TTHMs have been
chosen in accordance with the regulations
and is requesting commenters to submit
specific data if they have information to the
contrary. The Agency also notes that, at this
time, this requirement would have no impact
on systems serving fewer than 10.000 persons
since they are exempt from the TTHM
requirements. The Agency is also requesting
comment on whether it is necessary for the
reports to note contaminant levels that are
averages and explain what that means for
chronic contaminants where the MCL is
based on cumulative exposure over many
years.
EPA notes that while in the case of some
regulated contaminants, water systems would
report averages rather than the single highest
level, in the case of detected unregulated
contaminants, it expects water systems to
report the highest detected level. Some
concern was raised that this single highest
level might not be representative of the water
quality, and that consumers might be better
served by putting in place instead a
performance standard for the unregulated
contaminants similar to that for the regulated
contaminants, requiring systems to provide
customers with an accurate picture of the
level of contaminants they may have been
exposed to during the year. The Agency is
requesting comment on this issue.
The proposed rule would require
community water systems to include in the
table the likely source of any detected
regulated contaminant. In general EPA is
expecting systems to describe these sources
in generic terms such as "agricultural
runoff', "petrochemical plants". In some
cases, however the system may have
information obtained though a source water
assessment which would allow the report to
be more specific. When the source is not
definitely known the'system should include
in the table the generic description of major
sources derived from Appendix A. The
inclusion of this requirement was the subject
of lengthy discussion among stakeholders.
While some believe that it is important for
the public to understand that contaminants
in the finished water are often the result of
activities which are not under the control of
the water systems, others were concerned
that requiring operators, particularly of small
systems, to seek specific information would
be too burdensome. The Agency believes that
providing generic descriptions for use in
cases where a specific source is not definitely
known appropriately balances those
concerns. The Agency is requesting
comments on this requirement and
particularly on the usefulness of the generic
list and on its wording.
The proposed rule requires a community
water source that distributes water to its
customers from several raw sources which
are not blended, to include a separate column
in its table of results for each service area.
The report should also identify the service
area for each entry point into the distribution
system.
Today's rule requires community water
systems to include specific information in
their consumer confidence reports for every
regulated contaminant detected in violation
of an MCL. This information, which must
include a clear and readily understandable
explanation of the violation, the potential
health effects, and the actions taken by the
system to address the violation, need not be
included in the table of results (though it
may be). Instead, the system may provide the
required information in a separate section on
violations and what they mean, although that
section should be clearly labeled as
addressing violations and situated close to
the table of results. The description of
potential adverse health effects included in
this section would use the relevant language
of Appendix B. A discussion of the linkages
between this proposed requirement and the
requirements for public notification is
included in Section VI of this preamble.
c. Additionally today's rule would
require water systems to provide
information on detection of
Cryptosporidium, radon and other
currently unregulated contaminants.
Information on Cryptosporidium would be
included whether it is detected in
compliance with the ICR regulations or
through voluntary monitoring performed by
a system. Specifically, the reports must
include a summary of the monitoring results.
information on how the monitoring was
performed, and an explanation of the
significance of the results. When EPA
promulgated the ICR, it explained that its
intent in collecting these data was to gain
information that it could use in aggregate to
determine national occurrence of
Cryptosporidium and evaluate the treatment
cost implications of new regulations. The
Agency emphasized that these data should
not be used to make judgements about the
compliance of any specific water system with
drinking water standards. The Agency is not
changing this policy and remains aware that
Cryptosporidium presents difficult
measurement challenges. EPA was clear in its
preamble for the ICR (61 FR 24363, May 14,
1996) that laboratory approval criteria for the
ICR were designed to conduct national
regulatory impact analysis and that better
method performance would be needed for
individual systems to comply with future
rules. Therefore, while EPA believes that it
is appropriate for the systems to disclose
these results to their customers it is not
dictating how. The proposed rule requires
water systems that detect Cryptosporidium to
summarize the results of monitoring but is
not requiring that these data be included in
the table to give systems more flexibility
regarding how they display the information
and how they explain the significance of the
results to consumers. The rule also would
require systems to explain how the
monitoring was performed. This provision is
not meant to require systems to give detailed
explanations about laboratory methods or
sampling protocols; rather, EPA expects the
systems to provide some indication whether
raw water or finished water was sampled and
the extent of sampling. EPA requests
comments about the inclusion of these data
in the consumer confidence reports and the
appropriate format for doing so.
When a system detects radon, the Agency
is proposing that the reports must include the
results of the monitoring, information on
how the monitoring was performed, and an
explanation of the significance of the results.
EPA will provide examples in guidance of
what such an explanation might be. As with
Cryptosporidium, EPA does not expect
detailed explanations of the sampling or
laboratory methods.
When a system detects any other
unregulated contaminant, the proposed rule
would strongly encourage systems to
determine if there is a health advisory or a
proposed NPDWR for that contaminant in
order to determine whether there may be a
health concern which warrants inclusion of
the data in the consumer confidence reports.
Note that for Cryptosporidium. radon, and
any other contaminants for which monitoring
is not required, the proposed rule allows
systems the flexibility to present results
either in the table or in another section of the
report.
4. Compliance With National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations
Under section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv) of
SDWA as amended, consumer
confidence reports must contain
information on compliance with
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7613
national primary drinking water
regulations, as required by the
Administrator. The statute speaks in
terms of "compliance," which might be
interpreted to require only certification
of compliance/noncompliance with the
NPDWR. However, the Agency believes
it is appropriate to require reporting of
any violation of the standards in the
regulations, with the exception of
violations of MCLs, which are addressed
elsewhere in the consumer confidence
reports. The Agency requests comments
on the need to include all NPDWR
violations as listed in the 144.153(e). An
alternative would be to select only these
violations which could clearly result in
a health risk. If this alternative is
recommended by commenters, they
should include a discussion of how EPA
could differentiate such violations, and
specific suggestions for types of
violations (e.g., record-keeping) that
wouldn't need to be reported.
The proposed rule further specifies
that the report must contain a clear and
readily understandable explanation of
the violation and its health significance.
EPA recognizes that for violations other
than MCLs and treatment techniques,
explanations of health significance will
need to be fairly general (e.g., for
violation of a monitoring requirement,
the explanation might be "Failure to
perform required monitoring may cause
contaminants with potentially adverse
health effects to go undetected").
Finally, the report must describe the
steps the system has taken to correct the
violation. A full discussion of the
linkage between this proposed
requirement and the public notification
requirements is included in Section VI
of this preamble.
5. Variances and Exemptions
Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv) also
mandates that consumer confidence
reports must include "notice if the
system is operating under a variance or
exemption and the basis on which the
variance or exemption was granted." In
order to ensure that the public has an
opportunity to fully understand the
basis for the variance or exemption and
to participate in consideration of it, the
proposed rule adds a requirement that
two additional items of information be
included in the report. First, the report
must provide the dates when the
variance or exemption was issued and
when it is due for renewal. Second, the
report must provide a status report on
the steps the system is taking to install
treatment, find alternative sources of
water, or otherwise comply with the
terms and schedules for the^ variance or
exemption. While the Agency is
mindful of the importance of keeping
the consumer confidence.reports brief
and relatively simple, it also believes
that in the case of a variance or
exemption, the public is best served by
a complete explanation of the situation.
The Agency requests comment on an
alternate requirement which would call
for a "brief status report on compliance
with the terms of the variance or
exemption."
6. Additional Information
Section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires EPA's
consumer confidence report regulations
to include a' 'brief and plainly worded
explanation regarding contaminants that
may reasonably be expected to be
present in drinking water, including
bottled water." Although the statute
does not specify explicitly that reports
delivered to customers of community
water systems include this explanation,
the Agency concluded that otherwise
there would have been no function
served when Congress required it to be
included in the regulation. Further,
section 1414(c)(4)(B) gives the
Administrator the authority to require
that additional information be included
in the reports. The Agency is proposing
therefore that such an explanation must
be included in the reports.
Today's proposed rule includes three
paragraphs in response to this
requirement. The first explains that
surface water and ground water provide
the source water for both tap water and
bottled water, and that both surface and
ground water dissolve naturally-
occurring minerals and radioactive
material and can pick up substances
resulting from the presence of animals
or from human activity. The second
paragraph provides a short description
of the types of contaminants that may be
present in source water. The third
paragraph explains that EPA and the
Food and Drug Administration prescribe
regulations that limit the amount of
certain contaminants in water provided
by community water systems and in
bottled water, respectively. As required
by section 1414(c)(4)(B)(ii), it further
explains that the presence of
contaminants does not necessarily
indicate that the water poses a health
risk, and indicates that the EPA Safe
Drinking Water Hotline can provide
additional information about
contaminants and health effects.
The NDWAC Working Group and the
expert panel both debated the material
at length. Some members were
concerned that the language shifted the
focus of the report from finished water
to source water. In addition, members
noted that the reports should not
suggest that water can ever be
completely free of contaminants,
because naturally occurring
contaminants are always going to be
present in some concentration. Some
commenters on the language suggested
that the description of potential
contaminants could unnecessarily alarm
customers whose water did not contain
all of the described categories of
contaminants. The NDWAC's
recommendation was that this section of
the report should be entirely optional.
EPA believes that the statute requires
that the report include an explanation
for the presence of contaminants and
has included this requirement in
§ 1 4 1 . 1 53 (g) (1) . The Agency agrees with
stakeholders that the systems should be
given flexibility in the wording of die
explanation. Therefore, EPA's proposal
includes optional language in proposed
§ 141.153(g)(l)(i),(ii) and (iii) which
systems may use to fulfill the
requirement. Alternatively,
subparagraph (iv) provides minimal
language that a system may use to fulfill
the requirement. Systems may also
develop their own language. EPA is
proposing to require that the language of
subparagraph(v) be included in all
reports since this language is mandated
by the statute in section
D. Required Health Information and
Rationale
All consumer confidence reports are
required fay today's proposed regulation
to include a statement that some people
may be more vulnerable to
contaminants in drinking water than the
general population. The statement goes
on to identify several categories of
persons who may be particularly at risk
from infections, and encourages them to
seek advice from their health providers.
It further informs people that EPA/CDC
Guidelines on appropriate means to
lessen the risk of infection from
Cryptosporidium may be obtained from
the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline
and provides the number, as required by
the 1996 Amendments. EPA is
requesting comments on the clarity and
usefulness of this statement, particularly
whether it is clear that only certain
populations are particularly at-risk from
infectious contaminants and whether
the statement is appropriate for
inclusion in all reports.
