Thursday
May 13, 1999
Part ill
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts -141, 142, and 143
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Public Notification Rule;
Proposed Rule
Public Notification Handbook—Draft for
Comment: Notice
-------
25964
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141,142, and 143
[FRL-6334-8]
RIN 204D-AD06
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Public Notification Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise the
general public notification regulations
for public water systems to implement
the public notification requirements of
the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) amendments. The regulations
set the requirements that public water
systems must follow regarding the form,
manner, frequency, and content of the
public notice. Public notice of violations
is an integral part of the public health
protection and consumer right-to-know
provisions of the 1996 SDWA
amendments. The public notification
requirements apply to owners and
operators of public water systems
which: fail to comply with the
requirements of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR);
have a variance or exemption from the
drinking water regulations; or are facing
other situations posing risk to public
health.
In addition, EPA is proposing to
revise the State implementation
regulations allowing a State, by rule, to
establish alternative public notification
requirements with respect to the form
and content of the notice. Finally, EPA
is proposing to consolidate in a single
subpart of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) all the public
notification requirements for public
water systems.
DATES: Written comments on this
proposed rule must be received by EPA
on or before July 12. 1999. EPA will
hold two public meetings on the
proposal:
1. May 26, 1999, 9:00 a.m., Madison,
Wisconsin.
2. June 3, 1999,10:00 a.m.,
Washington. D.C.
ADDRESSES: Please send written
comments on this proposed rule to the
Public Notification Rule Comment Clerk
(docket #W-98-19), Water Docket (MC-
4101); U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC, 20460. Comments may
be hand-delivered to the Water Docket,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
401 M Street. S.W., Room EB 57;
Washington, D.C., 20460.
Commenters who want EPA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
should 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 a WP
5/6/7/8 file or an ASCII file, avoiding
the use of special characters and form
and encryption. Electronic comments
must be identified by the docket number
(W-98-19). Comments and data will
also be accepted on disks in WP 5/6/7/
8 or ASCII file format. Electronic
comments on this notice may be filed
online at many Federal Depository
Libraries.
The public meetings will take place in
the following locations: Madison,
Wisconsin—Best Western Inn at the
Park; 22 S. Carroll Street; Madison,
Wisconsin 53703. Washington, D.C.—
U.S. EPA Waterside Mall; North
Conference Center Room 1; 401 M
Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free
(800) 426-4791 for general information
about the public notification regulations
and to register for the public meetings
and request copies of this document.
For technical inquiries, contact Carl B.
Reeverts at (202) 260-7273.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority
II. GAO Report Findings and
Recommendations Regarding Public
Notification
m. Consultation With Public Water Systems,
State and Local Governments,
Environmental Groups, and Public
Interest Groups
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Purpose and Applicability
B. Effective Dates and Rationale
C. Summary of Changes to Public
Notification Requirements
D. Rationale for Format of Proposed Rule
E. General Provisions of Proposed Rule
(§141.201)
1. Who Must Give Public Notice?
2. What Type of Public Notice is Required
for Each Situation?
3. Who Must Be Notified?
F. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the
Tier 1 Public Notice: Violations With
Significant Potential to Have Serious
Adverse Effects on Human Health as a
Result of Short-Term Exposure
(§141.202)
1. Tier 1 Violations and Situations
2. Timing of the Tier 1 Public Notice (and
Consultation Requirement)
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the
Tier 1 Notice
G. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the
Tier 2 Public Notice: Other Violations
With Potential to Have Serious Adverse
Effects on Human Health (§ 141.203)
1. Tier 2 Violations and Situations
2. Timing of the Tier 2 Public Notice
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the
Tier 2 Notice
H. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the
Tier 3 Public Notice: All Other
Violations and Situations Requiring
Public Notice (§ 141.204)
1. Tier 3 Violations and Situations
2. Timing of the Tier 3 Public Notice
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the
Tier 3 Notice
I. Content of the Public Notice (§ 141.205)
1. Standard Elements of the Public Notice
(§141.205(a)-(c))
2. Standard Health Effects Language
(§141.205(d)(l))
3. Standard Language for Monitoring and
Testing Procedure Violations
(§141.205(d)(2))
4. Standard Language to Encourage
Customers Receiving the Public Notice to
Distribute the Notice to Other Persons
Served (§141.205(d)(3))
J. Other Public Notification Requirements
1. Notice to New Billing Units or New
Customers (§141.206)
2. Special Notice to Announce the
Availability of the Results of
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
(§§141.207 and 141.35)
3. Special Notice for Exceedance of the
Fluoride Secondary Maximum
Contaminant Level (SMCL) (§ 141.208)
4. Conditions Under Which the Primacy
Agency May Give Notice on Behalf of
Public Water System (§ 141.209)
K. Reporting to the Primacy Agency and
Retention of Records (§§141.31 and
141.33)
L. Special State/Tribal Primacy
Requirements and Rationale (40 CFR Part
142, Subpart B)
V. Relationship of Public Notification
Regulation to Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR) Regulation
VI. Request for Public Comments on
Alternatives to Proposal
A. Requiring Tier 2 Public Notice for
Monitoring and Testing Procedure
Violations
B. Giving PWS Flexibility in Method of
Delivery of Tier 2 and 3 Notices •
VII. Cost of Rule
VIII. Other Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing
Intergovernmental Partnerships
E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Environmental Justice
H. Risk to Children Analysis
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially
regulated by this action are public water
systems (PWS). The following table
provides examples of the regulated
entities under this rule. A public water
system, as defined by section 1401 of
SDWA, is "a system for the provision of
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25965
water for human consumption through
pipes or other constructed conveyances,
if such system has at least fifteen service
connections or regularly serves at least
twenty-five individuals." EPA defines
"regularly served" as sixty or more days
TABLE OF REGULATED ENTITIES
per year. EPA has an inventory totaling
over 170,000 public water systems
nationwide.
Category
Examples of regulated entities
State/Local/Tribal governments
Industry
Federal government
Publicly-owned PWSs, such as municipalities; county governments, water districts, water and sewer
authorities, state governments, and other publicly-owned entities that deliver drinking water as an
adjunct to their primary business (e.g., schools, State parks, roadside rest stops).
Privately-owned PWSs, such as private utilities, homeowner associations, and other privately-owned
entities that deliver drinking water as an adjunct to their primary business (e.g., trailer parks, fac-
tories, retirement homes, day care centers).
Federally-owned PWSs, such as water systems on military bases.
The table is not intended to be
exhaustive but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in this table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in § 141.201 of the
rule. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this section to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Additional Information for
Commenters. Please send an original
and three copies of your comments and
enclosures (including references) to
Public Notification Rule (docket #W-
98-19) Comment Clerk, Water Docket
(MC 4101), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20460.
Comments must be received or post-
marked by midnight July 12, 1999.
To ensure that EPA can read,
understand, and therefore properly
respond to comments, the Agency
would prefer that comments cite, where
possible, the paragraph^) or sections in
the notice or supporting documents to
which each comment refers. Comments
should use a separate paragraph for each
issue discussed. The record for this
rulemaking has been established under
docket number W-98-19, and includes
supporting documentation as well as
printed, paper versions of electronic
comments. The record is available for
inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays, at the Water Docket, EB 57,
U.S. EPA Headquarters, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. For access to
docket materials, please call (202) 260-
3027 to schedule an appointment.
Consumer Right-to-Know Provisions
in the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) 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 public notification requirement is
one of six interrelated provisions now <
included in the SDWA. The purpose of
public notification is to alert persons :
served by public water systems that a
drinking water standard has been
violated and to provide information
quickly to enable consumers to take
precautions to protect their health. The
public notification provision was
included in the original SDWA, enacted
in 1974. The existing regulations are
being revised here to address revisions
in the 1996 SDWA amendments.
Five other right-to-know provisions
were added to the SDWA through the
1996 SDWA amendments.
• Community water systems are now
required to prepare and provide to their
customers annual Consumer Confidence
Reports (CCR) on the quality of the
water delivered by the systems. The
CCR is the centerpiece of the public
right-to-know provisions in the SDWA.
The information contained in these
reports can raise consumers' awareness
of where their water comes from, show
them the steps that are necessary to
deliver safe drinking water to their
homes, and educate them about the
importance of source water protection
for assuring safe drinking water. The
CCR and the public notification rule are
interrelated: an annual summary of
violations occurring during the year is
one of the elements of the CCR. EPA's
regulation requiring the annual CCR was
promulgated on August 19, 1998 (40
CFR part 141, Subpart O; 63 FR 44511);.
All community water systems must
complete the first CCR by October, 1999.
• Primacy agencies are required to
prepare and release an annual report
listing violations of national primary
drinking water regulations (NPDWR)
which occurred in the last year in the
public water systems within their
jurisdictions. EPA is also required to
issue an annual report which
summarizes and evaluates the State
reports and makes recommendations
concerning the resources needed to
improve compliance with the SDWA.
The first State violation reports were
released on January 1, 1998. EPA's first
report was released in July, 1998.
• Primacy States are required to make
completed source water assessments
available to the public. 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 those
boundaries. The source water
assessments are to be completed by the
States for all public water systems by
2003.
• EPA is required to develop and
make available a national contaminant
occurrence database 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. The
initial version of the national
contaminant occurrence database is
scheduled for release in August, 1999.
• Primacy agencies are required to
notify the public of proposed decisions
to allow a variance to the federal
drinking water standards involving their
public water system. Public water
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
that cannot meet the requirements of
EPA national primary drinking water
regulations (NPDWRs), using technology
identified in the NPDWR, may apply for
a variance to use an alternate technology
-------
25966
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
to meet the regulation. Consumers
served by that water system will be
provided an opportunity to comment on
or 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 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, it
can ensure that the choices made—
particularly by EPA and the States, but
also by water systems—respond to the
public's needs and concerns within the
constraints of the SDWA.
I. Statutory Authority
Section 114 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996 (Public
Law 104-182), enacted August 6, 1996,
amended Section 1414(c) of the Act (42
U.S.C. 300g-3(c)). Sections 1414 (c)(l)
and (c)(2) were significantly revised and
require EPA to amend the existing
public notification regulations. The
amended rules are intended to give
consumers more accurate and timely
information on violations, taking into
account the seriousness of any potential
adverse health effects that may be
involved. There is no deadline for
promulgating the revised public
notification rule, but EPA intends to
complete this rulemaking by the end of
1999 to allow States and the regulated
community to coordinate public
notification implementation with
implementation of the Consumer
Confidence Report.
The public notification (PN)
provisions were part of the original
SDWA in 1974 and were subsequently
modified in the 1986 SDWA
amendments. The public notification
regulations currently in place were
promulgated in 1987 and became
effective in 1989 (40 CFR 141.32). The
existing rule remains in place until the
new rule is promulgated.
SDWA Section 1414(c)(l) establishes
who must give public notice, under
what circumstances a notice must be
given, and who must receive the notice.
Section 1414(c)(l)(A) requires that all
public water systems give notice to all
persons served of any failure to comply
with any national primary drinking
water regulations (NPDWR), including
any required monitoring. Section
1414(c)(l)(B) further requires a public
water system to provide a notice when
it is operating under a variance or
exemption, and when a water system
fails to comply with the requirements of
a variance or exemption. Section
1414(c)(l)(C) authorizes EPA, at the
Administrator's discretion, to require
public water systems to provide notice
of the concentration level of any
unregulated contaminant monitored
under EPA regulations. Except for the
addition of paragraph (C) of Section
1414(c)(l), these requirements are
unchanged from the previous SDWA.
Section 1414 (c) (2) sets the specific
requirements for the form, manner, and
frequency of the notice. Section
1414(c)(2)(A) requires EPA to issue
regulations, after consultation with the
States, that prescribe the detailed public
notification requirements. The
regulations must provide for different
frequencies of notices based on the
persistence of the violations and the
seriousness of any potential adverse
health effects that may be involved.
Except for now requiring EPA to consult
with the States prior to promulgating
the revised regulations, the general
directions to EPA for issuing regulations
are unchanged from the previous
SDWA.
Section 1414(c)(2)(B) enables States,
at their option, to establish alternate
requirements with respect to the form
and content of the public notice, as long
as the alternative State program
provides the same type and amounfof
information as required under the EPA
regulations. This Section was added
with the 1996 amendments.
Section 1414(c)(2)(C) directs EPA to
issue regulations which require public
water systems to distribute a notice
within 24 hours to all persons served for
violations with potential to have serious
adverse effects on human health from
short-term exposure. The public water
system is also required to send the same
notice to the primacy agency and to
consult with the primacy agency within
the same 24-hour period on any
additional public notice requirements.
This section is a new statutory
requirement.
Section 1414(c)(2)(D) directs that
EPA's regulations require public water
systems to provide written notice to
each person served for each violation
not covered under Section 1414 (c) (2) (C).
The Section specifies that the notice
may be: (1) in the first bill, if any, after
the violation; (2) in an annual report
issued no later than one year after the
violation; or (3) by mail or direct
delivery as soon as practicable, but no
later than one year after the violation.
This section significantly revises and
simplifies the previous statutory
requirements on the form, manner, and
timing of the notice.
Section 1414(c)(2)(E) allows the
Administrator the option to require the
public water system to give notice to
persons served of the results of ,
unregulated contaminant monitoring
required by EPA under 1445(a). EPA
will soon propose a revised unregulated
contaminant monitoring regulation
(UCMR) This section is new under the
1996 SDWA amendments.
This rule, when issued in final form,
is intended to fulfill the rulemaking
requirements outlined in amended
sections 1414(c)(l) and 1414(c)(2).
II. GAO Report Findings and
Recommendations Regarding Public
Notification
In June, 1992, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) issued a report entitied:
"Drinking Water Consumers Often Not
Well Informed of Potentially Serious
Violations" (GAO/RCED-92-135). GAO
found:
• Low compliance with the existing
public notification requirements on the
part of public water systems and limited
compliance tracking and enforcement
on the part of EPA and the States;
• Aspects of the requirements may be
a complicating factor, especially for
small systems, making it difficult to
effectively communicate important
information to consumers; and
• Notices tended to be too technical,
provide little guidance on actions to
take in response to violations, and not
focus enough attention on the most
serious violations.
GAO made several recommendations
to improve the public notification
process, including:
• Changing the regulations to focus
notification on more serious violations
by allowing water systems to
consolidate notices for less serious
violations;
• Revising the health effects language
to be less technical; and
• Better oversight by EPA and the
States.
EPA used the GAO findings and
recommendations from this audit as one
of the principal starting points in
developing the proposed rule.
III. Consultation With Public Water
Systems, State and Local Governments,
Environmental Groups, and Public
Interest Groups
Today's proposal is based on input
from a broad range of stakeholders from
the public and private sectors. The
Agency has actively involved the States
as partners in the rule development and
has held a series of stakeholder
meetings throughout the country to gain
input and information from other
groups and individuals.
First, Section 1414 (c)(2)(A) requires
that EPA consult with the States before
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No, 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25967
revising the public notification
regulation. Accordingly, EPA met very
early in the regulatory development
process with a group of States, as part
of the early involvement meetings set up
by the Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators (ASDWA), to
develop the scope of the process and
identify significant issues under the
new statute. States participated
throughout the development process as
members of the EPA regulation
workgroup. EPA provided briefings to
ASDWA on request several times during
the past year as the development of the
rule moved forward.
Second, in addition to the active
involvement and consultation with the
States, EPA held a series of well-
attended stakeholder meetings early in
the process to solicit input on the scope
of the rule, issues with the current rule
and how they could be corrected, and
how the statutory changes should be
covered in the regulation. Over a period
of four months in late summer and fall
of 1997, EPA held stakeholder meetings
in Indianapolis, Indiana, Washington,
D.C., and Seattle, Washington. The
participants at these meetings ranged
from State and local government
officials (including water utilities) to
risk communication experts and
representatives of public interest
groups. During this same period,
meetings were also held with the
Washington Drinking Water Advisory
Committee, a statewide group of
managers from various public and
private entities, and a group of utility
and State managers from several
Midwestern States. Several recurring
themes surfaced during these meetings:
• Public notices are extremely
important to consumers; they must
reach the appropriate audiences in a
timely fashion to protect public health
and allow consumers to make choices.