In addition to the healtii effects
information that must be included in
the report where there is a violation of
an MCL discussed above, the rule also
specifies language that must be included
in the reports if the system has
identified a violation of a treatment
technique. This required health
information for violation of the surface
water treatment rule describes the
-------
7614
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday. February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
organisms that may be present in
unfiltered or inadequately treated
surface water, and presents information
about the health effects that may result
from consumption of such water. This
section also addresses acrylamide and
epichlorohydrin, which are impurities
in chemicals used in drinking water
treatment, and which are limited under
treatment techniques specified by EPA.
Required health effects language also
must be provided in consumer
confidence reports about these
contaminants, if their specified
treatment techniques are violated.
E. Report Delivery
The rule being proposed today tracks
section 1414(c) of SDWA with respect to
how the reports should be delivered to
drinking water system customers. It
requires one copy of the report to be
mailed to each customer, unless the
Governor of a State has waived the
mailing requirement and the system
serves fewer than 10,000 persons.
Systems for whom the mailing
requirements have been waived are
required to publish the report in one or
more local newspapers serving the area
in which the system is located; inform
their customers, either in the -
newspapers in which the reports are
published or by other means approved
by the state, that the report wiU not be
mailed; and make the reports available
to the public upon request. A further
exception is carved out in die Statute for
systems serving 500 or fewer persons for
which the Governor has waived the
mailing requirements. These systems
may forego publication of the report in
a local newspaper if tiiey provide notice
by mail, door-to-door delivery, or
posting in an appropriate location that
the report is available upon request.
The Agency has clarified the report
delivery requirements with respect to
community water systems that are in
Indian Country. Under the proposed
rule. Tribal Leaders can exercise the
same authority as State Governors to
waive the mailing requirement for
systems serving fewer than 10,000
persons, if EPA finds that the tribe is
eligible to be treated in the same manner
as a state under section 1451 of SDWA
for purposes of the authority to waive
the mailing requirements for such
systems contained in section 1414(c).
Under section 1451 (codified at 42
U.S.C. 300J-11) the Administrator of
EPA is authorized to treat Indian Tribes
in the same manner as States. Under
today's rule, a tribe may seek eligibility
to be treated in the same manner as a
state for purposes of waiving the
mailing requirement either by applying
as part of the Tribe's application for
primacy over the Public Water System
Program or by applying separately for
waiver authority. EPA is not requiring
tribes to have primacy over other
aspects of the Public water system
Program to receive waiver authority.
Under either option, a tribe must
demonstrate, using the procedures
outlined in 40 CFR section 142.76, that
it meets the treatment in the same
manner as a state eligibility
requirements contained in SDWA
section 1451 and 40 CFR section 142.72:
(1) federal recognition; (2) a governing
body exercising substantial
governmental duties and powers; (3)
jurisdiction; and (4) capability.
Consistent with the Agency's 1994
"Simplification Rule" which simplified
the tribal eligibility process, a tribe that
has been treated in the same manner as
a state for purposes of another EPA
program will not need to reestablish the
first two criteria when applying to
waiver authority. Rather, such a tribe
will only need to demonstrate that it
meets the jurisdictional and capability
requirements. For detailed guidance on
demonstrating the eligibility
requirements, see 53 FR 37396, 37398-
402 and 59 FR 64339-341. EPA
proposes to amend CFR sections 142.72
and 142.78 to include the authority to
waive the mailing requirement as a
provision for which EPA is authorized
to treat tribes in the same manner as
states. EPA anticipates that a number of
community water systems in Indian
Country may be subject to this
provision, and it is important for EPA to
provide a mechanism by which the
mailing requirement may be waived.
In areas of Indian country where EPA
has not found a tribe eligible to waive
the mailing requirement and no state
has been explicidy approved to
implement the PWS program, EPA may
waive the mailing requirement of 40
CFR § 144.155(a). EPA does not believe
it is appropriate to require Indian tribes
to seek the authority to waive the
mailing requirement because the SDWA
does not require tribes to seek such
authority and, while EPA has
streamlined the process, seeking
approval to be treated in the same
manner as a state may still be a
significant effort that Tribes may not
wish to undertake solely to obtain the
authority to waive the mailing
requirement for consumer confidence
reports. Yet, as noted above, EPA
believes that small community water
systems in Indian Country are just as
likely, if not more likely to need the
relief from the mailing requirement.
EPA is authorized under SDWA § 1451,
where it is inappropriate or
administratively infeasible to treat tribes
as identical to states for a particular
provision, to administer such provision
in a manner that will achieve the
purposes of the provision. EPA intends
to exercise that authority to waive the
mailing requirement for small systems
in Indian Country in consultation with
the Tribe to achieve the purposes of
Section 1414(c) where the relevant tribe
has not been approved to be treated in
the same manner as a state and no state
has been explicitly approved by EPA to
implement the Public Water System
program. EPA solicits comment on this
issue.
EPA considers "Indian country" or
"Indian lands" to be: (a) all land within
the limits of any Indian reservation
under the jurisdiction of the United
States government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and including
rights-of-way running through the
reservation, (b) all dependent Indian
communities within the borders of the
United States whether within the
original or subsequendy acquired
territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a State, and (c) all
Indian allotments, the Indian titles to
which have not been extinguished,
including rights-of-way running through
the same. See 40 CFR § 144.3; see also
18 U.S.C. § 1151. EPA has used the term
"Indian lands" in the past under SDWA,
but has defined it as "Indian country"
as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1151. See
40 CFR § 144.3. To avoid confusion,
EPA will use die term "Indian country"
in today's proposed rule.
In the course of its public meetings
concerning die form and contents of the
consumer confidence report
requirements, EPA was urged by some
members of the public to require the
reports to be distributed to all
consumers of water supplied by a
particular community water system,
rather than only to customers of the
system which is the usage in section
1414(c). Advocates of the consumer-
related approach argued that, for
example, residents of apartment houses,
condominiums, or other similar living
accommodations might not be indicated
in community water system billing
records as customers, and thus would
not receive personal copies of the
reports. Ratiier than relying on.their
own customer lists, community water
systems could obtain lists of postal
patrons, utilize so-called criss-cross
directories, use voter lists, or in some
other way obtain lists of likely
consumers of their supplied water.
While the Agency recognizes dial
sending consumer confidence reports to
water system customers may not reach
every perso'n who may have consumed
water from the system, it believes that
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7615
alternative approaches may be more
efficient than mandated mailings to all
consumers. Therefore, today's rule calls
for systems to make a "good faith" effort
to reach consumers who do not receive
water bills, using means recommended
by the Director of the State Drinking
Water Program. Such means may
include posting the report on the
Internet, publishing it in subdivision
newsletters, or asking landlords or
apartment managers to post the report in
a conspicuous place in their building.
The Agency specifically requests
comments on this issue.
Under § 141.155(b) of the rule, a
community water system must send one
copy of its report to the Director of the
State Drinking Water Program, in States
with primary enforcement authority.
This provision will help to ensure that
reports are prepared and distributed
annually, since the report submitted to
the State Director must be accompanied
by a written certification that the report
has been distributed to the system's
customers and that the information
contained in the report is correct and
consistent with the compliance
monitoring data previously submitted to
the State. States will have the
opportunity to set up State
clearinghouses of consumer confidence
reports, either as a State function or
through a designated third party, so that
interested persons could obtain copies
of consumer confidence reports from
those clearinghouses. At a minimum,
states that do not set up a clearinghouse
must maintain a list of the phone
numbers of community water systems
operators to assist interested persons in
obtaining reports.
Section 141.155(c) of the rule requires
community water systems to mail a
copy of their consumer confidence
report to any other agency in the State
with jurisdiction over community water
systems. This could include public
utilities commissions, if they have
jurisdiction over rate making; public
health agencies, which may either have
primary jurisdiction over water systems
or share that jurisdiction with other
agencies; State environmental agencies;
and State agricultural or natural
resource agencies, if they have
jurisdiction over water rights, wells, or
other aspects of the system's source
water. This section also authorizes the
State Director to designate any other
agencies or clearinghouses to which he
can direct copies of the report to be sent.
Section 141.155(e) specifies that all
systems, regardless of size, are required
to make their consumer confidence
report available to the public upon
request. The rule does not specify the
means that systems must use, leaving
them free to mail copies of reports, send
them by telefax, or place copies on an
Internet site. However, EPA believes
that the means chosen must be practical
from die standpoint of all potential
persons requesting copies of the report.
Thus, placing a copy of the report on the
Internet but refusing to mail a copy to
a person without Internet access would
be contrary to the intent of this
provision of the rule. The Agency is also
interested in getting comments from
States on their ability or interest in
placing reports on the Internet to
simplify access to the reports for the
general public.
Today's rule does not require that the
report be delivered in languages other
than English. However, § 141.153,
discussed above, does require systems
in communities with a large proportion
of non-English speaking residents to
include information in the appropriate
language in their reports regarding the
importance of the report or to offer
additional information in that language.
EPA has been encouraged to require
posting of the consumer confidence
reports on the Internet. However, the
Agency is uncertain whether all
community water systems possess the
necessary means to set up and maintain
an Internet site or, in some case, even
to access the Internet; and whether
community water system customers
would find such posting to be useful.
Therefore, the Agency is requesting
comments on this subject, as described
below.
F. Special State Implementation and
Primacy Requirements, and Rationale
As discussed in Section III.B., EPA is
proposing that existing systems must ;
deliver an initial report to customers
within 14 months of the publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register.
New systems must deliver an initial
report within 18 months after beginning
water delivery service. See proposed
section 141.152. Since EPA considers
implementation of this rule to be a
requirement for a State to obtain or
maintain primary enforcement
responsibility under SDWA Section
1413, each State with primacy must
adopt the requirements of this Subpart
(40 CFR 141 Subpart O) no later than
two years after the final rule is
published in the Federal Register. See
proposed section 142.16(f). As a result,
within several years, all primacy States
should have primary responsibility for
implementation of this rule. During any
time period that this rule is effective but
that a State does not have either interim
or final primary enforcement
responsibility for this rule, EPA will
implement this rule directly in that
State.
EPA is proposing that primacy States
may adopt alternative requirements
concerning die form and content of
these reports through notice and
comment rulemaking. EPA is proposing
that the alternative requirements
provide the same type and amount of
information as required by the Federal
regulations. Under the SDWA, a State in
order to maintain primacy must adopt
requirements which are no less stringent
than die Federal regulations. In die case
of consumer confidence reports, EPA is
proposing to interpret stringency as type
and amount of information. State
members of the Working Group were
concerned that this interpretation would
limit the authority given to the states by
Congress to develop alternative
.requirements with respect to form and
content of the reports. EPA notes diat
this proposal contains few requirements
not specifically mandated by the
Statute. However, the Statute provides
that the content of die report as
prescribed by EPA's regulations need
not be limited to the statutory elements.
EPA has exercised this discretion in a
few instances. For example, the rule
would require information oh the source
of detected contaminant, and a warning
on infectious agents. The Agency's
interpretation of stringency would
require state regulations to include the
provisions for information on
contaminant sources and die health
warning to susceptible populations.
EPA is requesting comments on whether
any information beyond that specifically
required by the Statute should be
mandatory for inclusion in state
regulations. Under the proposed rule,
States already would have flexibility in
specifying how the required information
is presented. For example, definitions of
terms, choice of units for the MCLs, or
health effect language could be altered
by the states. These changes would have
to be approved by EPA in the context of
primacy revisions.
The proposed rule contains a
requirement that each State widi
primary enforcement authority make
consumer confidence reports submitted
to it available to the public upon request
or maintain a list of telephone numbers
for operators of community water
systems that could be used by the public
to request copies of reports direcfly from
the water systems. Representatives from
States expressed concern over the lack
of resources in some states to serve as
a central distribution point for the
reports, and asserted that neither
requirement was necessary, since States
already maintain telephone numbers for
the systems in the State, and State
-------
7616
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
Freedom of Information procedures are
available if necessary to obtain access to
documents held by the State. The
Agency is requesting comments on
whether either requirement should be
incorporated into the regulation.
G. Health Effect Language and Rationale
The SDWA Amendments require EPA
to develop and include in the consumer
confidence report regulations "brief
statements in plain language regarding
the health concerns that resulted in
regulation of each regulated
contaminant" These statements are
provided for use by community water
systems in their reports as language that
EPA believes accurately describes diose
health concerns that customers of the
water system might appropriately have
if they consume water containing
contaminants at concentrations above
the MCL.
The Agency has placed the brief
statements on health concerns in an
appendix to the regulations, because
most community systems are in
compliance with the regulations and
will not need to refer to this language.
However, the Agency considers the
language of the statements to be
mandatory for use in the consumer
confidence reports, unless individual
states choose to alter the language for
their own regulations.
EPA examined a number of sources
that could be used as the basis for the
brief statements on health concerns, and
held extensive discussions with the
NDWAC working group and with its
expert panel on the topic. The two
groups looked primarily at the language
developed by EPA for public
notification purposes, (§ 141.32) which
emphasizes how the MCLs were
developed, and EPA's contaminant-
specific fact sheets, which EPA
distributes through the SDWA Hotline.
The fact sheets convey more
information on expected health effects
on humans. In general, the language in
Appendix B being proposed today is a
distillation of information contained in
EPA fact sheets which are included in
the docket for this rulemaking.
The expert panel urged EPA to avoid
scientific jargon in preparing the brief
statements. The panel also stressed the
importance of communicating
effectively that MCLs are set using a
conservative approach. Some members
of the expert panel also stated that
exceedence of an MCL does not
necessarily lead to health effects. EPA
believes that the proposed language
conveys appropriate risk information by
indicating that chronic adverse health
effects "could" result from exposures
"in excess" or "well in excess" of the
MCL "over many years." In cases where
human or animal exposure to high doses
have indicated that a contaminant is a
possible carcinogen, the language
indicates that people who drink water
containing the contaminant at levels
above the MCL over many years "may
have an increased risk of getting
cancer." EPA believes that the proposed
health effects language accurately
conveys what is known about the risk
from these contaminants, but is
sensitive to the concern that some water
system customers may interpret the
language as indicating a significantly
higher level of incremental risk than
would actually result from exposures at
the levels that are likely to occur. EPA
is thus seeking comment on whether
there are other ways to communicate to
water system customers the degree of
health risk they may face as a result of
MCL violations.
The expert panel further
recommended that the statements
indicate whether human or animal
studies formed the basis for identifying
adverse health effects. However, EPA is
not sure whether this information is
useful to most customers in evaluating
the health significance of MCL
violations, and is mindful of the need to
keep the language brief and easy to
understand. Thus, the proposed
language does not indicate whether the
potential health effects were identified
through human or animal studies. EPA
is requesting comment on this issue.
More generally. EPA is requesting
comments on whether the proposed
language accurately summarizes the
health concerns associated with each
contaminant, whether the proposed
language accurately reflects the risk
assessments and health analyses
underlying the regulations of each
contaminant and whether the language
adequately informs consumers of
relevant health effects. EPA requests
commenters to provide alternative
health effects language and the rationale
for such alternative language. The
Agency itself will continue to explore
the adequacy of the proposed health
effects language for accurately and
appropriately communicating
information about risk. EPA also
requests comments on the fact sheets
and their accuracy in summarizing the
health effects of regulated contaminants
and whether, as an alternative to the
language of Appendix B, systems should
be allowed to simply enclose an
approved EPA fact sheet to provide
health effects information.
EPA is particularly interested in the
language proposed for contaminants
which present a special risk to pregnant
women or children. Several
stakeholders have advocated requiring
all consumer confidence reports to
include language alerting consumers to
the dangers posed to pregnant women
and children by certain contaminants.
For example, nitrate, lead, and certain
non-specified pesticides have been
identified as possibilities for general
information on risk. The Agency
believes that inclusion of such a
warning in all reports may not be
warranted but plans to reconsider this
issue for the final rule and is requesting
comments on appropriate courses of
action. The Agency notes that the MCL
for nitrates and the action level for lead
have been established at levels
protective of these at-risk populations.
The health effects language included in
Appendix B reflects the special risk that
these contaminants may cause. Most
importantly, EPA's public notification
regulations require immediate
notification and explanation of health
effects for violations of these standards,
including impacts on pregnant women
and children. EPA does not believe that
the consumer confidence reports are
adequate for addressing these risks
because they will not generally be
received soon enough. Nevertheless,
violations of these standards will also be
included in the reports. EPA is
specifically requesting comments on the
language in Appendix B. With regard to
pesticides and other contaminants EPA
is interested in information and data
that commenters may have on the need
for a special warning for pregnant
women and children. EPA requests that
commenters submit such information
and data to the agency. EPA is also
requesting comments on health effect
language to be included in the consumer
confidence reports for 3 regulated
contaminants detected below the MCL
(see Section IV. 1 of this preamble).
Commenters are also invited to consider
this issue within the context of their
response to the comments requested in
Section IV. 1.
Issues regarding the linkage between
the language of Appendix B and the
public notification requirements are
discussed in Section VI of this
preamble.
IV. Additional Requests for Public
Comments
Throughout the preceding exposition,
EPA has requested comment on various
issues. Following are two more issues
which did not fit cleanly into the
discussion above and on which EPA
would appreciate specific suggestions
and comments.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7617
1. Health Information on Additional
Contaminants
The 1996 Amendments authorize the
Administrator to require language
describing health concerns to be
included in reports for "not more than
3 regulated contaminants" other than
those detected at levels above the MCL.
This provision was discussed at length
during the working group meetings.
Some members of the NDWAC working
group strongly encouraged the Agency
to require health effect information for
total trihalomethanes (TTHMs), nitrate,
and arsenic, even if they were not
detected at levels above their respective
MCLs, because of their question
concerning the protectiveness of the
MCLs. Other commenters argued that
providing health effects descriptions for
chemicals detected at concentrations
below their MCLs would be confusing to
report recipients. The NDWAC
recommended that the Administrator
not avail herself Of this authority at this
time.
The Agency believes that it is
important to use the authority provided
by the statute in a judicious manner.
Therefore it is requesting comments on
the following alternatives, any of which
may be included in the final rule.
One option would be to require health
effects language whenever a regulated
contaminant, for which EPA has
proposed to lower the MCL or
promulgated a revised MCL for which
the effective date has not yet occurred,
is detected at a level above the lower
level. The immediate impact of this
option would be that systems which
detect TTHMs above the proposed
revised MCL of 80 mg/1 would have to
include the language of Appendix B
describing the health effects of TTHMs
in their reports. The Agency would then
consider, as it proposes additional
revised MCLS, whether health effect
language for these contaminants should
be included in the consumer confidence
reports. These possible inclusions
would be discussed in the preamble to
these future rulemakings and, where
appropriate, a direct final rule could be
issued to require their inclusion in the
reports prior to the promulgation of the
new standard. A likely candidate for
future requirements under this scheme
would be arsenic.
Another option would be to select 3
carcinogens for which the MCL allows
a risk level in the range of 10~4 to 10~5.
Candidates on this list include:
Contaminant *
Chlordane
1 ,2-DichIoropropane
Ethylene dibromide
PCBs
Dichloromethane
Dioxin
Hexachlorobenzene
PAHs
-Risk level
7x1 0^-5
1x10-5
1.25x10~4
1x10~4
1x10-5
1 3x10-4
5x1 0-5
1x10-5
Contaminant
Carbon tetrachloride .
1,2-DichIoroethane ...
Vinyl chloride
Risk level
2x10-5
1x10-5
1x10-4
The Agency is reguesting comments
on which of these contaminants would
be the most significant from a health
standpoint if detected in the finished
water. The Agency could rank these
contaminants and systems would have
to report their top three detects or select
3 contaminants outright. The Agency is
also requesting comments on whether it
should select a threshold for these
contaminants such as detection of 50%
or greater of the MCL below which no
health effect language would be
necessary.
2. Linkage With the Public Notification
Requirements
EPA is currendy revising its
requirements for public notification. A
water supplier triggers these
requirements when it fails to comply
with a MCL, treatment technique, or
other NPDWR (i.e., monitoring and
treatment procedures), or is subject to a
variance or exemption under section
1415. Current regulations [40 CFR
141.32] require public notification:
—by electronic media within 72 hours
if the violation represents an acute
health risk;
—by newspaper within two weeks and
by mail widiin 45 days if the water
system violates a MCL or treatment
technique; and
—by mail and newspaper within 90
days if the water system violates a
monitoring or testing standard.
Under the 1996 SDWA Amendments,
EPA must revise these standards so that
consumers receive quicker notification
in the event of a possible acute health
risk, and so that water suppliers have
more time (up to one year) to notify
customers of violations with less
immediate effects. The statutory
requirements for these revisions would
allow water systems to incorporate tiieir
reporting on less serious violations: (I)
in the first bill (if any) prepared after the
date of the occurrence of the violation,
(n) in an annual report issued not later
than 1 year after the date of the
occurrence of the violation, or 011) by
mail or direct delivery as soon as
practicable, but not later than 1 year
after the occurrence of the violation
[section 1414(c)(2)(D)(i)].