• It appears that the public
notification process has not been
effective (i.e., based on the results of the
1992 GAO audit and stakeholder
experiences); a new regulation has to be
less complex and better targeted to the
seriousness of the violation to be
effective.
• Public notices and their follow-up
must be tailored carefully to the specific
situation to be effective: it depends on
the specific violation; the type and size
of the water system; the affected
population; and the availability of
communication outlets. Therefore, any
EPA regulation must be flexible enough
to accommodate local situations.
• The timing and content of the
public notices should be differentiated
based on the severity of the violations.
• Public notices of violations should
never be the centerpiece of a public
water system's consumer awareness
approach. EPA should actively
encourage water systems to closely ;
coordinate the public notice
requirements with the Consumer
Confidence Report and other longer
term education strategies.
Third, EPA has begun a new initiative
outside the rulemaking process, In
collaboration with the States, utilities,
and public interest groups, to develop a
public notification handbook. The
handbook will provide public
notification "templates" for public
water systems to help them respond
quickly to the many different violation
circumstances they may encounter. This
initiative, which involves a series of
focus group meetings with the public
and others to assess effectiveness,
provides "real world" experience in
advance of the final rulemaking. The
Handbook is not intended as an
additional set of regulatory
requirements, but rather as a resource
that public water systems may use at ,
their discretion to craft effective and
timely notices. The draft handbook is •
being issued concurrently with the
proposed rule. It will be announced
through the Federal Register and copies
will be mailed to stakeholders and made
available through EPA's Internet home
page.
Finally, EPA continues to provide •
information to our stakeholders on the
status of the rulemaking. EPA
periodically provides updates to the
National Drinking Water Advisory
Council and informational briefings,
upon request, to other stakeholder
groups.
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Purpose and Applicability
The rule being proposed today revises
the minimum requirements public water
systems must meet regarding the form,
manner, frequency, and content of the
public notification. Public water
systems must give notice to all persons
served for all violations of National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWR) and for other situations
posing a risk to public health from the
drinking water. The term NPDWR
Violations is used in the public
notification regulations to include
violations of Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL), Maximum Residual
Disinfectant Level (MRDL), treatment
technique (TT), monitoring, and testing
procedure requirements. Public noticeis
not required, for example, for violation
of the new Consumer Confidence Report
regulation. See Table 1 and Appendix A
of the proposed rule for the NPDWR
violations and other situations requiring
a public notice. Violations not listed in
Appendix A do not require a public
notice under Subpart Q.
The rule would apply to existing and
new public water systems that violate a
NPDWR or have other situations that
pose a risk to health from the drinking
water. A "public water system," as .
defined in 40 CFR 141.2 , is "a system
for the provision to the public of water
for human consumption through pipes
or, after August 5, 1998, other
constructed conveyances, if such system
has at least fifteen service connections
or regularly serves at least twenty-five
individuals daily at least 60 days out of
the year."
A public water system is either a
community water system (CWS) or non-
community water system (NCWS). A
CWS, as defined in § 141.2, means "a
public water system which serves at
least 15 service connections used by
year-round residents or regularly serves
at least 25 year-round residents." A
NCWS means "a public water system
that is not a community water system."
Non-community water systems are
further broken out in the drinking water
regulations into transient non-
community water systems (TWS) and
non-transient noncommunity water
systems (NTNCWS). A NTNCWS is
defined by EPA under § 141.2 as "a
public water system that is not a
community water system and that
regularly serves 25 of the same people
over six months of the year." An
example is a school or business that has
its own water well. A TWS is defined
by EPA under § 141.2 as "a
noncommunity water system that does
not regularly serve 25 of the same
persons over six months of the year."
An example is a roadside rest stop with
its own water well.
For illustration purposes, Table A
provides a summary of the number of
public water systems, broken out by
type of system, the number of these
systems with violations during FY 1996,
and the total number of violations -
during the same period. Table A shows
that 46,572 of the 172,248 public water
systems had one or more violations in
FY 1996. Overall, the 46,572 public
water systems with violations
committed 243,604 violations in FY
1996. The overwhelming majority of
these violations were failure to monitor
according to the regulations. Although
not all violations require a separate
public notice, each violation requires
the public water system to comply with
the public notification requirements.
-------
25968
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
TABLE A.—NUMBER OF WATER SYSTEMS REGULATED UNDER PUBLIC NOTIFICATION RULE IN FY 1996
Type of water system
1 Community Water Systems (CWS)
2 Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWS)
3 Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TWS)
Public Water Systems (PWS)
Number of
systems
55,427
20,237
96,584
172,248
Systems
with viola-
tions
14,620
6,227
25,725
46,572
Violations
126,853
51 ,796
57,565
236,214
Source: PWS Inventory and Compliance Statistics: FY 1992-FY 1996.
As shown In Table A, 55,427 of the
regulated public water systems are
CWSs. CWSs must comply with all the
NPDWRs in effect, currently covering 80
separate contaminants. CWSs serve
residential populations and range from
large municipal systems that serve
millions of persons to small systems,
which serve fewer than 100 persons.
CWSs can be further categorized as
publicly-owned systems, privately-
owned systems, and systems which
provide water as an ancillary function of
their principal purpose. In FY 1996,
14.620 CWSs committed 126,853
violations. Approximately 80 percent of
community water systems serve fewer
than 3.300 people.
Of the regulated public water systems,
20.237 are NTNCWS. Virtually all
NTNCWSs provide water as an ancillary
function of their principal purpose (for
example, schools, day-care facilities,
factories). NTNCWSs must comply with
the same national primary drinking
water regulations as community water
systems. During FY 1996. 6,227
NTNCWSs committed 51,796 violations.
Approximately 99 percent of NTNCWSs
serve fewer than 3,300 people.
The balance of the regulated public
water systems (96,584) are TWS.
Virtually all TWSs provide water as an
ancillary function of their principal
purpose (for example, highway rest
stops, gas stations, state parks). TWSs
must comply only with existing national
primary drinking water regulations
where short-term violations may pose a
health threat—total coliform, nitrate,
nitrite, combined nitrate+nitrite, and the
surface water treatment rule. In FY
1996. 25.725 TWSs committed 57.565
violations. Over 99 percent of TWSs
serve fewer than 3,300 people.
B. Effective Dates and Rationale
EPA is proposing that the revised
public notification rule become effective
no later than two years after the final
rule is published in the Federal Register
or on the date the primacy agency's
revised regulation becomes effective,
whichever comes first. Setting the two-
year effective date matches the time
period allowed for States under the
primacy regulations (40 CFR Part 142,
Subpart B) to adopt new or revised
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs). As the public
notification rule is not an NPDWR, EPA
has discretion to set an effective date for
the revised rule. EPA believes it is
appropriate to set the effective date
consistent with the basic two-year time
period allowed States to adopt the
revised regulation. This coordinated
phase-in of the new public notification
requirements in each State will be more
efficient and will avoid the potential
confusion of having different State and
EPA requirements in effect at the same
time.
EPA is proposing to make the rule
effective in a State as soon as the State's
revised regulation is effective under its
primacy program. In practical terms,
this will mean that the new
requirements will go into effect at
different times nation-wide based on the
speed of the State adoption of the new
requirements. Where EPA directly
implements the program (such as in
Wyoming and Washington, D.C., and on
Indian lands), the revised rule will go
into effect 90 days after EPA publication
of the final rule. Regardless of the
primacy situation, the rule would go
into effect after two years for all water
systems, even in those States that
request and are granted an extension to
adopt the revised regulation beyond the
basic two-year time period.
The revised public notification rule
will apply to new and existing
violations of NPDWRs, variances or
exemptions granted by a primacy
agency, and violations of conditions of
an existing variance or exemption after
the effective date of this rule. However,
EPA does not intend to require that
public water systems provide initial
public notices under the new rule for
violations and situations where the
initial public notice has already been
given under the regulations in place at
the time. Unless the primacy agency
makes a different determination on a
case-by-case basis, the revised rule will
apply to repeat notices for existing
violations or any public notice
requirements applying subsequent to
the public notices given under the old
rule.
EPA considered a number of options
on the effective date of the rule before
settling on the two-year time frame. EPA
believes that the new regulation,
consistent with the revised statute, will
make the public notification process
simpler, more efficient, and better
targeted than the current regulation. In
this respect, the sooner the new rule
goes into effect, the more effective the
public notification process will be.
However, because the proposed rule
replaces a State program already in
operation, applying the new rule to
public water systems well in advance of
the change in the State program would
be confusing to the regulated
community and the public. It could
result in two sets of public notice
requirements (i.e., the current State rule
and the new EPA rule) being in effect
for the public water systems during this
transition period. Because the intent is
still to replace the current regulation
with the new streamlined rule as soon
as possible, comments are requested on
the proposed effective date. Suggestions
on other options to put the new
regulations into effect sooner are
welcome.
C. Summary of Changes to Current
Public Notification Requirements
The proposed rule is substantially
different from the public notification
regulation currently in effect. Table B is
a summary of the major differences
between the current regulation and the
proposed rule.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25969
TABLE B— SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROPOSED RULE AND EXISTING RULE
Statutory authority (SDWA, as amended in
1996)
Current rule (§141.32)
Proposed rule
(part 141, subpart Q)
Each owner or operator of a PWS shall give
notice of NPDWR violations, levels of un-
regulated contaminants, and existence of a
variance or exemption.
1414(c)(2)(A)
Manner, frequency, and form are prescribed
based on seriousness and frequency of viola-
tions.
Notice must be provided to Administrator or pri-
macy agency
For violations with potential to have serious ad-
verse effects on human health as a result of
short-term exposure, notice must be distrib-
uted as soon as practicable but no later than
24 hours after the occurrence of the violation
Regulations shall specify notification proce-
dures for violations other than Tier 1; notice
shall be in written form
(§141.32(a) and (b)) Owner or operators of
PWSs must notify for the following viola-
tions/situations:
Maximum contaminant levels (MCL)
Treatment technique
Testing procedure
Monitoring
Operation under a variance or exemption
Nohcompliance with variance or exemption
schedule
(§§141.32 (a)(1)(iii) and 141.32(a) and (b))
There is a three-tier system, although tiers
are not named.
Public notices are divided into three tiers: vio-
lations of MCLs that may pose an acute
risk to human health; MCLs, treatment tech-
nique, and variance or exemption schedule
violations; and other violations (including
monitoring) and operation under a variance
or exemption.
(§141.31(d)) System must provide a copy of
the notice to the State within 10 days.
(§141.32(a)(1)(iii)(A)-(D) Acute violations in-
clude
(1) Any violations specified by State
(2) Nitrate/nitrite MCLs
(3) Fecal coliform/ E. coli
(4) Waterbome disease outbreak in unfiltered
systems subject to Surface Water Treat-
ment Rule ;
Provide copy of notice to radio and TV sta-
tions within 72 hours, or by posting or hand
delivery within 72 hours. Posting must con-
tinue as long as the violation exist;;.
Additional notices: by newspaper within 14
days or posting or hand delivery if no news-
paper is available; by mail within 45 days
(may be waived if state determines violation
has been corrected); and repeat notice
every three months thereafter.
(§141.32)(a)) For MCL, treatment technique,
and variance or exemption schedule viola-
tions.
(§§141.201 (a) and 141.202(a)) Includes viola-
tions from current rule and adds broader
definition of waterborne disease outbreak,
adds new IESWTR and DBP standards,
moves fluoride SMCL and unregulated con-
taminant monitoring public notices from
other parts of the regulations. Adds a new
Appendix A to the rule listing all violations
and situations where public notification is
required.
(§141.201(b)) Tiers are defined based on se-
riousness of the violation or situation and of
potential health effects, and all violations or
situations are assigned to a tier (Appendix
A)
Tier 1 notice for violations or situations with
significant potential to have serious adverse
effects on human health as a result of
short-term exposure;
Tier 2 notice for all other violations or situa-
tions with potential to have serious adverse
effects on human health; and
Tier 3 notice for all other violations and situa-
tions not included in Tier 1 and Tier 2.
(§141.31(d)) Revised to require PWS to sub-
mit a certification and a copy of the notice
to the primacy agency within 10 days.
(§§141.202(b) and 141.201(c)) New section
added to require consultation with primacy
agency within 24 hours for violations or sit-
uations requiring a Tier 1 notice.
(§141.202) Tier 1 notice— Violations and sit-
uations include those defined as acute in
the current rule, plus: an expanded defini-
tion of waterborne disease outbreak to in-
clude all water systems; chlorine dioxide
MRDL violation under new DBP rule where
samples taken in the distribution system ex-
ceed the standard or where samples are
not taken in the distribution system; and
violation of the testing procedures to deter-
mine if fecal coliform is present after the
presence of total coliform in the distribution
system is confirmed.
Timing revised to require notice within 24
hours; must be by electronic media, post-
ing, or hand delivery, plus any additional
methods necessary to reach all persons
served.
Revised to not require additional notices for
same violation, deferring instead to the pri-
macy agency to set additional requirements
(including additional notices) on a case-by-
case basis.
(§141.203) Tier 2 notice includes those de-
scribed in §141.32(a) of the current rule,
plus the new standards under the IESWTR
and DBP rules, and serious and persistent
monitoring and testing procedure violations,
as determined by the primacy agency .
-------
25970
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
TABLE B.—SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROPOSED RULE AND EXISTING RULE—Continued
Statutory authority (SDWA, as amended in
1996)
Current rule (§141.32)
Proposed rule
(part 141, subpart Q)
Notice to new billing units (not in statute)
1414(c)(2)(C)(ii) and 1414(c)(2)(D)(ii)
Content of notices
By newspaper within 14 days or by posting or
hand delivery if no newspaper is available.
Special notice for exceedance of Fluoride Sec-
ondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL)
(not in statute)
Additional notices: by mail within 45 days
(may be waived if state determines violation
has been corrected), and repeat notice
every three months thereafter by mail or
hand delivery.
(§141.32(b) For monitoring and testing proce-
dure violations, and operation under vari-
ance or exemption.
By newspaper within three months of the vio-
lation or the granting of variance or exemp-
tion, or by hand delivery or posting if no
newspaper is available. State may allow
less frequent public notice (up to 1 year) for
minor monitoring violations.
Repeat notice every three months thereafter
by mail or hand delivery.
(§141.32(c)) Community water system must
give a copy of the most recent public notice
for any outstanding violation of any MCL,
any treatment technique requirement, or
any V&E schedule.
(§ 141.32(d)) Each notice must provide a clear
explanation of the violation, potential health
effects, population at risk, steps being taken
to correct violation, telephone number of
the owner, operator, or designee of the
public water system, necessity for seeking
alternative water supplies, if any, and any
preventive measures consumers should
take until the violation is corrected.
(141.32(e)) Systems must include standard
health effects language for MCL, treatment
technique, variance or exemption schedule
violations, and operation under a variance
or exemption.
(§141.32(f)) Notice of SMCL exceedances re-
quired withiri 12 mos.; shall contain lan-
guage in §143.5(b).
Revised to require notice within 30 days un-
less the primacy agency allows an exten-
sion of up to three months for specific cir-
cumstances. Unless primacy agency directs
otherwise, CWS must use mail or direct de-
livery, and other methods reasonably cal-
culated to reach persons served. NCWS
must use posting, direct delivery, or mail,
and other methods reasonably calculated to
reach persons served.
The initial notice does not require multiple
methods of delivery unless it is needed to
reach persons served. Repeat notice re-
quired every three months where violation
persists, unless the primacy agency deter-
mines less frequent repeat notice (no less
frequent than annually) is warranted be-
cause of specific circumstances. Method of
delivery for repeat notice is not specified.