The option exists for a linkage
between the rule proposed today and
those that EPA will revise for public
notification. EPA recognizes that the
inclusion of some public notice
elements in annual consumer
confidence reports could mean a
Significant savings of time and resources
for some water systems, and is mindful
of its responsibility under the
Paperwork Reduction Act to avoid
unnecessarily duplicative reporting
requirements. On the other hand, EPA
does not want to minimize the
seriousness of any violation, and
believes that it is essential that
consumers know if and when their
water supplier has failed to comply with
drinking water regulations.
In trying to balance the issues noted
above, EPA requests public comment on
die following issues.
Regarding violations of MCLs, action
levels, and treatment techniques, the
Agency realizes that today's rule would
duplicate the current public notification
requirements by requiring inclusion of
essentially the same information as is
currently required in § 141.32(d) with
die exception of the health effect
language. The proposed rule would
require a clear and readily
understandable explanation of the
violation, any potential adverse health
effects, and the steps the system has
taken to correct the violation. This
could be helpful to consumers who
might have overlooked or forgotten
about the regular public notification.
One issue on which EPA is specifically
requesting comment is whether this
health effect language would be
appropriate for public notification
requirements, since having a single set
of health effects explanations would
facilitate integration of the two rules.
The Agency notes diat when members
of the working group discussed the
health effect language they did not
discuss it in that context. Under the
current regulations any of these
violations would have already been
reported to the public and the consumer
confidence reports were envisioned as a
reminder of what customers had already
been told. Further the working group
was mindful of the limited amount of
information which could be included in
consumer confidence reports on any
specific issue. However, EPA has started
the process of revising the public
notification requirements pursuant to
die 1996 Amendments to the SDWA and
this issue has been raised. Therefore,
EPA requests comments on die
following options:
As this rule is promulgated the
Agency would replace the health effect
language in § 141.32 with die language
-------
7618
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
proposed in Appendix B of today's
proposal so that the same language
would be included in consumer
confidence reports and public
notifications.
The Agency would not modify the
public notification language until it
promulgated revised regulations for
public notification but the language
proposed today would form the core of
the public notification language and be
expanded as seen fit for die purpose of
public notification.
Today's proposal is similarly
redundant with the current public
notification requirements for violations
of other NPDWRs (such as monitoring
and reporting). A less redundant
alternative would allow water systems
to simply note a violation of an NPDWR
and to attach to their consumer
confidence report a copy of the notice
issued at the time of the violation.
Finally, since SDWA allows public
notice for less serious violations within
one year, there might be some violations
which systems would need to report
exclusively in the consumer confidence
report These could even include MCL
violations for some contaminants with
strictly chronic healtfi effects. This
would allow community water systems
to put out fewer mailings. Besides
saving resources, a reduced number of
mailings might encourage consumers to
read those notices that they do receive.
This option however would only be
available to community water systems.
Non-community water systems who are
not subject to these requirements would
have to issue a public notification for all
violations.
If water suppliers were to report
certain violations only in the consumer
confidence report, EPA would add
language along the following lines to the
proposed regulation:
—[at § 141.153(d)(4)(ii)] If the report is
used to satisfy the requirements of
section 1414(c)(2)(D) of SDWA, the
report must include information on [a
subset to be determined of] violations
which have occurred within the last
12 months.
—[at § 141.155(d)] Except when the
report is used to satisfy the
requirement of section 1414(c)(2)(D)
of SDWA, the Governor of a State or
the Tribal Leader can waive the
mailing requirement of § 144.155(a)
for community water systems serving
fewer than 10,000 persons.
The Agency is requesting comments
on diis option. Particularly the Agency
would welcome input on violations
which systems could appropriately
report exclusively in die consumer
confidence reports. These comments
will be used to inform both this
rulemaking and the public notification
revisions rulemaking.
V. Cost of Rule
EPA has estimated the costs of
complying with the requirements of the
proposed rule in terms of fixed costs
and variable costs. Fixed costs include
those costs that a community water
system must incur to comply with die
requirements regardless of how many
copies of the report it must deliver.
These costs include the costs associated
with reviewing die regulations,
collecting data regarding monitoring
results and MCL violations, preparing
die technical content of the consumer
confidence report in a format suitable
for distribution, identifying die
recipients of die reports, and providing
instructions about report production.
Variable costs are costs dial increase or
decrease along with the number of
consumer confidence reports to be
delivered. These costs include costs of
producing the reports (costs of paper,
photocopying or printing, and labels),
and inserting die reports in bills or
odierwise delivering them. Based on its
analysis, the Agency estimates die total
fixed and variable annualized cost of
delivering a report to every customer
served by all community water systems
nationally (except for California, which
already requires notices similar to die
consumer confidence reports required
by die proposed rule) is $20,286,113.
This includes $7,295,575 in fixed costs
and $12,990,538 in variable costs. Table
V. 1 gives a breakdown of costs by
system size and also shows state and
federal costs.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7619
Table V.I
Summary Table
(dollar figures
rounded)
Systems serving
£ 500
Systems serving
501-1,000
Systems serving
1,001-3,300
Systems serving
3301-10,000
Systems serving
10,001-50,000
Systems serving
>50,000
Total System
Cost
Total State or
Direct
Implementation
Primacy Agency
Cost
Total
Number
of
Systems
27,135
6,294
6,689
3,882
2,319
721
47,040
Average
Labor
Hours Per
System
4.9
13,5
13.5
19.5
24.6
24.6
Average
Labor Cost
Per System
$49
$135
; $135
$468
$788
$788
Other Costs .
per System
(e.g.,
postage)
$1
$160
$268
$816
$2,301
$2,301
Total Cost
• for Size
Category
$1,366,247
$1,851,588
$2,692,990
$4,985,822
$7,162,556
$2,226,909
$20,286,113
$2,784,692
$23,070,805
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
-------
7620
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
For more information about the costs
of the rule and how EPA estimated
them, see the Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Analysis and the Supporting
Statement for the EPA Information
Collection Request (ICR #1832.01) that
EPA submitted for OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act. EPA is
requesting comment on its cost
estimates and methodology.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735. October 4.1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the '
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, die
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or die rights and
obligations of the recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule
is a "significant regulatory action"
because it may raise novel legal or
policy issues. The rule represents the
first time that water systems will be
required to submit important
information to customers regarding the
quality of their drinking water on a
routine basis. Therefore, EPA submitted
this action to OMB for review.
Substantive changes made in response
to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented
in the public record.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. General
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA). requires EPA to consider
explicitly the effect of proposed
regulations on small entities. The
Agency assesses the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities and
considers regulatory alternatives if a
rule has a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. Under die RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., an agency must prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)
describing the economic impact of a
rule on small entities as part of
rulemaking. However, under section
605(b) of the RFA, if EPA certifies that
the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, EPA is not
required to prepare an IRFA.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will affect small water
utilities, since it is applicable to all
community water systems, including
small systems. However, EPA has
estimated the impact of the proposed
rule and concluded that the impact of
the rule will not be significant.
Therefore, the Administrator is today
certifying, pursuant to section 605 (b) of
the RFA, dial diis proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The basis for this certification is as
follows: the annualized compliance
costs of the rule represent less than 1%
of sales for small businesses and less
than 1% of revenues for small
governments. No small not-for-profit
enterprises were identified as
community water systems. For this
analysis EPA selected systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons as die criterion
for small water systems and therefore as
the definition of small entity for the
purposes of the RFA. This is die cut-off
level specified by Congress in this
provision for small system flexibility in
delivery of die reports. Because this
does not correspond to die definition
established under die RFA, EPA has
consulted with die Small Business
Administration (SB A) on die use of this
alternative definition (see next section).
Further information supporting diis
certification is available in the public
docket for this rule.
Since the Administrator is certifying
this rule, the Agency did not prepare an
IRFA. Nevertheless, die Agency has
conducted outreach to address die
small-entity impacts that do exist and to
gadier information. The. Agency also has
structured die rule to avoid significant
impacts on a substantial number of
small entities by providing flexibility to
community water systems in the design
of consumer confidence reports; offering
them die choice to use a simplified
format to prepare die reports;
incorporating procedures by which
small systems can make reports
available to dieir customers by mediods
odier than mailing; and by limiting the
absolute requirement for distribution of
reports to water system customers rather
than consumers. Further the Agency
notes that in general die regulations
issued under SDWA place a lesser
burden on small systems, for example,
the TTHM and information collection
rules do not apply to small systems. For
most regulated contaminants, small
systems have to collect fewer samples.
Therefore die small systems operators
will have significandy less information
to report in consumer confidence
reports.
2. Use of Alternative Definition
As explained above, for diis
assessment of impact on small entities,
EPA has defined a small entity as a
public water system (PWS) that serves
10,000 or fewer persons. PWSs affected
by diis proposal would include PWSs
owned and operated by governmental
jurisdictions as well as those that are
privately owned. As indicated above,
there are no PWSs owned by not-for-
profit organizations.
EPA proposes to define "small entity"
for purposes of its regulatory flexibility
assessments under die RFA for all future
drinking water regulations in the same
way. By using this definition for die
regulatory flexibility assessments, EPA
will better reflect die realities of die
drinking water industry. Furthermore,
this definition is consistent widi
specific direction from Congress in
several provisions of die 1996
amendments that provide relief from
regulatory requirements for PWSs
serving 10,000 or fewer people.
As previously described, the RFA
requires an agency, whenever it
publishes a notice of general
rulemaking, to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis that describes die
impact of a rule on small entities unless
die agency certifies that die rule will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. 5
U.S.C. §§603(a), 604(a) and 605(b).
Under the RFA, die term "small entity"
means "small business," "small
governmental jurisdiction" and "small
organization." These terms are further
defined by die Act.
In die case of a "small business," die
term has die same meaning as a "small
business concern" under section 3 of
die Small Business Act. "Small
governmental jurisdiction" means die
government of cities, counties, towns
and villages, among others, widi a
population of less than 50,000. A "small
organization!' is any not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently owned
and operated. 5 U.S.C. §601 (3), (4) &
(5).
The RFA authorizes an agency to
establish an alternative definition for
these terms after an opportunity for
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7621
public comment. Additionally, in the
case of an alternative definition of
"small business," an agency must
consult with the Office of Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration
(SBA) concerning such alternative
definition.
EPA is today asking for public
comment on its intention to define
"small business," "small organization,"
and "small governmental jurisdiction"
for purposes of the regulatory flexibility
assessments for its drinking water
regulations as a PWS serving 10,000 or
fewer people. The Agency has consulted
with the SBA Office of Advocacy. The
Office of Advocacy agreed with the
Agency's choice of systems serving less
than 10,000 persons for an alternative
small business definition for this
rulemaking, and plans to revisit this
issue with EPA in future rulemakings
under SDWA.