(§141.204) The violations and situations re-
quiring a Tier 3 notice are the same as
those described in §141.32(b) of current
rule, with the addition of a notice require-
ment for "other violations" determined by
the primacy agency to require a Tier 3 no-
tice.
Revised to require notice within one year. Un-
less primacy agency directs otherwise,
CWS must use mail or direct delivery, and
other methods reasonably calculated to
reach persons served. NCWS must use
posting, direct delivery, or mail, and other
methods reasonably calculated to reach
persons served. CCR or other annual re-
ports may be used, as long as notice in
CCR meets PN requirements.
Repeat notice annually; no method specified.
(§141.206) Revised to require notice for any
outstanding violation, including monitoring
and testing procedure violations.
Revised to require non-community systems to
keep notice posted for as long as violation
exists, even if notice was initially hand-de-
livered or otherwise distributed.
(§141.205) Adds "when violation was found"
and "when system expects to return to
compliance" to content elements. New re-
quirement to include "contaminant level".
Adds new element requiring standard lan-
guage asking bill paying customers to pro-
vide copies of notice to other persons
served who may not have received the no-
tice directly from the PWS.
Also, adds minimum content elements for no-
tices of operation under variance or exemp-
tion, which parallels CCR requirements. No
longer requires health effects language for
operation under a variance or exemption.
(New Appendix B) Revises standard health
effects language.
Adds standard language for monitoring and
testing procedure violations.
(§141.208) Moved to new Subpart Q, manda-
tory language is simplified
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25971
TABLE B.—SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROPOSED FIULE AND EXISTING RULE—Continued
Statutory authority (SDWA, as amended in
1996)
Current rule (§141.32)
Proposed rule
(part 141, subpart Q)
Public notice by primacy agency (not in statute)
1414(c)(2)(E)
Administrator may require notice of levels of
unregulated contaminants monitored under
section 1445(a)
1414(c)(2)(B)
States may establish alternative notification re-
quirements
(§ 141.32(g)) The State may give notice to the
public on behalf the public water system if
the State complies with the requirements of
§141.32. However, the owner or operator
of the public water system remains legally
responsible.
(§141.35(d)) Written notice of availability of
results within three months after system re-
ceives results (surface water systems only
need to notify after the first quarter of moni-
toring).
(§142.10(a)) Authority to require public water
systems to give public notice that is no less
stringent than the EPA requirements in
§§141.32and142.16(a).
(§142.16(a)) If the state chooses to decrease
notice frequency for minor monitoring viola-
tions it must submit to EPA the criteria used
to decide the decreased frequency and
which violations are minor, and it must sub-
mit the new notice requirements.
(§141.209) No change.
(§141.207) Revised to require notice of avail-
ability of results within 12 months, following
Tier 3 delivery requirements; deletes
§141.35(d).
(§142.10(a)) No change.
(§142.16(a)) Deletes current requirement. Re-
affirms under §142.16(a)(1) the two year
deadline (with possible 2-year extension)
for State primacy program revision.
New 142.16(a)(2) added to require State to
include in primacy program enforceable re-
quirements and procedures when State
opts to use its discretion to deviate from
EPA rule.
New 142.16(a)(3) added to allow primacy
agencies to establish alternative public noti-
fication requirements with respect to form
and content of notice, consistent with
1414(c)(2) (B) of 1996 SDWA amendments.
D. Rationale for Format of Proposed
Rule
EPA is proposing a new "plain
language" format for the revised public
notification regulation, consistent with
the requirements outlined in the June 1,
1998 memorandum sent by President
Clinton to all Federal agencies and the
ongoing Agency initiative to take steps
to improve both the clarity and
comprehension of regulatory language.
The difficulty in understanding federal
regulations has been a longstanding
criticism of federal agencies, including
EPA. The current public notification
rule, in particular, has been criticized by
GAO and others as being too complex
and confusing to implement. This
criticism was viewed by GAO in its
1992 report as one of the reasons the
public notification process is
ineffective.
The proposed rule is structured in a
question and answer format. Where
possible, tables were inserted in the rule
to make the various requirements easier
to understand. In addition, EPA is
proposing that an appendix be added to
list the acronyms used in the public
notification regulation. (See Appendix C
to 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q.)
EPA welcomes comments on the new
format and is soliciting ideas on ways to
make the public notification regulation
more readable by the regulated
community: '.
• Have we organized the material to-
suit your needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that isn't clear?
• Would a different format (grouping
and ordering of sections, use of
headings, paraphrasing) make the rule
easier to understand?
• Would more (or shorter) sections be
better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
E. General Provisions of Proposed Rule
(§141.201)
Today's proposal would replace the
existing public notification regulation
with an entirely new subpart (40 CFR
Part 141, Subpart Q), which
incorporates the new provisions under
sections 1414(c)(l) and (c)(2) of the
SDWA, as amended in 1996, and would
streamline the requirements to more
effectively meet the objectives of the
public notification process. Informing'
consumers of violations has been a key
feature of the SDWA since the statute
was first enacted in 1974. ]
The primary purpose of public
notification is to inform consumers of
any potential adverse health effects .
related to the drinking water provided
to them and of the steps they can take
to minimize the impact. Public
notification also addresses the
fundamental issue of consumer-right-to-
know, providing information on a
timely basis that allows consumers to
make informed choices about use of
their drinking water. The statute
requires EPA to issue regulations
prescribing the manner, frequency,
form, and content for giving public
notice. The proposed rule would revise
the existing public notification
requirements:
• To focus the public notification on
the violations posing the greatest
potential risk to public health,
• To give greater latitude to States to
develop alternative programs to meet
their unique needs;
• To provide greater flexibility to
public water systems to tailor
distribution of the notice to best reach
the affected population; and
• To encourage water systems to use
the annual Consumer Confidence Report
or other annual reporting mechanism to
give the initial public notice for less
serious violations.
These changes to the regulation are
intended to better meet the purposes of
the public notification process to better
-------
25972
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
Inform consumers about drinking water
issues affecting their health.
1. Who must give public notice? EPA
is proposing to amend the current
regulatory language to explicitly require
public notice for "other situations
determined by the primacy agency to
have potential of serious adverse effects
on human health." (See Table 1 of 40
CFR 141.201 of the proposed rule.)
Other than this addition, EPA is
proposing to maintain the current
regulatory requirements defining who
must give public notice and in what
situations it must be given. Public water
systems are required under the
proposed rule, as now, to give public
notice to persons served by the system
for any failure to comply with a
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation (NPDWR), including any
monitoring and testing procedure
requirements, and where the water
system is operating under a variance or
exemption to the NPDWR. The proposal
will include the public notification
provisions for the new Disinfection
Byproduct (DBP) and Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR)
regulations which were published on
December 16,1998 (63 FR 69389 and
69477).
The proposed new language to this
section enables the primacy agency to
require public notice for other situations
not explicitly listed under Sections
1414(c)(l) and (c)(2) of the SDWA. EPA
recognizes that Sections 1414 (c)(l) and
(c) (2) limits public notification
requirements to violations of NPDWRs
or required monitoring, variances and
exemptions, and unregulated
contaminant monitoring results. Thus,
the situations identified for public
notice in Sections 1414(c)(l) and (2) are
limited to violations or notification
concerning existing drinking water
regulations. However, in some cases,
such as in the Milwaukee
cryptosporidium outbreak, dangerous
situations may occur without a violation
of existing drinking water requirements.
In these cases as well, public
notification may be critical to informing
the public of the need to take immediate
steps to avoid health risks. EPA is
proposing to add such situations to the
list of required public notices in this
rule. The Agency believes that Section
1445(a) of the SDWA provides ample
additional authority for requiring public
notification of situations other than
those listed in Section 1414(c)(l) and
(c)(2) that are deemed by EPA in its
regulations or by the primacy agency on
a case-by-case basis to present a
potential danger to drinking water
consumers.
To improve the clarity and
understanding of when a public notice
is required, the proposed rule also
consolidates into a new subpart (Part
141, Subpart Q) other special public
notice requirements (i.e., exceedance of
the fluoride secondary MCL; the notice
of the availability of the results of
unregulated contaminant monitoring
data). A list of all violations and
situations requiring a public notice,
including the specific regulatory
citation, is presented in a detailed
Appendix A attached to the rule.
Appendix A is intended to be updated
as new NPDWRs are promulgated or
when other situations arise where a
public notice is required. A public
notice is only required for the violations
or other situations listed in Appendix A
(unless the primacy agency requires
notice for other situations.).
EPA is asking for comment on the
proposed addition of explicit regulatory
language enabling the primacy agency
(including EPA in its regulations) to
require public notification for other
situations it believes have the potential
for serious health risk. EPA is also
asking for comment on its proposal to
present in tabular form all the situations
requiring a public notice and its plans
to update Appendix A as new rules are
promulgated.
2. What type of public notice is
required for each situation?EPA. is
proposing to divide the public notice
requirements into three tiers:
• Tier 1 Public Notice, for violations
and situations with significant potential
to have serious adverse effects on
human health as a result of short-term
exposure;
• Tier 2 Public Notice, for other
violations and situations with potential
to have serious adverse effects on
human health; and
• Tier 3 Public Notice, for all other
violations and situations requiring a
public notice not included in Tier 1 and
Tier 2.
The form, manner, and frequency of
the public notice is determined by the
tier the violation or situation is
assigned. Appendix A assigns each
violation and situation to one of the
three tiers. The specific requirements for
the public notice in each tier are defined
under §§ 141.202, 141.203, and 141.204
of this proposed rule.
The proposed three-tier approach to
public notification will be consistent
with the intent of the new public
notification provisions in the 1996
SDWA amendments. Section
1414(c)(2)(A) directs the Administrator
to issue regulations that provide for
different frequencies of notice based on
the differences between intermittent and
persistent violations and the seriousness
of any potential adverse health effects.
Section 1414(c)(2)(C) sets very specific
requirements for violations with
potential to have serious adverse effects
on human health from short-term
exposure. This includes a new
requirement that such notices be
distributed to all persons served no later
than 24 hours after the occurrence of the
violation. Section 1414(c)(2)(D) requires
EPA to define in its regulations the
notification procedures for all violations
not included under subparagraph (C).
This section requires that such
procedures specify that the water
system provide written notice to each
person served in either: (1) the first bill
prepared, if any, after the violation; (2)
in an annual report issued no later than
one year after the violation; or (3) by
mail or direct delivery as soon as
practicable, but no later than one year
after the violation.
EPA was guided by several objectives
in developing and evaluating options to
meet the provisions under Sections
1414(c)(l) and (c)(2) of the 1996 SDWA
amendments. The proposed regulation
reflects these baseline objectives:
• First, to be effective in meeting the
statutory mandate under 1414(c)(2)(C) to
get the notice out no later than 24 hours
for the most serious violations affecting
health from short-term exposure, the
public notice regulations had to focus
sharply on a very limited set of
violations. EPA believes that requiring
the 24-hour notice for too many
violations would be confusing, complex,
and more difficult to implement. It
might also dilute the effectiveness of the
24-hour notices if customers receive too
many of them. Therefore, EPA decided
in its proposal to limit the requirements
for 24-hour notices to those violations
with very strong evidence of serious
short-term health risks. Other violations
and situations that may require a 24-
hour notice on a case-by-case basis
would be handled by the primacy
agency. EPA recognizes that there are
other violations with possible short-
term health effects which have not been
included in Tier 1. But EPA believes
these violations do not routinely require
the same urgency as those violations
where the evidence of serious short-
term risk to health is strong. Examples
of such violations include Total
Coliform Rule (TCR) violations where
no fecal coliform is present and surface
water treatment rule treatment
technique violations.
• Second, to address the notice
requirements for all the other violations,
the public notice regulation has to take
into account the differences in risk
between the different types of
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64. No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999 /Proposed Rules
25973
violations. A sharp separation is clear
between the violations that may pose a
direct risk due to exposure to harmful
contaminants (either from short-term or
chronic exposure) and the vast majority
of violations which pose no known
health risk in themselves. Examples that
may pose a direct health risk are:
—Violations of the maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) and
maximum residual disinfectant levels
(MRDLs), because the contaminant
was actually found in the drinking
water at harmful levels; and
—Violations of treatment technique (TT)
requirements, because such a
violation indicates a deficiency in
water system treatment or operations
that increases the likelihood that
contaminants may be in the drinking
water.
Violations that are not directly related
to health risks include the majority of
the monitoring and testing procedure
violations, which are onetime violations
resolved during the next monitoring
period. The purposes of the public
notice for the two groups are different.
Notices for MCL, MRDL, and TT
violations are necessary to inform
consumers where the probability of
direct exposure to harmful
contaminants is elevated, to give them
an opportunity to take action to avoid
continued exposure. Timing of the
notice is important. Notices for
monitoring violations in most cases are
necessary to meet a consumer right-to-
know objective, separate from the
known or potential health risks from the
drinking water. An annual summary for
these violations is adequate.
• Third, to be effective, the public
notice regulation has to be easy to
understand, be simple to implement in
practice, and must provide States and
water systems enough flexibility to
tailor their public notices to the specific
local situation. EPA is well aware that
the complexity of the current public
notification regulations is a contributing
factor in the inability of public water
systems to meet the legislative
objectives.
EPA considered a number of options
for meeting these objectives. Other than
the proposed three-tier option, the
option most seriously considered was to
define a two-tier public notice structure,
separating violations with potential
short-term health effects from all other
violations. The first tier would
incorporate the provisions under
1414 (c) (2) (C). The regulations for the
second tier would either prescribe the
form, manner, and frequency of the
notice or simply incorporate the
statutory language under 1414(c)(2)(D).
This option would allow the primacy
agencies to define additional notice
requirements to separate the violations
posing potential health risks from other
administrative and technical violations.
Where primacy agencies had no
alternative program, the discretion on
the notice requirements for these other
violations would be left to the
individual water systems. The
advantages of such a two-tier public .
notice structure are that it would make
the federal requirement simple for water
systems to understand, would leave
greater flexibility to the States to tailor
the public notice requirements to their
specific needs, and would probably
result in fewer separate notices for
violations in the lower tier. This might
lead customers to take notices for
violations in the upper tier more
seriously.
However, EPA is not proposing this
two-tier structure. EPA and most of the
stakeholders EPA consulted believe
there are compelling reasons for the
EPA regulation to differentiate among
the lower tier violations based on the
seriousness and urgency of the risk.
These violations span a wide range of
potential health risks. A "middle-tier"
public notice requirement between the
24-hour notice and the annual notice is
appropriate for those lower-tier
violations and situations that may have
the potential for serious adverse effects
on human health, but are not significant
or urgent enough to require an
emergency notice. EPA believes a three-
tier system of public notification would:
• Effectively separates the form,
manner, content, and frequency of
public notice based on the seriousness
of any potential adverse health effects
(as mandated under 1414(c)(2)(A));
• Meets the clear objectives and
purposes of public notification;
• Be simple and straightforward to
implement; and
• Meets the requirements of the
statute.
EPA requests comment on whether
the two- or three-tiered structure would
be more appropriate for the final EPA
regulation and what the advantages and
disadvantages of the preferred tier
structure would be.
3. Who must be notified?1he SDWA
requires that public notice be provided
to "the persons served by the system."
(SDWA, Section 1414(c)(l)). Reaching
the persons served may pose a challenge
to some water systems. Some consumers
(such as apartment dwellers, other
renters, and condominium residents)
may not be the persons paying the water
bill. Thus, the form and manner of the
public notice necessary to reach the
persons served is unique to the local
situation. The proposed rule will
require water systems to provide the
notice in a form and manner that is
reasonably calculated to get the
information to all persons served in the
required time period. The minimum
methods to satisfy this requirement are
specified in the proposal for each public
notification tier. The proposed rule
would also retain the requirement that
copies of the public notice be sent to the
primacy agency within 10 days, in
accordance with the requirements
proposed in 40 CFR 141.31(d).
F. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the
Tier 1 Public Notice: Violations With
Significant Potential To Have Serious
Adverse Effects on Human Health as a
Result of Short-Term Exposure
(§141.202)
Today's rule proposes to define the
form, manner, and frequency of a Tier
1 public notice and to require that
public water systems use a Tier 1 public
notice.
1. Tier 1 Violations and Situations
The proposed rule would require a
Tier 1 public notice for the following
violation categories and other situations:
• Violation of the MCL for total
coliform, when fecal coliform or E. coli
are present in the water distribution
system; or failure to test for fecal
coliforms or E. coli after the presence of
coliform bacteria is confirmed in the
water distribution system;
• Violation of the MCL for nitrate,
nitrite, or combined nitrate+nitrite;
« Violation of the MRDL for chlorine
dioxide, where one or more required
repeat samples taken in the distribution
system the following day exceed the
MRDL, or when repeat samples are not
taken in the distribution system;
• Occurrence of a waterborne disease
outbreak, as defined in § 141.2; and
• Other violations or situations with
significant potential to cause serious
adverse health effects from short-term
exposure, as determined by the primacy
agency.
The violations and situations listed
here as requiring a Tier 1 public notice
all have significant potential to cause
serious adverse health effects from
short-term exposure to the drinking
water. The list of violations requiring a
Tier 1 public notice include all those
defined as posing acute health effects in
the current rule. In addition, three new
violations and situations are being
proposed today for Tier 1 public notice:
• First, a Tier 1 notice would be
required for violations of the new
chlorine dioxide standard when the
violation is based on monitoring results
in the distribution system. This was
-------
25974
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
added to the list of violations requiring
a Tier 1 notice to be consistent with the
public notification requirements
included with the disinfection
byproducts regulation published on
December 16, 1998 (63 FR69389).
Violations of the chlorine dioxide
standard within the distribution system
may harm human health based on short-
term exposure. Systems that do not
monitor for chlorine dioxide in the
distribution system after exceeding the
MRDL in entry point monitoring also
must issue a Tier 1 notice, to remain in
effect until they are able to demonstrate
that chlorine dioxide is not present at
these harmful levels in the distribution
system.
• Second, the Tier 1 coverage for
waterborne disease outbreaks would
expand the definition in the current rule
beyond violations of the SWTR for
unfiltered systems. The proposed rule
broadens this definition to include
waterborne disease outbreaks from all
public water systems that meet the
definition in §141.2:
Waterborne disease outbreak means the
significant occurrence of acute infectious
Illness, epldemiologically associated with the
Ingestlon of water from a public water system
which is deficient in treatment, as
determined by the appropriate local or State
agency.
Expanding the coverage to require a Tier
1 notice from any public water system
linked to a waterborne disease outbreak
meets the public health objectives of the
public notification provision. The
Agency believes that Section 1445 (a) of
the SDWA provides ample additional
authority for requiring public
notification in such situations, even
where the situation is not explicitly
listed as requiring public notification in
Section 1414(c)(l) and (2) of the SDWA.
[See discussion of this in Section IV.E. 1
above.] This expansion of the Tier 1
public notification requirements was
recommended and broadly supported by
the stakeholders consulted during the
development of the proposed rule.
• Finally, failure to test for fecal
coliform once the presence of total
coliform in the water distribution
system is confirmed would trigger a Tier
1 public notice, to remain in effect until
the system was able to demonstrate that
fecal coliform or E. coli bacteria is no
longer present. The current rule does
not specifically address the public
notice requirements when a PWS fails to
test for fecal coliform after confirming
the presence of total coliforms. EPA
believes strongly that such violations
pose great potential for short-term
adverse health risks to consumers,
because a system's failure to test for
fecal coliforms in such situations may
disguise a very serious drinking water
quality situation. Requiring a Tier 1
public notice in such situations was
widely supported by stakeholders
consulted during this rulemaking.
EPA considered several options that
would add or subtract from the list of
violations requiring this emergency
public notice. A number of violations
that may have the potential to pose
health risks from short-term exposure
are not included in the proposed list.
Specifically, violations of the Total
Coliform Rule (TCR) MCL (without the
presence of fecal coliform) and the
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)
treatment techniques are not listed in
Tier 1, although they may be associated
with potential health risks from short-
term exposure. The vast majority of the
MCL and TT violations in FY 1996 were
violations of the TCR and SWTR. EPA
does not believe these violations
routinely require the same urgency as
those violations included in Tier 1,
where the potential for serious short-
term risk to health is significant
whenever it occurs.
EPA is proposing to limit the
violations routinely requiring a Tier 1
notice to those with a significant
potential for serious adverse health
effects from short-term exposure. Other
violations which may have a potential
for adverse health risk from short-term
exposure, but where such risk is not
routinely significant, would be included
in the Tier 2 list. EPA believes focusing
the proposed 24-hour notice
requirement on the more limited set of
violations will increase the effectiveness
of the Tier 1 notices and lead to greater
health protection. EPA recognizes that
in certain situations a TCR or SWTR
violation may create a significant and
immediate health risk. In those
situations, a 24-hour notice is necessary
to immediately alert consumers to the
potential risk. Because such situations
are best determined on a case-by-case
basis, EPA is proposing to enable
primacy agencies to determine when
special circumstances require 24-hour
notices for situations not listed in
§141.202 of the rule.
2. Timing of the Tier 1 Public Notice
(and Consultation Requirement)
The proposed rule will require that a
Tier 1 public notice be provided by the
public water system as soon as
practicable but no later than 24 hours
after the system learns of the violation.
Under the proposal, the public water
system would also be required to
initiate consultation with the primacy
agency within that same 24-hour period
and comply with whatever subsequent
public notification requirements are
established during that consultation.
The requirement that the public water
system consult with the primacy agency
within the first 24 hours of discovering
the violation is new in the proposed
rule. The 1996 SDWA amendments,
under 1414(c)(2)(C)(iii), require that a
copy of the initial Tier 1 notice also be
sent to the primacy agency within the
same 24 hour period after the
occurrence of the violation. Under
1414 (c) (2) (C) (iv), the statute requires
that a public water system facing a Tier
1 notice situation distribute a notice
when required by the primacy agency
after consultation. EPA is interpreting
the statutory requirements under clause
C(iii) and clause C(iv) to require that the
public water system consult with the
primacy agency within the first 24 hours
after the violation becomes known to
the water system to determine
subsequent public notice requirements.
EPA further interprets the statute to
require the initial public notice required
within the first 24 hours under
1414(c)(2)(I) to apply regardless of when
the consultation with the primacy
agency takes place. In contrast, the
current rule sets the subsequent public
notice requirements (e.g., repeat notice
frequencies, form and manner of
subsequent notice, etc.) in the rule itself,
rather than as a result of consultation on
a case-by-case basis.
The proposed rule would identify a
number of elements which may be
covered during the consultation,
including the timing, form, manner,
frequency, and content of subsequent
notices and other actions reasonably
calculated to ensure the notice is
provided to all persons served.
Additional notices may be necessary to
reach other persons served who may not
have seen the initial notice and to
reaffirm the seriousness of the public
health risk from drinking the water. EPA
also believes that a supplemental notice
to announce that the violation has been
resolved and the risk from the drinking
water has been abated is an effective
way to bring closure to the emergency
situation. When to require subsequent
notices can best be handled by the
primacy agency on a case-by-case basis
in consultation with the public water
system.
In summary, the timing and process
established for the Tier 1 public notice
in the proposed rule would be
significantly different from the current
rule. First, the public water system
would be required to distribute the
notice within 24 hours (as required
under 1414(c)(2)(Q), rather than 72
hours. This is a statutory obligation for
such violations under the 1996 SDWA
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25975
amendments. Second, the proposed rule
would set a new requirement that the
water system consult with the primacy
agency to determine subsequent public
notification requirements. As described
earlier, EPA interprets the statute as
requiring this consultation with the
primacy agency.
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of
the Tier 1 Notice
The proposed rule would allow water
systems some flexibility in choosing the
form and manner used to distribute the
notice, but it reaffirms the enforceable
requirement that the form and manner
of notice delivery selected by the public
water system be reasonably calculated
to reach all persons served within the 24
hour period. To satisfy this requirement,
the proposed rule would require water
systems to use, as a minimum,
appropriate broadcast media, posting of
the notice in conspicuous locations,
and/or hand delivery to residences or
businesses served by the system. In
contrast, the current rule requires that
the initial notice be by electronic media
and subsequent notices be first in the
newspaper and later on by mail. The
changes in the public notification
process for these emergency-type
situations are expected to ensure faster
public communication that is better
tailored to the specific situation.
EPA is requesting comment on the
Tier 1 public notification requirements,
in particular the list of violations
requiring such a notice, the new
consultation process now proposed in
lieu of more prescriptive EPA
requirements, ,EPA's interpretation of
the statute under 1414(c)(2)(C) which/
allows EPA to require public water
systems to consult with the primacy
agency, and the revised requirements for
the form and manner of the Tier 1
notices.
G. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the
Tier 2 Public Notice: Other Violations
With Potential to Have Serious Adverse
Effects on Human Health (§141.203)
Today's rule proposes to define the
form, manner, and frequency of a Tier
2 public notice.
1. Tier 2 Violations and Situations
The proposed rule would require a
Tier 2 public notice for the following
violation categories and other situations:
• All violations of the MCL, MRDL,
and treatment technique requirements
not included in the Tier 1 notice
category;
• Violations of the monitoring and
testing procedure requirements where
the primacy agency determines that a
Tier 2 public notice is required; and
• Failure to comply with the terms
and conditions of any existing variance
or exemption in place.
The above list is similar to the list in
the comparable section of the current:
rule, with two exceptions. First, the
proposed rule would set the new public
notice requirements for the recently
published Disinfection Byproducts Rule
and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (63 FR 69389 and
69477). Second, the proposed rule
would allow the primacy agency, at its
option, to require a Tier 2 public notice
for a specific monitoring or testing
procedure violation. Unless the primacy
agency determines otherwise,
monitoring and testing procedure
violations would be reported in the
annual Tier 3 notice.
EPA considered two other options
that would add or subtract from the list
of violations requiring a Tier 2 notice:
• The first option was to move some
of the MCL or treatment technique
violations into Tier 3 rather than Tier 2,
with the leading candidates for Tier 3
notice being MCL violations posing
chronic health risk and the Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) treatment technique
violations. EPA also considered
separating the LCR treatment technique
violations further, putting some of the
lesser violations unlikely to pose a
direct risk to public health (e.g., public
education) into Tier 3. However, this
could make the requirements too
complex and too difficult to
communicate simply. Simplicity in
understanding and implementing the
requirements was one of the main
recommendations of the GAO report.
EPA is further concerned that delaying
the initial notice for MCL violations,
even if levels barely exceed the
standard, beyond 30 days (or three
months at the primacy agency's
discretion) may not be consistent with
the Agency's consumer right-to-know
objective.
• The second option was to move the
notice for the monitoring violations
from Tier 3 to Tier 2, recognizing that
persistent monitoring violations could
disguise potentially serious drinking
water quality violations. EPA did not
select this option. Instead, the proposal
enables the primacy agency to require
on a case-by-case basis that serious
monitoring and testing procedure follow
the Tier 2 public notice requirements
where necessary. EPA developed an
alternative approach to the proposal that
is discussed in Section VI(A) of the
Preamble. Comments are requested on
both the proposal and the option
discussed in Section VI(A).
2. Timing of the Tier 2 Public Notice
The proposed rule, under
§ 141.203(b), would require the public
water system to provide a Tier 2 public
notice to persons served as soon as
practicable, but no later than 30 days
after the system learns of the violation.
The public water system would be
obligated to get the notice out as soon
as practicable, particularly where the
situation requires an earlier notice. The
proposal also would require the public
water system to repeat the notice every
three months for as long as the violation
exists. Under the proposal, the primacy
agency may opt to define specific
violation circumstances that warrant an
extension of the initial Tier 2 notice or
a different repeat notice frequency for
continuing violations. The proposal
allows the primacy agency to define
specific circumstances where the initial
notice may be extended beyond 30 days
(up to three months) and where the
repeat notice may be set less frequently
than every three months (but no less
frequently than once a year).
In contrast, the current rule requires
a newspaper notice within 14 days, a
notice mailed to all bill-payers within
forty-five days, and a repeat notice
mailed every three months thereafter
until the violation is resolved. The shift
from 14 days to 30 days for the initial
notice, with a possible extension for up
to three months, is being proposed to
help consumers distinguish between
those violations posing significant short-
term health risks requiring immediate
action (Tier 1) from violations
potentially posing health risks but
where no urgent action by the consumer
is necessary (Tier 2). The 30-day (or
three month) period also would give the
water system more time to initiate steps
to resolve the violation before notifying
the consumers.
EPA believes that giving the primacy
agency flexibility to adapt the timing
requirements to fit specific
circumstances is clearly warranted. The
violation situations under Tier 2 are
very diverse, ranging from violations
potentially posing a health risk from
short-term exposure to violations posing
a chronic risk only from long-term
exposure. One size does not fit all. An
extension beyond 30 days may be
especially appropriate for contaminants
posing a chronic rather than acute
health risk (e.g., fluoride, arsenic,
radium). EPA standards for such
contaminants are designed to protect
against long-term exposure. An
extension may also be appropriate for
violations that were quickly resolved
and no longer pose any risk to persons
served (e.g., some Total Coliform Rule
-------
25976
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
or Surface Water Treatment Rule
violations). Finally, an extension to
three months may allow the water
system to include the initial notice in
the same mailing as the quarterly bill,
with no loss in effectiveness.
An alternative option to the approach
proposed in today's rule would be to
require a three month deadline (rather
than 30 days) for delivery of the initial
Tier 2 notice, and/or a one-year
frequency for repeat notices rather than
three months. Under this alternative, the
primacy agency would retain the
discretion to require the notice sooner
on a case-by-case basis or across the
board for all Tier 2 violations. EPA
requests comment on this alternative
approach to the proposal.
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of
the Tier 2 Notice
The proposed rule would retain the
public water system obligation to
provide the Tier 2 notice to persons
served by the water system. This is a
statutory obligation. The proposed rule,
however, would significantly change the
specific method of delivery required to
meet this obligation. The proposed rule
would first set a performance standard:
that the notice be provided in a form
and manner reasonably calculated to
reach persons regularly served by the
system. It would also require a specified
minimum method of delivery, but then
would provide much greater flexibility
in what the water system must do to
reach other persons regularly served if
they are not reached by the minimum
method. In contrast, the current rule (for
community water systems) first requires
a newspaper notice, followed by a
notice either mailed or directly
delivered to customers. The proposed
rule would require that community
water systems:
• Mail or otherwise directly deliver
the notice to each customer receiving a
bill (or other service connections); and
• Use any other method reasonably
calculated to reach other persons
regularly served by the system if they
would not normally be reached by the
mail or direct delivery requirement (e.g.,
newspaper, posting in public places,
delivery to community organizations,
etc.).
For non-community water systems,
the current rule requires posting for as
long as the violation exists. The
proposed rule would require that non-
community systems:
• Post or mail or directly deliver to
each customer; and
• Use any other method reasonably
calculated to reach other persons served
by the system if they would not
normally be reached by the posting.
mail, or direct delivery requirement
(e.g., organization newsletter, delivery
of multiple copies to a central location,
etc.).
In every case, the proposal would give
the primacy agency the option to
prescribe a different method of delivery
for the water system, based on policies
and procedures established as part of
their approved primacy program.
EPA believes that in practice, the
proposed requirements for method of
delivery for the Tier 2 (and Tier 3)
notices will ensure that notices
announcing violation of drinking water
requirements are communicated sooner
and more effectively than under the
current rule to a wider range of the
people served by the water system. At
a minimum, those people reached by
mail or direct delivery would receive
the notice early enough to make
informed choices about their drinking
water. The notice would also reach
other consumers who do not pay water
bills and who are not routinely
informed of the risk from the drinking
water when violations occur.