The following provides additional
explanation why the Agency proposes
to use a different definition from that
which would generally be applicable
under the RFA.
The alternate definition will focus the
Agency's regulatory flexibility analysis
on those PWS most likely to experience
an economic hardship associated with
complying with new drinking water
regulations to be proposed under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). There
are several compelling factual, statutory
and programmatic reasons to support
the proposed definition.
SBA has by regulation defined small
business concerns. SBA regulations
typically define a small business in
terms of either total revenues or total
employees. Under SBA's definition, a
"small," privately-owned water utility
would be one with revenues of less than
$5,000,000. Using this definition,
"small" privately-owned water systems
would include systems that serve up to
approximately 40,000 people. Ninety-
eight percent of PWSs serve populations'
of 10,000 or fewer. The average annual
revenue for a system in this class size
is less than $600,000.
The Agency has concluded that
defining a "small entity" for RFA
purposes as a PWS that serve 10,000 or
fewer persons is both more reflective of
the small water systems in the water
supply industry and will provide a more
meaningful analysis of those entities
likely to have the most significant
economic impacts as a result of drinking
water regulations. It is the EPA's view
that a population of 40,000 or fewer (or
a private PWS with annual revenue of
$5,000,000 or less) is not an appropriate
criterion under the drinking water
program for differentiating private small
entities from larger ones. Using such a
yardstick would not distinguish PWSs
that have stronger technical expertise
and revenue sources from those that do
not. Using data from EPA's Community
Water Supply Survey, a private
community water system with revenues
of $5 million would correspond to a
system that serves more than 40,000
people. By contrast, community water
systems that serve between 3,300 and
10,000 have a median revenue of
$605,000. As a result, EPA believes it is
reasonable to conclude that in virtually
all circumstances, systems that serve
10,000 or fewer people have annual
revenues well below $5 million. Given
the economies of scale, the per family
cost of system compliance with national
drinking water regulations will be
higher for systems serving populations
of 10,000 or fewer because a smaller
group of people will be paying for an
inelastic set of regulatory requirements.
Thus, the proposed definition will focus
the Agency's resources on the needs and
concerns of the systems that really need
the assistance.
In addition to the fact that the
proposed alternative definition of
"small business" better reflects the
reality of this industry, the definition is
consistent both with Congressional
direction for relief to small systems as
well as EPA's historic regulatory
practice. As part of the 1996 Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments,
Congress expressly addressed the issue
of small system size. Reflecting the same
concerns that underlie the RFA, .
Congress recognized that PWSs below a
certain size may have greater difficulty,
for economic and technical reasons, in
complying with the public health
provisions of the SDWA than larger
systems. Consequently, the 1996
amendments specifically provide that
for systems serving under 10,000, the
Administrator may allow alternative
treatment technologies, modified
monitoring schedules, and variances
from maximum contaminant levels.
Congress also provided that the
Administrator may consider additional
flexibility for systems that serve 3,300
people or fewer. Specifically, the
Administrator may grant extensions of
temporary exemptions from compliance
with specific drinking water standards
so long as the exemption does not result
in an unreasonable risk to health. And,
as discussed previously, the SDWA
provisions on which this proposed rule
are based provide still an additional
level of flexibility in the report
distribution requirements to systems
serving 500 or fewer persons.
EPA has historically recognized that
smaller systems have financial and
technical difficulty in meeting Federal
drinking water standards. As a result of
this concern, the Agency's regulations
have in some cases treated systems
serving 10,000 or fewer customers
differently. For example, in 1979, EPA
issued regulations for one group of
disinfection by-products (total
trihalomethanes or TTHM) that
exempted systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons. In 1994, EPA proposed
the Stage 1 Disinfection/Disinfection
By-Products rule, that provided systems
serving 10,000 or fewer with at least 24
months longer than larger system to
comply with the regulation depending
on the system type. EPA routinely
evaluates the economic impacts of a
proposed drinking water regulation on
public water systems (both publicly and
privately owned) serving 10,000 or
fewer people.-EPA has specifically
focused on this subgroup in the
Disinfection Byproducts Stage 1, the
Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule and the Total Cohform
Rule.
The Agency will be proposing a
number of regulations over the next five
years to meet its new SDWA obligations.
The use of a single definition for
purposes of the regulatory impact
analysis for small business, small
governmental jurisdiction, and small
organization should decrease confusion
for the regulated community and
facilitate communication.
The Agency is interested in receiving
comments on the use of this alternative
definition of small entity.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. An Information Collection
Request (ICR) document has been
prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1832.01) and
a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202) 260-2740. The information
collection requirements are not effective
until OMB approves them.
This information is being collected in
order to fulfill the statutory
requirements of section 114(c)(4) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
of 1996 (Public Law 104-182) enacted
August 6, 1996. Responses are
mandatory.
The burden to the regulated
community is based on the cost of the
rule discussed under section V. The
burden to community water systems is
459,505 hours at an annual cost of
$20,286,113. The estimated number of
-------
7622
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
respondents is 47,040 community water
systems. The frequency of responses is
annual. The average burden per
response is 9.5 hours. For additional
information on burden to water systems
by size category, see Table V.I above.
The annual burden to EPA and state
primacy agencies over three years is
based on 3 elements: preparing reports
for some small community water
systems, receiving and reviewing
reports, and filing reports. EPA
estimates the annual burden incurred by
implementing agencies for activities
associated with the proposed
regulations to be approximately 98,230 ,
hours at an annual cost of $2,784,692.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal Agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing way to comply with any
previous applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15.
Comments are requested on the
Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden,
including through the use of automated
collection techniques. Send comments
on the ICR to the Director. OPPE
Regulatory Information Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2137), 401 M Street SW. Washington,
D.C. 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget. 725
17th Street NW, Washington, D.C.
20503, marked "Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA." Include ICR number 1832.01
in any correspondence.
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
Executive Order 12875, "Enhancing
Intergovernmental Partnerships."
October 26.1993, requires EPA to
consult with State, tribal, and local
entities in the development of rules that
will affect them, and to document for
OMB review the issues raised and how
the issues were addressed. As described
in Section II of the Supplementary
Information above, EPA held extensive
meetings with a wide variety of State,
tribal, and local representatives, who
provided meaningful and timely input
in the development of the proposed
rule. Summaries of the meetings have
been included in the public docket for
this rulemaking.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Tide n of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement including a cost-benefit
analysis, for any proposed and final
rules with "Federal Mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful, timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and
informing, educating and advising small
governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
Because this rule is not estimated to
impose annual costs of $100 million or
more on State, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector,
EPA is not required to prepare an
unfunded mandate statement. This rule
will establish requirements that affect
small community water systems. EPA
does not believe at this time that these
requirements will significantly affect the
systems or the governments that operate
them. However, EPA is requesting
comment on the issue. The Agency has
already consulted with representatives
of small governments that may be
affected by the rule and will continue to
do so prior to promulgation of the final
rule. If EPA determines that the
requirements may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including tribal governments, the
Agency will prepare a small government
agency plan as required.
F. Environmental Justice
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16,1994), The
Agency has considered environmental
justice related issues with regard to the
potential impacts of this action on the
environmental and health conditions in
low-income and minority communities.
The Agency believes that two of today's
proposed requirements will be
particularly beneficial to these
communities. One is that community
water systems must include information
in language other than English if a
significant number of the population
does not speak English. The other is that
systems must make a good faith effort to
reach consumers who are not bill paying
customers.
G. Risk to Children Analysis
Under the Executive Order entitled
"Protection of Children from
Environmental Risks and Safety Risks,"
dated April 21,1997, EPA must ensure
that its policies, programs, activities,
and standards address environmental
and safety risks to children. Every
regulatory action submitted to OMB for
review under Executive Order 12866
must include information that evaluates
the environmental health and safety
effects of the planned regulation on
children and explains why the planned
regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the
Agency.
The proposed regulation on consumer
confidence reports addresses risks to
children from contaminants in drinking
water. The health effects language
provided in Appendix B of the proposed
rule identifies risks to infants and
children from drinking water containing
lead, nitrate, or nitrite in excess of
specified levels. EPA is specifically
requesting comments on this language
and solicits information that could lead
to inclusion of similar language for
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday. February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7623
violations of other contaminants
particularly pesticides.
H. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act, the Agency is required to use
voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory and procurement activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business
practices, etc.) which are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standard bodies. Where available and
potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards are not used by
EPA, the Act requires the Agency to
provide Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, an
explanation of the reasons for not using
such standards. Because this proposal
does not involve or require the use of
any technical standards, EPA does not
believe that this Act is applicable to this
rule. Moreover, EPA is unaware of any
voluntary consensus standards relevant
to this rulemaking. Therefore, even if
the Act were applicable to this kind of
rulemaking, EPA does not believe that
there are any "available or potentially
applicable" voluntary consensus
standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 141 and
142
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Chemicals, Indian-lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
Dated: February 10. 1998.
Carol W. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts
141 and 142 as follows:
PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 141
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2.
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6. 300J-4.
300J-9, and300j-ll.
2. Subpart O is proposed to be added
to read as follows:
Subpart O—Consumer Confidence Reports
Sec. "
141.151 Purpose and applicability of this
subpart.
141.152 Effective dates.
141.153 Content of the reports.
141.154 Required health information.
141.155 Report delivery.
Appendix A to Subpart Oof Part 141—
Regulated Contaminants
Appendix B to Subpart O of Part 141—Health
Effect Language
Subpart O—Consumer Confidence
Reports
§141.151 Purpose and applicability of this
subpart
(a) This sufapart establishes the
minimum requirements for the content
of annual reports that community water
systems must deliver to their customers.
These reports must contain information
on the quality of the water delivered by
the systems and characterize the risks (if
any) from exposure to contaminants in
the drinking water in an accurate and
understandable manner.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of
§ 141.3, this subpart applies only to
community water systems.
(c) For the purpose of this subpart,
customers are defined as billing units or
hook-ups to which water is delivered by
a community water system.
(d) A State that has primary
enforcement responsibility may adopt
by rule, after notice and comment,
alternative requirements for the form
and content of the reports. The
alternative requirements must provide
the same type and amount of
information as required by §§ 141.153
and 141.154.
§141.152 Effective dates.
(a) The Regulations in this Subpart
shall take effect on [date 30 days after
publication of final rule in the Federal
Register].
(D) Existing community water systems
must deliver the first report by [date 14
months after publication of final rule in
the Federal Register] and annually
thereafter.
(c) New community water systems
must deliver their first report within 18
months of the date they begin delivering
water to customers and annually
thereafter.
§141.153 Content of the reports.
(a) Each community water system
must provide to its customers an annual
report that contains the information
specified in this section and § 141.154.