EPA discussed this provision at
length with the States and at various
stakeholder meetings. A number of
options emerged for delivery of both
Tier 2 and Tier 3 notices, ranging from
setting a "performance standard" with
no minimum method prescribed to
retaining the current very prescriptive
requirements. The proposal selected
was to require a minimum method to
deliver the notice, but to broaden the
options a water system may select in its
efforts to reach other persons served.
The option was proposed because it sets
a clear and easily understandable
minimum for all water systems to follow
and requires water systems to follow a
deliberate process to determine what
else needs to be done to reach other
persons served. Compliance
requirements under the proposed option
would be clear and enforceable.
EPA developed an alternative
approach to the proposal that is
discussed in Section VI(B) of the
Preamble. Comments are requested on
both the proposal and the option
discussed in Section VI(B).
EPA is requesting comment on the
Tier 2 public notification requirements,
in particular the list of violations
included under Tier 2, the 30-day time
period for the initial notice, the
requirement for a repeat notice of
ongoing violations every three months,
the discretion given to the primacy
agency to extend the initial notice to
three months or the repeat notice
frequency to one year (either on a case-
by-case basis or by rule), and the revised
requirements for the method of delivery
of the Tier 2 public notice. Comments
are also requested on the two specific
options discussed in Section VI as
alternatives to the proposed language.
H. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the
Tier 3 Public Notice: All Other
Violations and Situations Requiring
Public Notice (§141.204)
Today's rule proposes to define the
form, manner, and frequency of a Tier
3 public notice and to require that
public water systems use a Tier 3 public
notice.
1. Tier 3 Violations and Situations
The proposed rule would require a
Tier 3 public notice for the following
violation categories and other situations:
• Monitoring violations, unless the
primacy agency determines that the
violation requires a Tier 2 or Tier 1
notice;
• Failure to comply with a required
testing procedure;
• Operation under a variance granted
under Section 1415 or exemption
granted under Section 1416 of the
SDWA; and
• Any other violations and situations
determined by the primacy agency to
require a Tier 3 public notice.
The list of violations requiring a Tier
3 notice is similar to the list in
§ 141.32(b), the comparable section of
the current public notification rule. The
language in the proposed rule, however,
notes explicitly that the primacy agency
may require that public water systems
provide a Tier 2 (rather than a Tier 3)
notice for specific monitoring or testing
procedure violations. This is discussed
in Section V(G) above and in Section
2. Timing of the Tier 3 Public Notice
The proposed rule would require that
public water systems provide a Tier 3
public notice to persons served no later
than one year after the system learns of
the violation or begins operating under
a variance or exemption. The proposal
would also require the public water
system to repeat the notice annually for
as long as the violation or situation
exists. In contrast, the current rule
requires the notice to be mailed within
three months (with possible extension
to one year at the State's option) and a
repeat notice every three months
thereafter until the violation is resolved.
EPA believes that the annual notice for
Tier 3-type situations is appropriate,
given the nature of the violation (e.g.,
for failure to monitor) and the great
number of violations requiring such a
notice (i.e., 216,522 of the 235,214
violations reported to EPA in FY 1996);
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25977
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of
the Tier 3 Notice
The proposed rule would require that
public water systems provide the Tier 3
notice to all persons served by the water
system. This is a statutory obligation
that applies for all notices required
under the public notification rule. The
method of delivery requirements for
Tier 3 public notices would be the same
as those prescribed for the Tier 2 public
notice. A summary of the requirements
and a rationale are included in Section
V(G) above and in Section VI(B).
Water systems have the option under
the proposed rule to provide an annual
notice summarizing all Tier 3 violations
occurring during the previous year in
lieu of individual Tier 3 public notices.
For community water systems, the
proposal would allow the Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR) to be used as
the vehicle for notifying persons served
of violations occurring during the
previous year. The CCR is the
appropriate vehicle for initial public
notices as long as the public notification
timing and distribution requirements
are met. In particular, the CCR must be
mailed or hand-delivered to persons
served and it may only include those
violations occurring within 12 months
of publication. The advantages to using
an annual notice instead of individual
notices for every violation are
compelling, both in terms of reduced
cost and in terms of effective
communication with the consumers.
Since the vast majority of violations
require a Tier 3 public notice, the
burden on public water systems would
be dramatically reduced through use of
an annual notice. EPA strongly
recommends that public water systems
make use of the annual notice option.
EPA is requesting comment on the
proposed Tier 3 public notice
requirements, in particular on the
option to allow public water systems to
provide an annual report of violations in
lieu of individual notices twelve months
after each violation. Comments are also
requested on the use of the Consumer
Confidence Report to meet the Tier 3
public notification requirements.
Finally, comments are requested on the
revised requirements for the method of
delivery of the Tier 3 notices. See
Section VI(B) for a discussion of an
alternative to the proposed method of
delivery for Tier 3 public notices.
I. Content of the Public Notice
(§141.205)
Today's proposal specifies a list of
elements that must be included in a
public notice both for water systems
with violations of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations and for
water systems operating under a
variance or exemption. The proposed
rule would" carry forward from the'
current rule the requirement that water
systems use standard health effects
language for MCL, MRDL, and treatment
technique violations. The health effects
language in the proposed rule would be
simplified in response to concerns
raised by various stakeholders and the
GAO report that the current mandatory
health language is too lengthy and not
focused on the core health effects
information consumers need to know.
The proposed rule also would add new
standard language for monitoring
violations. Finally, it would add new
standard language to encourage the ;
recipients of the public notice to
distribute the public notice to others
served by the water system.
Note that the States may establish
alternative public notification
requirements related to the content of
the public notice (as part of their
primacy program revision under 40 GFR
142.16 (a) (3)), as long as these alternative
requirements provide the same type and
amount of information and are designed
to achieve an equivalent level of public
notice as EPA's regulation. This would
allow the States, for example, to submit
to EPA for approval a primacy program
revision that includes alternatives to the
required language on health effects,
monitoring violations, or distribution, of
the notice to others. ;
1. Standard Elements of the Public
Notice (§ 141.205(a)-(c))
The proposed rule would revise and
edit the list of standard elements
required in public notices.
• Ten elements would be required
(under § 141.205 (a)) for public notices
for violations of the NPDWR: a
description of the violation that
occurred (including the contaminant
level); when the violation occurred; any
potential adverse health effects; the
population at risk; whether alternative
water supplies should be used; what
actions consumers should take; what the
system is doing to correct the violation;
when the water system expects to return
to compliance; the phone number of the
water system owner or operator; and a
statement appended to the notice to
encourage notice recipients to distribute
the notice to other consumers who
might not have received their own copy
of the notice.
• Four elements would be required
(under § 141.205 (b)) for public notices
for water systems operating under a
variance or exemption: an explanation
for the reasons for the variance or
exemption; the date the primacy agency
granted the variance or exemption; a
brief status report on compliance with
the variance or exemption conditions;
and a notice of any opportunity for
public input into the review of the
variance or exemption. Note that this
information is identical to that already
required to be included in the CCR.
Community water systems that use the
CCR as the vehicle for the initial public
notices would not need to add any
additional information to meet the
content requirements for the variance
arid exemption notices required under
this proposal.
• Four performance standards will be
listed (under § 141.205(c)) defining the
adequacy of the notice: the notice must
be displayed in a conspicuous way
(where applicable); must not contain
overly technical language or very small
print; must not be formatted in a way
that defeats the purpose of the notice;
and must not contain language that
nullifies the purpose of the notice.
• For public water systems serving a
large proportion of non-English
speaking consumers (as determined by
the primacy agency), the public notice
would be required to contain
information in the appropriate language
regarding the importance of the notice
or contain a telephone number or
address where persons served may
contact the water system to obtain a
translated copy of the notice or to
request assistance in the appropriate
language.
The proposed rule (under
§ 141.205 (a)) would edit and rearrange
the list of required elements from the
current rule. The most significant
change to § 141.205 (a) is to require that
the notice for MCL and MRDL violations
include the contaminant level. The
proposed rule also would add a new
section § 141.205 (b) setting the required
elements for a variance or exemption
notice. This would be added to cover
the specific notice requirements unique
to water systems operating under a
variance or exemption.
The proposed rule would modify the
current rule by requiring public water
systems serving a large non-English
speaking population (as determined by
the primacy agency) to either include
information regarding the importance of
the notice in the appropriate language,
or provide a water system contact to
assist the non-English speaking
consumers. The current rule under
§ 141.32 (d) sets a similar requirement,
but in much more general terms,
requiring simply that the notice shall be
multi-lingual where appropriate. The
proposed public notification
requirement is identical to the provision
contained in the Consumer Confidence
-------
25978
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
Report (CCR) regulation, 40 CFR Part
141. Subpart O [63 FR 44511 (August
19, 1998)]. Under the proposed rule,
public water systems serving a large
non-English speaking population would
be required at a minimum to take
concrete steps to communicate the
Importance of the notice in the
appropriate language so that non-
English speakers could get assistance in
understanding it. EPA encourages water
systems to go beyond this minimum and
provide a translated copy of the notice
on request or offer telephone assistance
in the appropriate language. The draft
Public Notification Handbook issued
with the proposed rule for comment
contains sample language regarding the
importance of the notice in various
languages as well as complete sample
Tier 1 public notices in Spanish.
EPA modified the list of elements to
be required in the public notice in
response to stakeholder requests to
provide clearer national minimum
standards for notice content and
consistency. Comments are requested on
the list of elements in the proposal, the
four performance standards identified
for how the notices must be presented,
and the more specific requirement for
public water systems to communicate
with large non-English speaking
populations about the importance of the
public notice when violations occur.
2. Standard Health Effects Language
(§141.205(d)(l))
The proposed rule would retain the
requirement that all public notices for
MCL and treatment technique violations
use mandatory health effects language to
explain the health risks posed by the
violation. The language being proposed
today In Subpart Q, Appendix B is
identical to the language promulgated in
the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)
regulation, 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart O,
Appendix C. The proposal would
replace language in the current rule that
was added when each NPDWR was
promulgated. The proposed language is
shorter, simpler, and consistent with the
language EPA uses in similar outreach
forums and documents.
EPA is proposing to use the language
for the public notification rule that is
identical to health effects language from
the CCR regulation because it does not
make sense to draft different language to
meet such a similar requirement, unless
there is a compelling reason that is
specific to the intent of the public
notification provision. Although EPA
recognizes that the CCR and public
notice may be given at different times
and may be intended to meet different
objectives, EPA believes that the
benefits of having identical language to
communicate the same health effects
from violations outweighs the value of
tailoring the language to the unique
objectives of the public notice. EPA
expects that public water systems will
supplement the mandatory health
effects language or otherwise put the
language in the context of the overall
notice to meet the unique purposes of
the specific public notice. Examples of
public notices applicable to different
situations are included in the draft
Public Notification Handbook which is
being issued concurrently with this
proposed rule for comment.
EPA is requesting comment on the
proposal to use the CCR standard health
effects language to meet the public
notification requirement. In particular,
EPA is soliciting comment on specific
situations or violations where the CCR
language is believed to be inappropriate
or incomplete. Recommendations for
alternative language for such situations
would also be helpful.
3. Standard Language for Monitoring
and Testing Procedure Violations
(§141.205(4) (2))
The proposed rule would add a new
section requiring that all public notices
contain standard language for
monitoring and testing procedure
violations. The proposed standard
language informs consumers that
because the water system did not
monitor or follow the required testing
procedure during the compliance
period, the presence or absence of the
contaminant during that time could not
be determined and the water system is
unable to tell whether there was a risk
to health during that time. This new
mandatory language is being proposed
because of stakeholder concerns that
consumers may presume that because
there is no reported MCL, MRDL, or
treatment technique violation that the
drinking water provided by their water
system is safe. This may not always be
an appropriate presumption. The
mandatory language as proposed is
intended to be included in all public
notices for monitoring and testing
procedure violations.
The proposed standard language was
developed after the EPA workgroup (in
consultation with a number of States)
considered alternative approaches. EPA
is soliciting commenfon the proposed
standard language and welcomes
recommendations on alternative
language that would effectively inform
consumers of the significance of the
monitoring violation. In particular, EPA
will consider alternatives to the phrase
"* * * and we are unable to tell
whether your health was at risk during
that time." The phrase is included in
the proposal to clearly and simply alert
consumers that lack of monitoring may
disguise a potential risk to health. It is
intended to raise questions about the
significance of the specific monitoring
violation, not to alarm consumers
unnecessarily. EPA recognizes that
many monitoring violations pose no risk
to health and that most water systems
resume monitoring quickly after a single
violation. The proposed standard
language will be most effective where
the water system supplements the
standard language with a clear
explanation of what the violation meant
and how it was rectified. EPA will
consider options to this standard
language in its final rule.
Another option would be not to
require that any specific language be
included for all monitoring violations,
but to set a performance standard
instead. The performance standard
might be that all monitoring violations
be explained in a way that appropriately
communicates the public health
significance of the violation. EPA also
requests comment on this alternative
approach.
4. Standard Language to Encourage
Customers Receiving the Public Notice
To Distribute the Notice to Other
Persons Served (§ 141.205 (d) (3))
The proposed rule would add a new
section requiring that public notices
contain standard language encouraging
the customers receiving the public
notice to distribute the notice to other
persons served by the water system
(such as tenants, residents, patients,
etc.). Mailed notices, in particular, are
routinely sent to only the bill-paying
customers, and therefore may not reach
some consumers at risk unless actions
are taken to notify them of the
violations. EPA believes that this
standard language is appropriate as a
safety net and necessary to encourage
those receiving the public notice to take
steps to alert others of the violations and
potential risk from drinking water.
Compliance with this requirement is
one of the "reasonably-calculated steps"
a public water system must take to reach
other persons not expected to receive
the initial notice. EPA requests
comment on the proposed standard
language and would welcome
alternative language that aids the water
system in reaching all persons served.
J. Other Public Notification
Requirements
1. Notice to New Billing Units or New
Customers (§ 141.206)
EPA is proposing to modify the
current regulatory provision requiring
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25979
that community water systems send a
copy of the most recent public notice to
all new billing units for ongoing MCL
and TT violations or existing variances
and exemptions. The proposed rule
would broaden the requirement to
include notice for on-going monitoring
and testing procedure violations and
adds a new provision requiring non-
community water systems to
continuously post the notice or
otherwise take steps to inform new
customers of any ongoing violations.
EPA is proposing this change to the
existing requirement to better ensure
that new customers served by all public
water systems are made aware of any
continuing violations of drinking water
standards. The initial notice, if posted
in a location where new consumers pass
by, will meet this new requirement.
However, water systems that deliver the
initial notice by hand delivery or
otherwise have the notice out of sight of
new consumers would have an
additional responsibility under this new
provision. EPA believes this new
provision will make notices more
readily available to new consumers not
receiving the notice under the current
regulation. EPA requests comment on
the change to the current regulation
extending the requirement to cover on-
going monitoring and testing procedure
violations and to require that the notice
be provided to new customers by both
community and non-community water
systems.
2. Special Notice To Announce the
Availability of the Results of
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
(§§141.207 and 141.35)
Section 1414(c)(2)(E) of the SDWA, as
amended in 1996 gives EPA the
authority, at its option, to require public
water systems to give notice to persons
served of the concentration levels of
unregulated contaminants, where such
monitoring is required by EPA. The
authority for EPA to require such notice
was part of the SDWA prior to the 1996
amendments. However, the 1996 SDWA
amendments, under Section
1445(a)(2)(E), now require public water
systems to give notice of the results of
the unregulated contaminant monitoring
required by EPA to persons served by
the system. EPA believes that the intent
of these statutory provisions is met by
the existing public notification
provision under § 141.35, as amended
under this proposal. Section 141.35
requires water systems to announce the
availability of the results of required
unregulated contaminant monitoring
through the public notice process.
Further, the CCR regulation requires the
results of such monitoring to be
included in the annual CCR. Together,
the two existing requirements meet the
public-right-to-know objective and are
protective of public health.