(b) Information on the source of the
water delivered. (1) Each report must
identify the source(s) of the water
delivered by the community water
system by providing information on:
(i) The type of die water: e.g. surface
water, groundwater; and
(ii) The commonly used name (if any)
and location of the body (or bodies) of
water.
(2) If a source water assessment has
been completed, the report must notify
consumers of the availability of this
information and the means to obtain it.
(c) Definitions. (I) Each report must
include the following definitions:
(i) Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
or MCLG: The level of a contaminant in
drinking water below which there is no
known or expected risk to health.
(ii) Maximum Contaminant Level or
MCL: The highest level of a contaminant
that is allowed in drinking water.
(2) A report for a community water
system which has been granted a
variance or an exemption must include
the following definition:
Variances and Exemptions: State
permission not to meet an MCL or a
treatment technique under certain
conditions.
(3) A report which contains data on a
contaminant for which EPA has set a
treatment technique or an action level
must include the following definitions:
(i) Treatment Technique: A required
process intended to reduce the level of
a contaminant in drinking water.
(ii) Action Level The concentration of
a contaminant which triggers treatment
or other requirement which a water
system must follow.
(d) Level of detected contaminants. (I)
Each report must contain relevant
information to provide customers widi
an accurate picture of the level of
contaminants tiiey may have been
exposed to during the year taking into
account such factors as seasonal
variations that produce changes in water
quality.
(2) The first report must identify the
12-month period during which the data
was collected. Each report thereafter
must cover and identify a successive 12-
month period.
(3) Each report must contain a
discrete table depicting the data
specified below. Any additional
monitoring results which a community
water system chooses to include in its
report must be displayed separately.
(i) The data must be derived from data
collected to comply with EPA and State
monitoring and analytical requirements
for:
(A) contaminants subject to an MCL,
action level or treatment technique
(regulated contaminants);
(B) any other contaminant for which
monitoring is required by § 141.40
(unregulated contaminants); and
(C) monitoring for disinfection by-
products or microbiological
-------
7624
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
contaminants as required by §§ 141.140
and 141.142, except as provided under
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(ii) Where a system is allowed to
monitor for certain contaminants less
often than once a year, the report must
include the results and date of the most
recent sampling and a brief explanation
for why the sample was not taken
within the 12-month period covered by
the report.
(iii) For detected regulated
contaminants (listed in Appendix A to
this subpart), the table must contain:
(A) The MCL for that contaminant
expressed in whole numbers (such as
those in Appendix A to this subpart);
(B) The MCLG for that contaminant
expressed in the same units;
(C) If there is no MCL for a detected
contaminant, the table must note
whether there is a treatment technique
or specify the action level applicable to
that contaminant, and the report must
include the definitions for treatment
technique and action level specified in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section;
(D)Tne highest contaminant level
used to determine compliance with an
NPDWR. This may be either an
individual reading or an average,
depending on compliance monitoring
requirements for the contaminant. The
table must clearly identify MCLs for
which compliance is based on an
average and explain what that means.
When an MCL is based on a system-
wide average and more than 10 percent
of the customers are exposed to a level
of contaminant which is consistently
higher than the MCL. the report must
contain information regarding the
magnitude of exposure and the location
of the exposed population.
(E) The likely source(s) for the
contaminant. If the operator is not
certain of the specific source of a
contaminant, the reports must include
the typical sources for that contaminant
listed in Appendix A to this subpart.
(F) If a community water system
distributes water to its customers from
several raw sources and the sources are
not blended, the table should contain a
separate column for each service area
and the report should identify the
service area for each entry point.
(iv) The table must clearly identify
regulated contaminants detected in
violation of a MCL or exceeding an
action level, and the report must contain
a clear and readily understandable
explanation of the violation including:
the length of the violation, the potential
adverse health effects, and actions taken
by the system to address the violation.
To describe the potential health effects
the system must use the relevant
language of Appendix B to this subpart.
(v) For detected unregulated
contaminants for which monitoring is
required, (except Cryptosporidium) the
table must contain the highest level at
which the contaminant was detected.
The reports may include a brief
explanation of the reasons for
monitoring for unregulated
contaminants.
(4) If the system has performed any
monitoring for Cryptosporidium,
including monitoring performed to
satisfy the requirements of § 141.142,
which indicates that Cryptosporidium
may be present in the source water or
the finished water, the report must
include:
(i) A summary of the results of the
monitoring;
(ii) Information on how the
monitoring was performed; and
(iii) An explanation of the
significance of the results.
(5) If the system has performed any
monitoring for radon which indicates
that radon may be present in the
finished water, the report must include:
(i) the results of the monitoring;
(ii) information on how the
monitoring was performed; and
(iii) an explanation of the significance
of the results.
(6) If the system has performed
additional monitoring which indicates
the presence of other contaminants in
the finished water, EPA strongly
encourages systems to report any results
which may indicate a health concern.
To determine if results may indicate a
health concern, EPA recommends that
systems find out if EPA has proposed an
NPDWR or issued a health advisory for
that contaminant by calling the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
EPA considers detects above a proposed
MCL or health advisory level to indicate
possible health concerns. For such
contaminants, EPA recommends that
the report include:
(i) The results of the monitoring; and
(ii) An explanation of the significance
of the results noting the existence of a
health advisory or a proposed
regulation.
(e) Compliance with NPDWR. In
addition to the requirements of
§ 141.153(d)(3)(iv), the report must:...
(1) Note any violation of the following
requirements:
(i) Monitoring and reporting;
(ii) Treatment techniques;
(A) Filtration and disinfection;
(B) Lead and copper control
requirements;
(C) Treatment techniques for
Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin;
(iii) Record keeping;
(iv) Special monitoring requirements;
and
(v) Violation of the terms of a
variance, an exemption, or an
administrative or judicial order; and
(2) Include a clear and readily
understandable explanation of the
violation, any potential adverse health
effects, and the steps the system has
taken to correct the violation. For a
violation of a treatment technique, the
report must include the relevant health
effect language of § 141.154(c).
(i) Variances and exemptions. If a
system has been granted a variance or
an exemption, the report must contain:
(1) An explanation of the reasons for
the variance or exemption;
(2) The date on which the variance or
exemption was issued;
(3) A brief status report on the steps
the system is taking to install treatment,
find alternative sources of water, or
otherwise comply with the terms and
schedules of the variance or exemption;
and
(4) A notice of any opportunity for
public input in the review of the
variance or exemption.
(g) Additional information. (1) The
reports must contain a brief explanation
regarding contaminants which may
reasonably be expected to be found in
drinking water including bottled water.
This explanation may include the
language of paragraphs (g)(l)(i) through
(iii) of this section. Paragraph (g)(l)(iv)
of this section is provided as a minimal
alternative to paragraphs (g)(l)(i)
through (iii) of this section. Systems
may also develop their own comparable
language. The report also must include
the language of paragraph (g)(l)(v) of
this section.
(i) The sources of drinking water (both
tap water and bottled water) include
rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs,
springs, and wells. As water travels over
the surface of the land or through the
ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring
minerals and radioactive material, and
can pick up substances resulting from
the presence of animals or from human
activity.
(ii) Contaminants that may be present
in source water include:
(A) Biological contaminants, such as
viruses and bacteria, which may come
from sewage treatment plants, septic
systems, agricultural livestock
operations, and wildlife.
(B) Inorganic contaminants, such as
salts and metals, which can be
naturally-occurring or result from urban
storm run-off, industrial or domestic
wastewater discharges, oil and gas
production, mining, or fanning.
(C) Pesticides and herbicides, which
may come from a variety of sources such
as agriculture, storm water runoff, and
residential uses.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7625
(D) Organic chemicals, including
synthetic and volatile organics, which
are by-products of industrial processes
and petroleum production, and can also
come from gas stations, urban storm
water run-off and septic systems.
(E) Radioactive materials, which can
be naturally-occurring or be the result of
oil and gas production and mining
activities, (iii) In order to ensure that tap
water is safe to drink, EPA prescribes
regulations which limit the amount of
certain contaminants in water provided
by public water systems. FDA
regulations establish limits for
contaminants in bottled water.
(iv) All drinking water, including
bottled water, may reasonably be
expected to contain at least small
amounts of some contaminants.
(v) The presence of contaminants does
not necessarily indicate that water poses
a health risk. More information about
contaminants and potential health
effects can be obtained by calling the
Environmental Protection Agency's Safe
Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
(2) The report must include the
telephone number of the owner,
operator, or designee of the public water
system as a source of additional
information concerning the report.
(3) In communities with a large
proportion of non-English speaking
residents, the report must contain
information in the appropriate language
regarding the importance of the report
or contain a telephone number or
address where such residents may
contact the system to obtain a translated
copy of the report or assistance in the
appropriate language.
(4) The systems must include in the
report information (e.g., time and place
of regularly scheduled board meetings)
about opportunities for public
participation in decisions that may
affect die quality of the water.
(5) The systems may include such
additional information as they deem
necessary for public education
consistent with, and not detracting
from, the purpose of the report.
§141.154 Required health information.
(a) All reports must prominently
display the following language: Some
people may be more vulnerable to
contaminants in drinking water than the
general population. Immuno-
compromised persons such as persons
with cancer undergoing chemotherapy,
persons who have undergone organ
transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or
other immune system disorders, some
elderly, and infants can be particularly
at risk from infections. These people
should seek advice about drinking water
from their health care providers. EPA/
CDC guidelines on appropriate means to
lessen die risk of infection by
Cryptosporidium are available from the
Safe Drinking Water Hofline (800-426-
4791).
(b) Reports which identify a violation
of a treatment technique must include
the relevant language listed in
paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) Surface Water Treatment Rule: (i)
For unfiltered systems required to filter:
Unfiltered water may contain organisms
such as viruses, bacteria, and Giardia.
When they are present in sufficient
number, these organisms can cause
symptoms such as diarrhea, cramps,
headaches, and fatigue. EPA has
determined that these organisms can be
controlled more effectively by requiring
water systems to filter that water rather
than by setting an MCL.
(ii) For filtered systems in violation of
die SWTR: Inadequately treated water
may contain organisms such as viruses,
bacteria, Giardia, and Legionella. When
they are present in sufficient number,
these organisms can cause symptoms
such as diarrhea, cramps, headaches
and fatigue. EPA has determined that
these organisms can be controlled more
effectively by requiring water systems to
filter and disinfect that water than by
setting an MCL.
(2) Acrylamide: Acrylamide is an
impurity found in some chemicals used
, in drinking water treatment. EPA has
determined that requiring proper use of
water treatment chemicals is more
effective than setting an MCL for their
impurities. People who drink water
containing high levels of acrylamide
over a long period of time could have
problems witii their nervous system
including paralysis and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
(3) Epichlorohydrin: Epichlorohydrin
is an impurity found in some chemicals
used in drinking water treatment. EPA
has determined that requiring proper
use of water treatment chemicals is
more effective than setting an MCL for
their impurities. People who drink
water containing high levels of
epichlorohydrin over a long period of
time could experience stomach, eye, or
skin irritation, and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
§141.155 Report delivery.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, each community
water system must mail one copy of the
report to each customer. In addition, the
system must make a good faith effort to
reach consumers who do not get water
bills, using means recommended by the
State.
(b) Each community water system
must mail a copy of the report to the
State with a certification that the report
has been distributed to customers, and
that the information is correct and
consistent with the compliance
monitoring data previously submitted to
the State.
(c) Each community water system
must mail a copy of the report to:
(1) Any other Agency in the State
with jurisdiction over community water
systems, such as Public Utility
Commissions;
(2) To State consumer advocate offices
(if any); and
(3) To any other Agency or
Clearinghouse identified by the
Drinking Water Program Director.
(d) Each community water system
must make its reports available to the
public upon request.
(e) The Governor of a State, or the
Tribal Leader where the Tribe has met
the eligibility requirements contained in
§ 142.72 for the purposes of waiving the
mailing requirement, can waive die
mailing requirement of paragraph (a) of
this section for community water
systems serving fewer than 10,000
persons. In consultation with the tribal
government, the regional Administrator
may waive the mailing requirement of
paragraph (a) of fliis section in areas in
Indian country where no tribe has been
deemed eligible.
(1) Such systems must:
(i) Publish the reports in one or more
local newspapers serving the area in
which the system is located;
(ii) Inform the customers that the
reports will not be mailed, either in the
newspapers in which the reports are
published or by other means approved
by die State; and
(iii) Make the reports available to the
public upon request.
(2) Systems serving 500 or fewer
persons may forego die requirements of
paragraphs (e)(l) (i) and (ii) of this
section if they provide notice at least
once per year to their customers by
mail, door-to-door delivery or by
posting in an appropriate location that
the report is available upon request.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
7626
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
Appendix A to Subpart O to Part 141—Regulated Contaminants
AI>=Action Level
TT=Treatment Technique
MCL=Maxiraum Contaminant Level
MCLG-sMaxiraum Contaminant Level Goal
mg/l=milligrams per liter, or parts
per million
^g/l=raicrograms per liter, or parts
per billion .
nanograms/liter, or parts per
trillion
Kev
picograms/liter, or parts per
quadrillion
mrem/year=millirems per year (a
measure of radiation absorbed by the
body)
pCi/l=picocuries per liter (a.
measure of radioactivity)
MFL=million fibers per liter
Contaminant (units)
Total Coliform Bacteria
(including fecal coliform
and E. coli)
Viruses, Gaardia
Legionella
MCLS
0
0
0
MCL
presence of
coliform
bacteria in
iS% of monthly
samples, or
if a routine
sample and a
follow up
repeat sample
are total
coliform
positive and
one is also
fecal coliform
or B.
coli positive
TT
TT
Beta/photon emitters
(mrem/yr)
Alpha emitters (pCi/1)
Combined radium (pCi/1)
0
0
0
4
15
5
Antimony (f*g/l)
Arsenic (^g/1)
Asbestos (MFL)
6
SO
7
6
50 '
7
Major Sources
Human and animal fecal waste
Human and animal fecal waste
Found naturally in water,
multiplies in heating systems
Decay of natural and man-made
deposits
Erosion of natural deposits
Erosion of natural deposits
Discharge from petroleum
refineries; fire retardants;
ceramics; electronics; solder
Runoff from orchards; natural
deposits; Runoff from glass and
electronics production wastes
Decay of asbestos cement water
mains; Erosion of natural deposits
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7627
Barium (mg/1)
Beryllium (jzg/1)
Cadmium (/zg/1)
Chromium (/zg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Cyanide (^g/1)
Fluoride (mg/1)
Lead (jug/l)
Mercury (;ug/l)
Nitrate (mg/1)
Nitrite (mg/1)
Selenium (^g/1)
Thallium (^g/D
Turbidity
2
4
5
100
. ,1.3
200
4
0
2
10
1
50
0.5
n/a
2
4
5
100
AL=1.3
200
4
AL=15
2
10
1
50
2
TT
Discharge of drilling wastes?
Discharge from metal refineries;
Erosion of natural deposits
Discharge from metal refineries
and coal -burning factories;
Discharge from electrical,
aerospace, and defense industries
Corrosion of galvanized pipes;
Erosion of natural deposits;
Discharge from metal refineries;
runoff from waste batteries and
paints
Discharge from steel and pulp
mills; Erosion of natural deposits
Corrosion of household plumbing
systems; Erosion of natural
deposits; Leaching from wood
preservatives
Discharge from steel/metal
factories; Discharge from plastic
and fertilizer factories
Water additive which promotes
strong teeth; Erosion of natural
deposits; Discharge from
fertilizer and aluminum factories
Corrosion of household plumbing
systems; Erosion of natural
deposits
Erosion of natural deposits;
Discharge from refineries and
factories; Runoff from landfills;
Runoff from cropland
Runoff from fertilizer use;
Leaching from septic tanks,
sewage; Erosion of natural
deposits
Runoff from fertilizer use;
Leaching from septic tanks,
sewage; Erosion of natural
deposits
Discharge from petroleum and metal
refineries; Erosion of natural
deposits; Discharge from mines
Leaching from ore-processing
sites; Discharge from electronics,
glass, and drug factories
Soil runoff
-------
7628
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
2,4-D (jug/l)
2,4,5-TP(Silvex) (/ag/1)
Acrylamide
Alachlor (A*g/D
Atrazine (MS/D
Benzo (a) pyrene [PAHs]
(nanograms/1)
Carbofuran (^g/1)
Chlordane (^g/D
Dalaporx (^tg/1)
Di (2-ethylhexyl)adipate
(MS/1)
Di (2-ethylhexyl)
phthlates (jug/1)
Dinoseb (^g/1)
Diguat (^g/l)
Dioxin [2,3,7,8-TCDD]
(picograras/1)
Endothall 0/g/l)
Endrin. (jjg/1)
Epichlorobydrin
Glyphosate (jag/l)
Heptachlor (nanograms/1)
Heptachlor epoxide
(nanograms/1)
Hexachlorobenzene (pg/1)
70
50
0
0
3
0
40
0
200
400
0
7
20
0
100
2
0
700
0
0
0
70
50
TT
2
3
200
40
2
200
400
6
7
20
30
100
2
TT
700
400
200
1
Runoff from herbicide used on row
crops
Residue of banned herbicide
Added to water during
sewage/wastewater treatment
Runoff from herbicide used on row
crops
Runoff from herbicide used on row
crops
Leaching from linings of water
storage tanks and distribution
lines
Leaching of soil fumigant used on
rice and alfalfa
Residue of banned termiticide
Runoff from herbicide used on
rights of way
Leaching from PVC plumbing
systems; Discharge from chemical
factories
Discharge from rubber and chemical
factories
Runoff from herbicide used on
soybeans and vegetables
Runoff from herbicide use
Emissions from waste incineration
and other combustion; Discharge
from chemical factories
Runoff from herbicide use
Residue of banned insecticide
Discharge from industrial chemical
factories; Added to water during
treatment process
Runoff from herbicide use
Residue of banned termiticide
Breakdown of heptachlor
Discharge from metal refineries
and agricultural chemical
factories
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February'13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7629
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
(09/1)
Lindane (nanograms/1)
Methoxychlor
-------
7630
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
1, 2-Dichloropropane
(«3/D
Ethylbenzene (^tg/1)
Ethylene dibromide
(nanogr ams / 1 )
Styrene (^g/1)
Tetrachloroethylene
0*g/D
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
(^g/D
1,1, l-Trichloroethane
(M9/D
1,1,2 -Trichloroethane
(MS/D
Trichloroethylene (fig/1)
TTHM [Total
trihalomethanes] (^g/1)
Toluene (mg/1)
Vinyl Chloride C^g/l)
Xylenes (mg/1)
0
700
0
100
0
70
200
3
0
0
1
0
10
5
700
50
100
5
70
200
5
5
100
1
2
10
Discharge from industrial chemical
factories
Discharge from petroleum
refineries
Discharge from petroleum
refineries
Discharge from rubber and plastic
factories; Leaching from landfills
Leaching from PVC pipes; Discharge
from factories and dry cleaners
Discharge from textile-finishing
factories
Discharge from metal degreasing
sites and other factories
Discharge from industrial chemical
factories
Discharge from petroleum
refineries
By-product of drinking water
chlorination
Discharge from petroleum factories
Leaching from PVC piping;
Discharge from plastics factories
Discharge from petroleum
factories; Discharge from chemical
factories
B1UUNG CODE 6560-SO-C
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
7631
Appendix B to Subpart O of Part 141—
Health Effect Language
Biological Contaminants
(1) Total Coliform. Conforms are bacteria
which are naturally present in the
environment and are used as an indicator
that other, potentially-harmful bacteria may
be present. Coliforms were found in more
samples than allowed and this was a warning
of potential problems.
(2) Fecal coliform/E.Coli. Fecal coliform
and E. Coli are bacteria whose presence
indicates that the water may be contaminated
with human or animal wastes. Germs in these
wastes can cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea,
headaches, or fatigue.
Radioactive Contaminants
(3) Beta/photon emitters. Certain minerals
are radioactive; photons and beta radiation
are types of radioactivity. People who drink
water containing beta and photon emitters in
excess of the MCL over many years may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
(4) Alpha emitters. Certain minerals are
radioactive and emit a form of radiation
known as alpha radiation. People who drink
water containing these alpha emitters in
excess of the MCL over many years may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
(5) Combined Radium 226/228. People
who drink water containing Radium 226 or
228 in excess of the MCL over many years
may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Inorganic Contaminants
(6) Antimony. People who drink water
containing antimony well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
changes in the cholesterol or glucose level in
their blood.
(7) Arsenic. People who drink water
containing arsenic well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience skin
damage or problems with their nervous
system.
(8) Asbestos. People who drink water
containing asbestos in excess of the MCL
over many years could get lung disease or
may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(9) Barium. People who drink water
containing barium well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience high blood
pressure.
(10) Beryllium. People who drink water
containing beryllium in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience bone or
lung problems, or may have an increased risk
of cancer.
(11) Cadmium. People who drink water
containing cadmium well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
kidney problems.
(12) Chromium. People who drink water
containing chromium well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their kidneys or circulation.