EPA is proposing to amend the •
current provision under § 141.35 and
move the amended provision to the new
Subpart Q. The current provision
requires that the water systems give
notice of the availability of unregulated
contaminant monitoring results within
three months of receiving the results.
The amended requirement under
§ 141.207 retains the same reporting
requirement but changes the timing
from three months to twelve months
after the results are known. The
proposed change in the timing of the
public notice is to allow water systems,
at their option, to report the availability
of all the results just once during the
year, reducing the number of notices
from four to one. For community water
systems, the annual reporting
requirement can also be met through the
CCR, which already must include the
actual results of the unregulated
contaminant monitoring. EPA believes
close coordination between the public
notification requirement and the CCR|
reporting requirement for this
information will be both more efficient
and less confusing to the regulated
community and the public. ',
EPA requests comment on the
proposed approach to meet the
requirements under Sections
1414(c)(2)(E) and 1445(a)(2)(E). EPA
also requests comment on its proposal
to shift the reporting frequency
announcing the results of unregulated
contaminant monitoring from three :
months to twelve months.
3. Special Notice for Exceedance of the
Fluoride Secondary Maximum
Contaminant Level (SMCL) (§141.208)
EPA is proposing to modify the
standard language and to make other .
minor changes to the existing special
notice currently required under § 143.5
for community water systems that
exceed the SMCL for fluoride. The
proposal would move the revised
special fluoride notice requirement into
the new Subpart Q public notification
provision. The special public notice for
exceedances of the SMCL is to alert
persons served that the fluoride levels
in the drinking water may pose a
cosmetic dental risk to children under
nine years old. The SMCL is 2 rag/1. The
annual public notice would continue to
be required whenever drinking water
monitoring shows fluoride levels above
2 mg/1 but below the MCL violation
level of 4 mg/liter. The public notice
requirements for violations of the
fluoride MCL would be addressed
separately from the special fluoride
SMCL public notice required under
§141.208.
The proposed regulation under
§ 141.208 will make two changes to the
current public notice requirements for
exceedance of the fluoride SMCL:
• To require that the form and
manner of the special notice follow the
Tier 3 requirements in §§ 141.204(c) and
141.204(d) of the proposed rule; and
• To revise and simplify the
mandatory language, consistent with the
format used to develop the revised
standard health effects language for
MCL, MRDL, and TT violations.
The proposed requirement that the
notice be provided within 12 months
from the day the water system learns of
the exceedance, is unchanged from the
existing requirement. •
EPA believes it is important to retain
the existing fluoride SMCL notice
requirement with only minor
conforming changes. Consumers have a
right to know about the cosmetic effects
from dental fluorosis that may occur in
children from prolonged exposure to
drinking water exceeding the fluoride
SMCL. The notice requirement for
exceedance of the fluoride SMCL at 40
CFR 143.5 was put in place when the
fluoride national primary drinking
water regulation (NPDWR) was
published in April 2, 1986 [50 FR
11396]. The fluoride NPDWR replaced
the more stringent MCL in place as an
interim standard since the original
SDWA in 1974. The interim MCL of 2
mg/1 became the SMCL when the final
primary standard was published on
April 2, 1986. Part of the justification for
reducing the stringency of the MCL from
2 mg/1 to 4 mg/1 was that the public
would be notified of the potential for
developing dental fluorosis from
exposure to their drinking water when
the levels exceeded
2 mg/1.
EPA considered a number of options
changing the current fluoride SMCL
notice requirements, ranging from
eliminating the notice altogether to
requiring the notice every three months
rather than 12. EPA also discussed
extending the SMCL notice requirement
to NTNCWS, as the risk to children from
drinking water exceeding the SMCL
from schools and day-care centers (e.g.,
NTNCWS) may be as great as drinking
such water from their primary
residences (e.g., CWS). Although
NTNCWS are not currently required to
monitor for fluoride under EPA's
current regulations, and therefore the
EPA SMCL notice requirement does not
apply, EPA recommends that both CWS
and NTNCWS known to be providing
drinking water with fluoride levels
-------
25980
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
exceeding 2 mg/1 provide the special
SMCL notice to persons served. After
reviewing the various options, EPA sees
no reason to re-open the decision made
at that time to require the notice only
when CWSs exceed the SMCL of 2 mg/
1.
EPA requests comment on whether
EPA should retain the special public
notice for exceedance of the fluoride
SMCL and, if retained, whether
retaining the requirement allowing the
public notice to be given 12 months
after the exceedance is known is
sufficient, EPA also requests comment
on whether the revised mandatory
language better communicates the
purpose of the notice and the cosmetic
risks from drinking the water.
4. Conditions Under Which the Primacy
Agency May Give Notice on Behalf of
Public Water System (§ 141.209)
EPA is proposing to retain the
provision in the current rule specifying
under what conditions the primacy
agency may give notice on behalf of a
public water system. Under this
provision, the primacy agency may give
a public notice for the public water
system If all public notification
requirements are met. The responsibility
to comply, however, would always
remain with the public water system.
EPA requests comment on the proposal
to retain this provision.
K, Reporting to the Primacy Agency and
Retention of Records (§§141.31 and
141,33)
Under the current § 141.31, public
water systems are required to submit
copies of all public notices to the
primacy agency within 10 days of
completing each public notice. EPA is
proposing to amend the existing
reporting requirement under § 141.31 by
also requiring public water systems to
submit a certification to the primacy
agency that all public notification
requirements have been met. EPA
considered a number of options to the
proposal to require that public water
systems certify after each violation that
all public notification requirements
were met:
• One option was to broaden the
proposed certification provision to
require a public water system to not
only certify that it met the public notice
requirements but also to explain how
the requirements were met. EPA
decided not to propose this broader
requirement because such additional
reporting is resource intensive and
unnecessary in most cases. The
requirement for water systems to send
copies of all notices with a simple
certification of compliance provides
sufficient information for primacy
agencies to identify non-compliers.
• A second option was to leave the
existing reporting provision unchanged,
with no certification required. EPA
believes that a self certification of
compliance to the primacy agency (with
copies of the notices) saves primacy
agency resources and allows better
targeting of non-compliers.
• A third option was to shift the 10-
day requirement to submit the
certification and copies of notices to the
primacy agency to 30 days, three
months, or even a year after the public
notice. EPA is proposing to maintain the
existing 10-day requirement to give
primacy agencies enough information to
immediately target non-complying
water systems. The potential for such
immediate feedback where a
certification is not received will
increase voluntary compliance.
The proposal would also amend
§ 141.33 to require that public water
systems retain public notification
records for three years. The current
regulation has no provision for retention
of public notification records. A record
retention requirement for public notices
conforms with the requirements already
in place for other EPA regulatory
requirements (e.g., sampling results,
CCRs, variances and exemptions). The
record retention period of no more than
three years is consistent with the limits
set in the Office of Management and
Budget regulations at 5 CFR 1320.5
implementing the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
Regulations at 5 CFR 1320.5,
governing the imposition of reporting
and record keeping requirements by
Federal agencies on the public, specify
that those reporting information should
not be required to retain records (other
than health, medical, government
contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records) for
more than three years, unless the agency
demonstrates that a longer retention
period is necessary to satisfy statutory
requirements or other substantial need.
These regulations were published by the
Office of Management and Budget to
implement the Paperwork Reduction
Act goal of minimizing the paperwork
burden for individuals, small
businesses, education, and non-profit
institutions, Federal contractors, state,
local, and tribal governments, and other
persons resulting from the allocation of
information by or for the Federal
government. In accordance with these
regulations, EPA is, proposing a 3-year
record retention requirement for public
notification records.
EPA is also asking for comment on an
alternative to the proposal that would
extend the record retention period from
three years to five years for public
notification records. EPA believes that
the public notification regulation is
important to public health because of
the important health information
provided to the public upon finding a
violation. Because of the public health
protection provided by this regulation,
all enforcement options should be
maintained by the Agency and citizens
using the citizen provisions of the
SDWA. Record retention will ensure
speedy and less costly enforcement.
This alternative to the proposal would
ensure that records are available to EPA
and citizens to support penalty
enforcement actions for the full five year
federal statute of limitations. A five-year
retention period for public notification
records would also be consistent with
the retention period for the related CCR
regulation.
EPA requests comment on the
reporting and record-keeping proposal,
including the alternative to the proposal
to set the retention period for records
under the public notification regulations
to five years. EPA also requests
comment on whether the record
retention periods required under the
related CCR regulation should be
adjusted to three years, if necessary to
be consistent with the final public
notification retention requirement and
Paperwork Reduction Act regulations.
L. Special State/Tribal Primacy
Requirements and Rationale (40 CFR
Part 142, Subpart B)
The rule being proposed today would
amend §§ 142.16 and 142.10 of the
primacy regulations (40 CFR Part 142,
Subpart B) to define the requirements
that States (including eligible Indian
Tribes) must follow to incorporate the
revised public notification regulations
into their approved primacy program.
The proposed rule also revises § 142.14
to require that the State retain, for three
years, the certifications and public
notices received from the public water
systems and any determinations
establishing alternative public
notification requirements. Finally, the
proposal revises § 142.15 to reaffirm the
requirement that the State report
violations of the public notification
regulations on a quarterly basis to EPA.
The proposed changes to the primacy
requirements for the revised public
notification rule would amend both
§§ 142.10 and 142.16(a). Under the
primacy regulations, a State is required
to adopt, as a condition of primacy, a
State rule that is no; less stringent than
the regulation being proposed! to.day..
The requirements States must meet to
receive primary enforcement
responsibility ("primacy") are listed in
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25981
§ 142.10 and requirements to revise an
approved primacy program are in
§ 142.12. Under § 142.10(b)(6)(v), each
State with primary enforcement
responsibility must adopt and
implement adequate procedures to
require public water systems to give
public notice that is no less stringent
than the EPA public notification
requirements. Special primacy
requirements unique to specific
regulations are in § 142.16. The special
primacy requirements for the public
notification regulation are in § 142.16(a).
EPA is proposing to amend
§ 142.10(b)(6)(v) to replace the existing
citation with the new public notification
citation (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q).
The proposed change to § 142.16(a)
would delete the existing language and
replace it with a new section comprised
of three elements.
First, § 142.16(a)(l) would require
primacy States to submit requests for
approval of a revised primacy program
adopting the new public notification
requirements under 40 CFR Part 141,
Subpart Q. States will have two years
after the final rule is published in the
Federal Register to submit a complete
and final primacy program revision
package to EPA, unless the State
requests and EPA approves an extension
of up to two additional years.
Second, § 142.16(a)(2) would require
that States establish, as part of their
revised primacy program, enforceable
requirements and procedures when the
State opts to use the authority under:
• §141.201(a)—To require public
water systems to give a public notice for
situations other than those listed in
Appendix A, where the State
determines that the situation has
significant potential for serious adverse
effects on human health;
• §141.202(a)—To require public
water systems to give a Tier 1 public
notice (rather than a Tier 2 or Tier 3
notice) for violations or situations other
than those listed in Appendix A;
• § 141.202(b) (3)—To require public
water systems to comply with
additional Tier 1 public notification
requirements set by the State
subsequent to the initial 24-hour notice,
as a result of their consultation with the
State required under § 141.202(b)(2);
• § 141.203(a)—To require the public
water systems to provide a Tier 2 public
notice (rather than Tier 3) for
monitoring or testing procedure
violations specified by the State;
• § 141.203(b)—To grant public water
systems an extension of time (up to
three months) for distributing the Tier 2
public notice, for specific circumstances
defined in the State's primacy program;
• §141.203(b)—To require a different
repeat notice frequency for the Tier 2
public notice (to be no less frequent
than once per year), for specific
circumstances defined in the State's ,
primacy program; and
• §§141.203(c)andl41.204(c)—To
require a different form and manner of
delivery for Tier 2 and 3 public notices.
Third, § 142.16(a)(3) would allow the
State to establish, by rule, alternative
public notification requirements from
those established in the rule being
proposed today. Section 142.16(a)(3)
incorporates language in § 1414(c)(2)(B)
of the SDWA, as amended in 1996,
defining the alternative program. Under
this section, a State may develop an
alternative program with respect to the
form and content of the notice, as long
as the program contains the same
amount and type of information. EPA is
proposing to interpret the "no less
stringent" standard of EPA's primacy
regulations as requiring States to
maintain the same type and amount of
information as EPA's rule. The State
alternative public notification program
would have to be approved by EPA as
part of the process established under the
primacy rule to review revisions to
approved primacy programs.
EPA is requesting comment on the :
proposed requirements States v/ould
have to follow to develop the approved
primacy program revision and on other
changes to the State record keeping and
reporting requirements related to the
public notification rule. EPA is also
requesting comment on the projposed
interpretation of the primacy standard
to be applied for review of State
alternative programs.
V. Relationship of Public Notification
Regulation to Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR) Regulation
The rule being proposed today would
be closely related to the Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR) regulation
promulgated in August, 1998 [63 FR
44511 (August 19, 1998)]. In developing
the proposal for the public notification
rule, EPA identified provisions of both
rules that either overlap or need to be
consistent. The proposed rule has used
identical language from the CCR rule
where there was an overlap, deferred to
the CCR process where the public
notification objectives could be
effectively accomplished through the
CCR, and otherwise used language
consistent with the CCR when f.t was
appropriate.
• Health Effects Language
(§141.205(d)(l), Appendix B). Language
on health effects of violations is
required both for the CCR and public
notification. EPA is proposing that the
health effects language for the public
notice would be identical to the
language in the CCR (§ 141.153(d)(6),
Appendix C).
• Use of CCR for Some Public Notices
(§ 141.204(d)). The annual CCR requires
an annual summary of all violations that
have occurred in the last year
(§141.153(0). EPA is proposing today
that community water systems, at their
option, use the Consumer Confidence
Report as the mechanism to notify their
customers of any or all Tier 3 violations
as long as those violations occurred
Within the last 12 months (see
discussion in part IV(H) above). EPA is
also proposing that public water
systems not required to distribute a CCR
consider an annual report of all their
Tier 3 violations or variance or
exemptions, in lieu of individual public
notices. In all cases, the CCR or other
annual report would have to follow the
requirements of the public notice rule to
be used for this purpose.
• State Primacy Requirements
(§ 142.216(a)). Both the CCR and the
public notice regulations must be
adopted by the State as a condition of
primacy. EPA is proposing today that
the standards and process for primacy
approval for the public notification rule
would follow the same requirements
contained in the CCR rule (§ 142.16(f)).
• Notice of the Availability of the
Results of Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring §141.207). The 1996 SDWA
amendments for both the CCR and
public notification contained provisions
related to giving notice of the results of
unregulated contaminant monitoring
required by EPA. The CCR provision
makes such reporting mandatory
(§ 141.153 (d) and (e)). The public notice
provision (§ 1414(c)(2)(E)) requires such
reporting at the option of the EPA
Administrator. EPA is proposing today
to defer to the requirement that such
information be included in the annual
CCR for community water systems. EPA
is also proposing today to continue
(with some revisions) to require that
community water systems give notice of
the availability of the results of the
unregulated contaminant monitoring .
now required under § 141.35.
• Certification by PWS That Public
Notification Requirements Are Met
(§141.31 (d)). The proposed rule would
add a new requirement that public
water systems submit a letter to the
primacy agency certifying that all
requirements have been met, This
would be consistent with the
certification requirement in the CCR
regulation (§ 141.155(c)).
• Use of Multilingual Notices
(§ I41.205(c)(2)). The CCR regulation
requires that in communities with a
-------
25982
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
large population of non-English
speaking residents, as determined by the
primacy agency, the report must contain
information in the appropriate
language(s) regarding the importance of
the notice or contain a telephone
number or address where persons
served may contact the water system to
obtain a translated copy of the notice or
to request assistance in the appropriate
language. The proposed public
notification would be identical to the
provision in the CCR rule
(§141.153(h)(3)).