(13) Copper. Copper is an essential nutrient
but people who drink water containing
copper in excess of the action level over a
relatively short amount of time could
experience problems with their stomach or
intestines. People who drink water
containing copper well in excess of the
action level over many years could suffer
liver or kidney damage. People with Wilson's
Disease should consult their personal doctor.
(14) Cyanide. People who drink water
containing cyanide well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience weight
loss, nerve damage, or problems with their
thyroid.
(15) Fluoride. People who drink water
containing fluoride well in excess of the MCL
over many years could get bone disease.
. (16) Lead. Infants and children who drink
water containing lead in excess of the action
levelcould experience delays in their
physical or mental development. Children
could show slight deficits in attention span
and learning abilities. Adults who drink this
water over many years could develop kidney
problems, high blood pressure, or may be at
an increased risk of getting cancer. *
(17)I Mercury. People who drink water
containing mercury well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
kidney damage.
(18) Nitrate. Infants below the age of six
months who drink water containing nitrate in
excess of the MCL could become seriously ill
and die. Adults who drink water containing
nitrates well in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience kidney or spleen
problems.
(19) Nitrite. Infants below the age of six
months who drink water containing nitrite in
excess of the MCL could become seriously ill
and die. Adults who drink water containing
nitrite well in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience kidney or spleen
problems.
(20) Selenium. Selenium is an essential
nutrient. However, people who drink water
containing selenium well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience hair
or fingernail losses, or problems with their
kidneys, liver, nervous system, or circulation.
(21) Thallium. People who drink water
containing thallium well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
changes in their blood, problems with their
kidney, intestine, or liver, or hair loss.
(22) Turbidity. There is no MCL for
turbidity, and turbidity has no health effects.
However, turbidity can provide a medium for
bacterial growth.
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Including
Pesticides and Herbicides
(23) 2,4-D. People who drink water
containing the weed-killer 2,4-D well in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their nervous
system, kidneys, or liver.
(24) 2,4,5-7? (Silvex). People who drink
water containing silvex well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
minor liver or kidney problems.
(25) Alachlor. People who drink water
containing alachlor in excess of the MCL over
many years could have problems with their
liver, kidneys, or spleen, or may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
(26) Atrazine. People who drink water
containing atrazine in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience weight loss,
problems with their heart or retinas, some
muscle deterioration, or may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
(27) Benzo(a)pyrene [PAHs]. People who
drink water containing benzo(a)pyrene in
excess of the MCL over many years may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
(28) Carbofuran. People who drink water
containing carbofuran well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their nervous or reproductive
systems.
(29) Chlordane. People who drink water
containing chlordane in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience problems
with their liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, spleen
or adrenal glands, or may have an increased
risk of getting cancer.
(30) Dalapon. People who drink water
containing dalapon well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience minor
kidney changes.
(31) Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate. People who
drink water containing di (2-ethylhexyl)
adipate well in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience reduced body weight
or bone mass, problems with their liver or
testicles, or may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(32) Di (2-ethylhexyl) phathalate. People
who drink water containing di (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate in excess of the MCL over many
years may have problems with their liver,
testicles, or experience adverse reproductive
effects, and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer. >
(33) Dinoseb. People who drink water
containing dinoseb well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience changes in
their thyroid or testicles.
(34) Dioxin (2.3,7,8-TCDD). People who
drink water containing dioxin in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
problems with their reproductive system and
may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(35) Diquat. People who drink water
containing diquat Well in excess of the MCL
over many years could get cataracts.
(36) 'Endothall. People who drink water
containing endothall well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience an
increase in the size of their stomach or
intestines.
(37) Endrin. People who drink water
containing endrin well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience
convulsions or liver problems.
(38) Glyphosate. People who drink water
containing glyphosate well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their kidneys or adverse
reproductive effects.
(39) Heptachlor. People who drink water
containing heptachlor in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience extensive
liver damage and may have an increased risk
of getting cancer.
(40) Heptachlor epoxide. People who drink
water containing heptachlor epoxide in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience extensive liver damage, and may
have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(41) Hexachlorobenzene. People who drink
water containing hexachlprobenzene in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver or
kidneys, adverse reproductive effects, benign
tumor of endocrine glands, and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
(42) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene. People
who drink water containing hexachloro-
-------
7632
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13, 1998/Proposed Rules
cydopentadlene well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience problems
with their stomach or kidneys.
(43) Undane. People who drink water
containing lindane well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience problems
with their kidneys or liver.
(44) Msthoxychlof. People who drink water
containing methoxychlor well in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
problems with their liver, heart, or kidneys.
(45) Oxamyl [Vydate], People who drink
water containing oxamyl well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
weightless.
(46) PCBs (Potychlorinated biphenylsj.
People who drink water containing PCBs in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience irritation of the nose, throat or
gastrointestinal tract and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
(47) PentachJorophenol. People who drink
water containing pentachlorophenol in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver or
kidneys, and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(48) Plcloram, People who drink water
containing picloram well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their liver.
(49) Slmazine. People who drink water
containing simazine in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience tremors,
have problems with their kidneys, liver, or
thyroid, and have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
(SO) Toxaphene. People who drink water
containing toxaphene in excess of the MCL
over many years could suffer from kidney or
liver degeneration, have problems with their
nervous system, and may have an increased
risk of getting cancer.
Volatile Organic Chemicals
(51) Benzene. People who drink water
containing benzene in excess of the MCL
over many years may have an increased risk
of getting cancer.
(52) Carbon Tetrachloiide. People who
drink water containing carbon tetrachloride
in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their fiver and may
have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(53) Chlorobenzene. People who drink
water containing chlorobenzene well in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their kidneys.
liver, or nervous system.
(54) Dlbromochloropropane (DBCP).
People who drink water containing DBCP in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience some kidney damage and may
have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(55) o-Dlchlorobenzene. People who drink
water containing o-dichlorobenzene well in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver.
kidneys, nervous systems, or damage to their
blood cells.
(56) para-Dichlorobenzene. People who
drink water containing p-dichlorobenzene
well in excess of the MCL over many years
could experience anemia, skin lesions, loss of
appetite, damage to their liver, or changes in
their blood.
(57) 1.2-Dichloroethane. People who drink
water containing 1,2-dichloroethane in
excess of the MCL over many years may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
(58) 1,1-Dichloroethylene. People who
drink water containing 1,1-dichloroethylene
in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver and
kidneys and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(59) cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene. People who
drink water containing cis-1.2-
dichloroethylene well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience problems
with their liver, their circulation, or their
nervous system.
(60) trans-l.Z-Dicholoroethylene. People
who drink water containing trans-1,2-
dichloroethylene well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience problems
with their liver, their circulation, or their
nervous system.
(61) Dichloromethane. People who drink
water containing dichloromethane in excess
of the MCL over many years could have liver
problems and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(62) 1.2-Dichloropropane. People who
drink water containing 1,2-dichloropropane
in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver.
kidneys, bladder, digestive or respiratory
systems, and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(63) Ethylbenzene. People who drink water
containing ethylbenzene well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their liver, kidneys, central
nervous system, or eyes.
(64) Ethylene dibromide. People who drink
water containing ethylene dibromide in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their nervous
system, liver, heart, or kidneys, and may
have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(65) Styrene. People who drink water
containing styrene in excess of the MCL over
many years could have problems with their
liver and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(66) Tetrachloroethylene. People who
drink water containing tetrachloroethylene in
excess of the MCL over many years could
have problems with their liver, kidney or
nervous system, and may have an increased
risk of getting cancer. ^
(67) 1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene. People who
drink water containing 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience changes in
their adrenal glands.
(68) l.l.l.-Trichloroethane. People who
drink water containing 1,1.1-trichloroethane
well in excess of the MCL over many years
could experience problems with their liver,
nervous system or circulation.
(69) 1,1.2-Trichloroethane. People who
drink water containing 1.1,2-trichloroethane
in excess of the MCL over many years could
have problems with their liver or kidneys,
and may have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
(70) Trichloroethylene. People who drink
water containing trichloroethylene in excess
of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver and may
have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(71) THMs [Total Trihalomethanes]. People
who drink water containing trihalomethanes
in excess of the MCL over many years may
have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(72) Toluene. People who drink water
containing toluene well in excess of the MCL
over many years could have problems with
their nervous system, kidneys, or liver.
(73) Vinyl Chloride. People who drink
water containing vinyl chloride in excess of
the MCL over many years could have
problems with their liver or nervous system,
and may have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
(74) Xylenes. People who drink water
containing xylenes well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience damage to
their nervous system or problems with their
liver or kidneys.
PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
1. The authority citation for part 142
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l. 300g-2,
300g-3. 300g-4. 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4,
300j-9, and300j-ll.
2. Section 142.10 would be amended
by adding a new paragraph (b)(6)(vii) to
read as follows:
§ 142.10 Requirements for a determination
of primary enforcement responsibility.
*****
(b)* * *
(6) * * *
(vii) Authority to require community
water systems to provide consumer
confidence reports as required under 40
CFR part 141, subpart O.
*****
3. Section 142.16 would be amended
by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
*****
(f) Consumer confidence report
requirements. (1) Each State that has
primary enforcement responsibility
must adopt the requirements of 40 CFR
part 141, subpart O, no later than [date
2 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register]. States
must submit revised programs to EPA
for approval using the procedures in
§ 142.12(b) through (d).
(2) Each State mat has primary
enforcement responsibility must make
reports submitted to the States in
compliance with 40 CFR 141.155(b)
available to the public upon request or
maintain a list of telephone numbers for
operators of community water systems.
(3) Each State that has primary
enforcement responsibility must
maintain the certifications obtained
pursuant to 40 CFR 141.155(b) for a
period of 5 years.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 30/Friday, February 13. 1998/Proposed Rules
7633
4. Section 142.72 would be amended
by revising the introductory text to read
as follows:
§ 142.72 Requirements for tribal eligibility.
The Administrator is authorized to
treat an Indian tribe as eligible to apply
for primary enforcement for the Public
Water System Program and the authority
to waive the mailing requirements of 40
CFR 141.155(a) if it meets the following
criteria:
5. Section 142.78 would be amended
by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
§ 142.78 Procedure for processing an
Indian tribe's application.
*****
(b) A tribe that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 141.72 is
eligible to apply for development grants
and primacy enforcement responsibility
for a Public Water System Program and
associated funding under section
1443(a) of the Act and for primary
enforcement responsibility for public
water systems under section 1413 of the
Act and for the authority to waive the
mailing requirement of 40 CFR
141.155(a).
[FR Doc. 98-3752 Filed 2-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
-------
-------
------- |