EPA is requesting comment on the
approach in the proposed rule to align
the public notification requirements
with the parallel requirements in the
CCR rule for the six areas identified
above and for any other areas that
would make compliance with the two
rules more effective and efficient.
VI. Request for Public Comment on
Alternatives to Proposal
EPA has requested comment
throughout this preamble on the various
elements of the regulation proposed
today. EPA is requesting here comments
on two specific options that are
alternative approaches to what is being
proposed. EPA will consider comment
on these two alternative options to
determine the final rule requirements.
A. Requiring Tier 2 Public Notice for
Monitoring and Testing Procedure
Violations
During the development of the
proposed public notice requirements for
specific violations, several options
emerged for the proper placement of
monitoring and testing procedure
violations. Over 90 percent of all
violations of National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations are monitoring and
testing procedure violations. These
violations range in severity from an
administrative error quickly corrected to
failure to monitor over the whole year.
EPA is proposing that the public notice
for all monitoring and testing procedure
violations follow the Tier 3 annual
notice requirements, unless the primacy
agency determines on a case-by-case
basis that the more stringent Tier 2
notice is necessary. EPA believes that
Tier 3 notices are appropriate for the
vast majority of monitoring violations
because they are unlikely to result in
significant health threats. Recognizing,
however, that in some cases they may
disguise such a threat, EPA is providing
flexibility to the primacy agency to
place monitoring violations in Tier 2 (or
even in Tier 1) on a case-by-case basis.
EPA is concerned that requiring more
frequent notices for monitoring and
testing procedure violations on a routine
basis may dilute the effectiveness of the
public notification process.
Some stakeholders have expressed
concern that this proposal was not
sufficiently protective of public health
and the consumer's right-to-know. They
argue that placing all monitoring and
testing procedure violations in Tier 3,
even though the primacy agency has the
option to place them in a higher tier
when warranted, may in some cases
increase the possibility that timely
public notices for serious violations
would not be made. In cases where
inadequate monitoring disguises MCL or
TT violations, the lack of timely notice
may pose a risk to public health.
EPA is, therefore, requesting comment
on an alternative to the proposal that
would require public water systems to
use Tier 2 (rather than Tier 3) public
notice for monitoring and testing
procedure violations. Under this
alternative proposal, primacy agencies
would be allowed, by rule, to designate
some or all monitoring and testing
procedure violations as Tier 3 rather
than Tier 2. The presumption under this
alternative is that the violation would
require a Tier 2 notice unless the
primacy agency decided otherwise (as
part of its approved primacy program).
Another option would be to allow the
primacy agency to classify monitoring
and testing procedure violations as Tier
3 on a case-by-case basis. Both the
proposed language and these
alternatives give the primacy agency
flexibility to tailor the public notice to
the seriousness of the violation. The
difference lies in what the default
would be in the absence of action by the
primacy agency. Because EPA believes
that Tier 3 is appropriate for the vast
majority of monitoring and testing
procedure violations, the proposed rule
makes Tier 3 the default.
Comments are requested on these
alternative proposals for determining
the proper public notice tier for
monitoring and testing procedure
violations.
B. Giving PWS flexibility in Method of
Delivery of Tier 2 and 3 Notices
The proposed rule would require that
community water systems mail or
directly deliver notices to bill-paying
customers (or service connections) and
use any other method reasonably
calculated to reach other persons if they
would not normally be reached by the
mail or direct delivery requirement. The
proposed rule has a parallel provision
for non-community water systems,
allowing posting in lieu of mail or hand
delivery.
EPA discussed this provision at
length with the various stakeholder
groups. EPA is asking for comment on
an alternative to the proposed language
that would allow the public water
system to choose from a longer list of
possible delivery methods. Unlike the
proposal, the alternative would not
require a specific method to be used by
all the water systems (e.g., mail or direct
delivery by all community water
systems). In both the proposed language
and this alternative, the water system's
obligation under the rule would be the
same: to take steps reasonably
calculated to reach all persons served.
The advantage of this alternative is
that it gives the water system a menu of
methods to choose from to reach all
persons served, which encourages ;
creative and more efficient solutions
than possible under the proposal. It
recognizes the need to tailor the
methods of delivery used to the specific
situation. The disadvantage is that it
sets a less precise regulatory obligation
that may lead to inadequate compliance
with the intent of the public notice
provision. It may also be more difficult
for EPA and the States to enforce this
less precise requirement.
EPA is requesting comment on this
alternative to the language in the
proposal for delivering Tier 2 and Tier
3 notices. If the alternative is chosen in
the final rule, what optional methods
should EPA include in the regulatory
list of acceptable delivery methods?
VII. Cost of Rule
EPA has estimated the costs for both
public water systems, which must
comply with the requirements of the
proposed public notification rule, and
the State primacy agencies, which must
implement the new requirements on
behalf of EPA.
For public water systems, the
estimated costs of complying with the
new regulation are divided into three
component activities: notice preparation
costs, notice distribution costs, and
costs of repeat notices. Only public
water systems with a violation or other
situation requiring a public notice incur
costs under this rule. Notice preparation
costs include those costs that a public
water system must incur to comply with
the requirements regardless of how
many copies of the notice it must
deliver. These costs include the labor
hour costs associated with becoming
familiar with the requirements for the
notice, collecting data regarding
monitoring results and the violation,
consulting with the primacy agency
(when necessary), preparing the
technical content of the public
notification in a format suitable for
distribution, identifying the recipients
of the notice, and providing instructions
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13. 1999/Proposed Rules
25983
about production of the notice. Notice
distribution costs are costs that increase
or decrease along with the number of
public notices to be delivered. These
costs include costs of producing the
reports (costs of paper, photocopying or
printing, and labels), postage costs when
the notice is mailed, costs of a notice in
a newspaper when necessary, costs of
posting notices in specified locations,
and other labor hour costs of producing
and delivering the notices. Repeat
notice costs involve only the costs of
delivering a second copy of the notice,
if the violation is not corrected within
the specified time period.
For primacy agencies, the estimated
incremental costs of implementing the
new requirements are also divided into
three components: costs of consulting
with public water systems to clarify
notice requirements on a case-by-case
basis; costs of receiving and reviewing
the public water system compliance :
certification and copies of the notices;
and costs of filing and maintaining the
public notification records.
Table C provides a summary of the
estimated total dollar and hour costs to
public water systems and to the State
primacy agencies. The public water
system costs are broken out by size of
the system. The combined total cost per
year to both the PWS and the primacy
agencies is $17,956,117. The combined
total burden hours are 972,107.
TABLE C.—AVERAGE ANNUAL COST AND LABOR HOURS FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS AND PRIMACY AGENCIES
Summary table
Public Water Systems (PWS):
PWS serving 25-500
PWS serving 501-3,300
PWS serving 3,301-10,000
PWS serv. 10,001-100,000
PWS serving over 100,000 '.
Totals for PWS:
State Primacy Agencies
Totals
Total cost
per year1
(D
$6 867 175
1 804545
1 ,266 782
2614813
3,837,948
16391 263
1 564854
17956 117
Total labor
hours
(2)
686718
'146 732
36718
36 186
4634
910987
61 120
972 107
Number of
systems in
violation2
(3)
40 467
4473
912
667
53
46 572
agencies.
Labor hours
per system
(2)/(3)
(4)
1fi Q7
'v? fin
40 26
CA OC
8742
1Q
-------
25984
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
BURDEN AND COST ESTIMATES UNDER THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED RULES (FOR PWSs AND PRIMACY AGENCIES)
[Rounded to Nearest 10,000 for Burden Hours and Nearest $100,000 for Cost]
Cost
Current rule
(Re-cal-
culated) 1
1,200,000
$27,000,000
Proposed rule
ICR
970,000
$17,900,000
Decrease
230,000
$9,100,000
Percent
change
19.2
33.7
1 To make the current rule estimate and proposed rule estimate comparable, the current rule estimate is adjusted to be the sum of the costs
under the proposed rule plus the estimated cost savings that will be realized under the proposed rule.
Two programmatic changes associated
with the proposed rule account for the
bulk of the reduction in burden and cost
estimates from the current rule.
• The proposed rule changes both the
timing and method of delivery options
for Tier 3 violations—
—The proposed rule would require
notice within one year after the
occurrence of the violation rather than
within three months, as required by
the current rule. Systems with
monitoring and testing procedure
violations occurring several times
throughout the year are able under the
proposed rule to consolidate their
notices into one annual notice. The
current rule limits the PWS's ability
to combine multiple violations into a
single notice to those occurring
within the prior three months. For
estimating the burden reduction from
this change, EPA assumes that, under
the current rule, systems with
violations send out an average of 1.5
notices per year.
—The proposed rule allows community
water systems to meet the public
notice requirements for Tier 3 through
the existing Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR). Tier 3 violations are
primarily monitoring or testing
procedure violations. Systems that
would otherwise incur a large labor
burden and postage burden for
distributing a mail notice and paying
for a newspaper notice will be able to
insert the text of the notice into the
CCR and incur no additional costs.
EPA estimates that half of all
community water systems serving less
than 10,000 and all community
systems serving more than 10,000 will
use the CCR for Tier 3 notices.
—The estimated burden reduction for
the proposed changes to the timing
and method of delivery for Tier 3
notices is approximately 210,000
hours (17.5 percent) and the cost
reduction is approximately
$6,500,000 (24.1 percent).
• The proposed rule changes the
required methods of delivery for Tiers 1
and 2 notices. The existing rule requires
both newspaper and mail delivery for
all tiers, although the primacy agency
may waive the mail requirement if it
determines the violation has been
resolved within a given time. Those
systems for whom no newspaper outlet
is available are allowed to hand deliver
or post instead of mailing and using the
newspaper. Under the current rule,
systems with Tier 1 violations must also
issue a notice via television or radio.
The proposed rule requires only one
method of delivery for Tier 2—mail or
hand delivery (or posting for non-
community systems). The burden
reduction for Tier 2 is small, because it
eliminates only newspaper notices,
which are estimated to take only 1 hour
of labor. For Tier 1, however, systems
will have the option of issuing the
notice via electronic media, hand
delivery, or posting. The burden
reduction resulting from the change in
the Tier 1 and Tier 2 method of delivery
requirements in the proposed rule
would be approximately 20,000 hours
(1.7 percent), and the cost reduction
would be $2,600,000 (9.6 percent).
The estimated total savings resulting
from the above changes to the
requirements in the proposed rule are
approximately 230,000 hours (19.2
percent) and $9,100,000 (33.7 percent).
Several caveats should be borne in
mind in interpreting these cost
estimates. A number of costs have been
omitted from the estimates. These
include costs for Tier 1 notices for
waterborne disease outbreaks or other
situations determined by the primacy
agency to have the potential for serious
adverse health impacts as a result of
short-term exposure, costs for repeat
notices for fecal coliform violations,
costs for notices on the availability of
unregulated contaminant monitoring
results for systems that would not
otherwise have to prepare an annual
notice, costs for stuffing notices into
bills, costs for air time on broadcast
media if they refuse to run adequate
notices as public service
announcements, costs for notices that
cannot be included in CCRs or customer
bills because the required time frames
preclude it, costs for notices associated
with the recently promulgated Stage 1
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts
(D/DBP) rule and the Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule
(IESWTR), and costs to States associated
with adopting primacy regulations to
implement the new public notification
requirements. EPA is continuing to
refine its cost estimates and will
incorporate as many of these costs as
possible into its economic analysis for
the final rule.
Most of these costs have been omitted
from the analysis for the proposed rule
because they are not expected to be
large and would not significantly
change the bottom line cost and burden
estimates. However, the public
notification costs associated with
violations of the D/DBP rule and the
IESWTR may be significant. These rules
contain a number of new standards as
well as significant new monitoring
requirements, and will require a
significant capital investment from
some systems. Because these two rules
have not yet gone into effect, EPA has
omitted the cost estimates for the
proposed public notification rule. EPA
does not currently have any basis on
which to project the annual number of
violations requiring a public notice.
However, EPA recognizes that meeting
the public notification requirements for
these new rules could raise the costs of
the current and proposed public
notification rule significantly.
In considering the burden and cost
reduction for the proposed rule relative
to the current requirements, it is
important to keep in mind that this
comparison is based on assuming full
compliance with both rules. In fact, as
documented in the GAO report, there
has been widespread non-compliance
with the current requirements. EPA
expects that by clarifying and
streamlining these requirements, the
proposed rule will result in a
significantly higher level of compliance.
To the extent that this occurs, there will
also be an increase in State and water
system resources devoted to public
notification, despite the savings
estimated here because of the
streamlined rule that is being proposed.
On the other hand, for those systems
that have been complying with public
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25985
notice requirements all along, the
proposed rule may result in genuine
cost and burden savings.
For more information about the costs
of the rule and how EPA developed the
estimates, see the Supporting Statement
for the EPA Information Collection
Request (ICR#1898.01) and the
Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis that EPA submitted for OMB
approval. EPA is requesting comment
on its cost estimates and methodology.
. Other 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 OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact or entitlement, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of the recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of the legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, it has been determined
that this rule is a "significant regulatory
action." As such, this action was
submitted to OMB for review. Changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented
in the public record.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 etseq., as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA),
EPA generally is required to conduct a
regulatory flexibility analysis describing
the impact of the regulatory action on
small entities as part of rulemaking.
However, under section 6.05 (h), 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
a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Pursuant to section 605 (b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
There are three types of small entities
under the RFA:
• A "small business" is any small
business concern that is independently
owned and operated and not dominant
in its field as defined by the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). Public
water systems within this category
include privately owned community
water systems, mobile home parks, and
day care centers. ;
• A "small organization" is any not-
for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated and
not dominant in its field. Examples of
water systems that are small
organizations are churches, schools, and
homeowners associations.
• A "small governmental
jurisdiction" includes cities, counties,
towns, school districts or special
districts with populations of less than
50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601).
For this analysis, EPA selected
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
as the criterion for small water systems
and therefore as the definition of small
entity for the purposes of the RFA as
amended by SBREFA. This is the cut-off
level specified by Congress in the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act for small system flexibility
provisions. Because this definition does
not correspond to the definitions of
"small" for small businesses,
governments, and non-profit
organizations previously established
under the RFA, EPA requested comment
on an alternative definition of "small
entity" in the Preamble to the proposed
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)
regulation (63 FR 7620, February 13,
1998). Comments showed that
stakeholders support the proposed
alternative definition. EPA also
consulted with the SBA Office of
Advocacy on the definition as it relates
to small businesses. In the preamble to
the final CCR regulation (63 FR 44511,
August 19, 1998), EPA stated its intent
to establish this alternative definition
for regulatory flexibility assessments
under the RFA for all drinking water
regulations and has thus used it for this
public notification rulemaking. Further
information supporting this certification
is available in the public docket for this
rule.
The basis for the Administrator's
certification is as follows: the
annualized compliance costs of the rule
represent less than one percent of
annual sales for small businesses and
less than one percent of annual
operating revenues for small
government entities. The analyses
supporting this certification are
contained in the "Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Analysis" prepared for this
proposed rule. Each analysis compared
the average estimated per-system
compliance costs associated with the
proposed regulation with the average
estimated per-system revenues or
expenditures.
The first analysis, using existing data,
categorized systems as small businesses,
small governments, and small
organizations-. Within these categories,
EPA subdivided the entity categories
into three size range categories: those
systems serving 25-500 people; those
systems serving 501-3,300 people; and
those serving 3,301-10,000 people. The
analysis was completed for each of the
small entity types and sizes. The
existing data included only CWSs and
NTNCWSs. TWSs were excluded
because no data were available for them
on entity type. The resulting ratios
ranged from less than 0.01 percent for
small organization water, systems
serving 500 or more persons to 0.20
percent for small government systems
serving 25 to 500 persons.
The second analysis categorized
systems by system type (i.e., CWS,
NTNCWS, and TWS), using the same
three size categories as the first analysis.
The resulting ratios ranged from less
than 0.01 percent for non-transient non-
community water systems serving less
than 500 persons to 0.36 percent for
transient non-community water systems
serving 3,301-10,000 persons.
All system types and system size
categories are well below a 1 percent
impact on average. This methodology
obscures to some extent the potential for
impact on individual systems. For
example, the average revenue for a CWS
in;tne 25-500 size range is estimated at
$93;743 while the average compliance
cost is estimated at $183, or 0.20 percent
of average revenue. Many systems in
this size range have lower revenues,
however, and if they had several
violations in one year could have higher
compliance costs. Thus, many
individual systems may experience
compliance costs higher than 0.20
percent of revenue.
Even so, EPA believes these potential
costs are unlikely to represent a
significant adverse economic impact for
more than a handful of systems. The
proposed rule would reduce the costs of
implementation currently required for
all public water systems under the
existing public notification rule; even
though (as discussed in Part VII) as a
practical matter the actual costs
-------
25986
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
incurred will likely increase for water
systems not complying with the current
public notification regulations.
Since the Administrator is certifying
this rule, the Agency did not prepare an
RFA. Nevertheless, the Agency has
conducted outreach to address the
small-entity impacts that do exist and to
gather information. The Agency also has
structured the rule to avoid significant
impacts on a substantial number of
small entities by providing flexibility to
public water systems on the method of
delivery of the public notice and by
offering all public water systems the
opportunity to use an annual report of
violations in lieu of individual Tier 3
notices. In addition, all community
water systems are encouraged to use the
CCR to meet the requirements of the
public notice rule wherever appropriate.
(Note that to use the CCR, many small
systems would have to distribute their
CCR more widely to meet the public
notification distribution requirements.)
Finally, small community water systems
and all non-community water systems
may hand deliver or post the notice in
lieu of mailing, reducing substantially
their overall cost of compliance with
this rule.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 erseg. An
Information Collection Request flCR)
document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1898.01) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer, OP
Regulatory Information Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2137), 401 M Street SW, Washington,
DC 20460, by E-mail at
farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling
(202) 260-2740. The supporting
statement for the ICR is available for
review from the EPA Docket for this
rule, titled: "Supporting Statement for
EPA Information Collection Request
Number #1898.01, Public Water System
Supervision Program Public Notification
Requirements." A copy may also be
downloaded off the Internet at http://
vnvw.epa.gov/icr. The information
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
(SDWA) of 1996 (Public Law 104-182)
enacted August 6, 1996. Public notice of
violations is an integral part of a number
of public health protection and
consumer right-to-know provisions of
the 1996 SDWA amendments. The
public notification requirement is one of
six interrelated provisions now
included in the SDWA related to
providing information to the public.
Responses are mandatory. None of the
information submitted under the
proposed rule is confidential business
information.
The burden to public water systems is
based on the cost of the rule discussed
under Section VII of the Preamble.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal Agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing way to comply with any
previous applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
The total annual burden to both
public water systems and primacy
agencies is 972,107 hours at an annual
cost of $17,956,117. The cost estimate
includes both the labor hour costs and
the O&M costs of implementing the rule.
The annual burden to public water
systems of meeting the requirements of
the revised public notification rule is
910,987 hours at an annual cost of
$16,391,263. The burden estimate is the
sum of the costs of three component
activities: notice preparation costs;
notice distribution costs; and costs of
repeat notices. The costs to the public
water systems include labor and non-
labor costs, such as the costs of postage
to mail the public notices where
required. Public water systems are
required to comply with the public
notification rule if they have one or
more violations of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) or
have other situations requiring a public
notice. The number of public water
systems estimated to have violations on
an annual basis is 46,572. The annual
average burden per public water system
violating one or more drinking water
standards is $351.96 and 19.6 hours.
The annual burden to primacy
agencies of implementing the new
public notification regulations is 61,120
hours at an annual cost of $1,564,854.
The burden estimate is also the sum of
three component activities: costs of
consulting with public water systems;
costs of receiving and reviewing the
compliance certification and notice
copies received from the public water
system; and the costs of filing and
maintaining the public water system
notification records. The costs to the
primacy agency include labor costs
only. Primacy agencies are required to
adopt and implement the new public
notification regulation as a condition of
maintaining primacy. (Note that the
burden to the state for adopting the
regulation has not been included in the
draft ICR but will be included in the ICR
for the final rule.) Fifty-six States and
Territories currently have primacy
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA
directly implements the regulatory
program in Wyoming, Washington, D.C.,
and the Indian Lands. The average
annual burden for each of the 56 States
and Territories with primacy to
implement the proposed public \
notification rule is $27,944 and 1,091
hours per primacy agency.
The paperwork burden associated
with the existing public notification
requirements in 40 CFR 141.32 is '
currently included in the baseline
drinking water ICR (OMB Control No.
2040-0090, EPA ICR #270.39). The
estimated burden under ICR #270.39 is
955,191 hours, and $21,969,393. This is
the estimated cost to public water
systems only, as the approved ICR did
not include any incremental costs to the
primacy agencies.
To estimate the change in the burden
under the proposed rule to public water
systems, EPA re-calculated the burden
numbers under the current rule to
provide a common basis to compare the
existing rule with the proposed rule.
The existing ICR estimate could not be
used as the basis of comparison because
it used different lower external cost and
workload assumptions.
The adjusted burden of the current
rule was calculated to be approximately
1,200,000 hours and the adjusted cost
was calculated at approximately
$27,000,000. The burden reduction,
therefore, under the proposed rule
would be approximately 230,000 hours
(or 19.2 percent) and the cost reduction
approximately $9,100,000 (or 33.7
percent). Two programmatic changes
associated with the proposed rule
account for the bulk of the reduction in
burden and cost estimates from the
current rule.
• The proposed rule changes both the
timing and. method of delivery options
for Tier 3 violations. The proposed rule
would require notice within one year
after the occurrence of the violation
rather than within three months, as
required by the current rule. Systems
with monitoring and testing procedure
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25987
violations occurring several times
throughout the year are able under the
proposed rule to consolidate their
notices into one annual notice. The
proposed rule would also allow
community water systems to meet the
public notice requirements for Tier 3
through the existing Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR). Tier 3
violations are primarily monitoring or
testing procedure violations. EPA
estimates that half of all community
water systems serving less than 10,000
and all community systems serving
more than 10,000 will use the CCR for
Tier 3 notices. The estimated burden
reduction for the proposed changes to
the timing and method of delivery for
Tier 3 notices is approximately 210,000
hours (17.5 percent) and the cost
reduction is approximately $6,500,000
(24.1 percent).
• The proposed rule changes the
required methods of delivery for Tiers 1
and 2 notices. The current rule requires
both newspaper and mail delivery for
all tiers. Those systems for whom no
newspaper outlet is available are
allowed to hand deliver or post instead
of mailing and using the newspaper.
Under the current rule, systems with
Tier 1 violations must also issue a
notice via television or radio. The
proposed rule requires only one method
of delivery for Tier 2—mail or hand
delivery (or posting for non-community
systems). The burden reduction for
resulting from the change in the Tier 1
and Tier 2 method of delivery
requirements in the proposed rule
would be approximately 20,000 hours
(1.7 percent), and the cost reduction
would be $2,600,000 (9.6 percent).
Section VII of the preamble presents
more detailed information on the cost of
the rule. Section VII also discusses
several caveats that should be borne in
mind when considering these cost and
burden estimates.
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, OP
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 1898.01
in any correspondence. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning
the ICR between 30 and 60 days after
May 13, 1999, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if
OMB receives it by June 14, 1999. The
final rule will respond to any OMB or
public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in
this proposal.
D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing
Intergovernmental Partnerships
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a
mandate upon a State, local or Tribal
government, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by those governments or
EPA consults with those governments. If
EPA complies by consulting, Executive
Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to
the Office of Management and Budget a
description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of
affected State, local and Tribal
governments, the nature of their
concerns, any written communications
from the governments, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order
12875 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of
State, local and Tribal governments "to
provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded
mandates."
EPA has concluded that this rule will
create a mandate on State, local and
Tribal governments that own or operate
PWSs, and that the Federal government
will not provide the funds necessary to
pay the direct costs incurred by the
State, local and Tribal governments in
complying with the mandate. In
developing this rule, EPA consulted
with State, local and Tribal governments
to enable them to provide meaningful •
and timely input in the development of
this rule. As described in section III of
the Supplementary Information above,
EPA held a series of stakeholder
meetings with a wide variety of State,
local, and Tribal representatives, who
provided meaningful and timely input
in the development of the proposed
rule. The principal concerns raised by
the State, local, and Tribal governments
were the potential drain on their
resources and the potential complexity
of the Federal rule, which would make
it difficult to implement effectively.
EPA believes it has addressed these
concerns in the proposed regulation,
which provides considerable flexibility
in how the public notice is developed
and what delivery mechanisms are
available. The costs of the proposed
regulation are less than those required
for full compliance with the existing
public notification rule. Summaries of
the meetings have been included in the
public docket for this rulemaking.
E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or
uniquely affects the communities of
Indian Tribal governments, and that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the Tribal
governments, or EPA consults with
those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of
Management and Budget, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the
rule, a description of the extent of EPA's
prior consultation with representatives
of affected Tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns,
and a statement supporting the need to
issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting
elected and other representatives of
Indian Tribal governments "to provide
meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory policies on
matters that significantly or uniquely
affect their communities."
Today's proposed rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian Tribal
governments, nor does it impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
such communities. Further, the impact
on Tribal governments is not unique in
that this rule applies equally to all
public water systems, including those
owned and operated by Federal, State,
and local governments. Public water
systems on Indian lands incur costs
under the public notification rule only
if they violate a national primary
drinking water regulation or have a
variance or exemption from EPA. The
public notification requirements will in
most cases be met either through hand
delivery of a single notice to all persons
served or by posting the notice in
conspicuous locations. Costs of meeting
these requirements will be minimal. In
-------
25988
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
fact, the public notification costs
resulting from this rule are less than
those required for full compliance with
the existing regulation. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this proposed rule.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement (including a cost-benefit
analysis) for 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
SI00 million or more in any one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that tiiis rule
would not contain a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year. The
estimated cost of the proposed rule is
$34,771,019. (See section VII of the
Supplementary Information.) Thus,
today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA. This rule will establish
requirements that affect small
community water systems. However,
EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significandy or uniquely affect
small governments because the
regulation requires minimal expenditure
of resources. In fact, the public
notification costs resulting from this
rule are less than those required for full
compliance with the existing regulation.
Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
G. Environmental Justice
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898
(59 FR7629, February 16, 1994), the
Agency has considered environmental
justice related issues with regard to the
potential impacts of this action on the
environmental and health conditions in
low-income and minority communities.
The Agency believes that several of
today's proposed requirements will be
particularly beneficial to these
communities:
• Public water systems would be
required to distribute the notice to all
persons served, both through the use of
required delivery methods and through
the use of additional measures
reasonably calculated to reach other
persons served, if they would not
normally be reached by the required
method. In addition, the notice to bill-
paying customers must include standard
language encouraging those receiving
the public notice to make the notice
available to other consumers who are
not bill paying customers (e.g., renters,
transients, students).
• Public notices would include
information on what the consumers
should do to minimize the health risk
from drinking water in violation of EPA
standards and on when to seek further
medical advice. All notices would be
required to include the name and phone
number of the water system official who
can provide further information.
• Public water systems would include
information on the importance of the
notice in a language other than English
if a large proportion of the population
does not speak English (as determined
by the primacy agency).
H. Risk to Children Analysis
Executive Order 13045, "Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
(1) is determined to be "economically
significant" as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate affect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the .
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
The proposed rule is not subject to the
Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
E.O. 12866. The purpose of the
proposed rule is to provide a public
notice to all persons served when a
violation of EPA drinking water
standards occurs, to enable consumers
to avoid health and safety risks from
potential exposure to harmful
contaminants in the drinking water. The
regulation addresses the particular risks
that certain contaminants may pose by
considering such risks in assigning
contaminants to the appropriate tier and
by identifying such risks in the required
health effects language, with specific
reference to risks to children, where
appropriate. The public notice
requirements, however, apply to
potential health and safety risks to all
consumers and all vulnerable
populations, and are not targeted :
specifically to address a
disproportionate risk to children.
/. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, the
Agency is required to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices, etc.) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards 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. The Agency does
not believe that this proposed rule
addresses any technical standards
subject to the NTTAA. A commenter
who disagrees with this conclusion
should indicate how the rule is subject
to the Act and identify any potentially
applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64r No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25989
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Indians—lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Chemicals, Indians—lands, Radiation
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 143
Chemicals, Indians-lands, Water
supply.
Dated: April 27, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts
141, 142, and 143 as follows:
PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 141
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2,
300 g-3, 300g-4, 300 g-5, 300 g-6, 300 j-4,
300j-9, and300j-ll.
2. In part 141, the heading for subpart
D is revised to read as follows:
Subpart D—Reporting and Record
Keeping
3. Section 141.31 is amended by
revising paragraph (d), to read as
follows:
§ 141.31 Reporting requirements.
*****
(d) The public water system, within
10 days of completion of each public
notice required pursuant to subpart Q of
this part, must submit to the primacy
agency a certification that all public
notification requirements have been met
arid must include with this certification
a representative copy of each type of
notice distributed, published, posted,
and made available to the persons
served by the system and to the media.
*****
4. Section 141.32 is amended by
revising the introductory paragraph, to
read as follows:
§ 141.32 Public notification.
The requirements in this section
apply until the requirements of Subpart
Q of this part become effective. For
public water systems where EPA
directly implements the public water
system supervision program, the
requirements in Subpart Q of this part
will become effective on [date 90 days
after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], For all other public
water systems, the requirements in
Subpart Q of this part will become
effective on [date two years after
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register] or the date the State-
adopted rule becomes effective,
whichever comes first.
*****
5. Section 141.33 is amended by
adding paragraph (e), to read as follows:
§ 141.33 Record maintenance.
*****
(e) Copies of public notices issued
pursuant to subpart Q of this part and
certifications made to the primacy
agency pursuant to § 141.31 must be
kept for three years after issuance.
§141.35 [Amended]
6. Section 141.35 is amended by
removing paragraph (d).
7. Part 141 is amended by adding
subpart Q, to read as follows:
Subpart Q—Public Notification of Drinking
Water Violations
Sec.
141.201 General public notification
requirements.
141.202 Tier 1 Public Notice—Form,
manner, and frequency of notice.
141.203 Tier 2 Public Notice—Form,
manner, and frequency of notice.
141.204 Tier 3 Public Notice—Form,
manner, and frequency of notice.
141.205 Content of the public notice.
141.206 Notice to new billing units or new
customers.
141.207 Special notice of the availability of
unregulated contaminant monitoring
results.
141.208 Special notice for exceedance of
the SMCL for fluoride.
141.209 Notice by primacy agency on
behalf of the public water system.
Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141—
NPDWR Violations and Situations
Requiring Public Notice
Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141—
Standard Health Effects Language for
Public Notification
Appendix C to Subpart Q of Part 141—List
of Acronyms Used in Public Notification
Regulation
Subpart Q—Public Notification of
Drinking Water Violations
§ 141.201 General public notification
requirements.
The requirements in this subpart are
effective no later than [date two years
after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register] or on the date the
State-adopted rule becomes effective,
whichever comes first. For public water
systems where EPA directly implements
the public water system supervision
(PWSS) program (i.e., Indian lands,
Wyoming, Washington, D.C.), the
requirements in this section are effective
90 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register.
(a) Who must give public notice? Each
owner or operator of a public water
system (community water systems, non-
transient non-community water
systems, and transient non-community
water systems) must give notice for all
violations of national primary drinking
water regulations (NPDWR) and for
other situations, as listed in Table 1 of
this section. Appendix A to this subpart
identifies the tier assignment for each
specific violation or situation.
TABLE 1 TO §141.201.—VIOLATION
CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUA-
TIONS REQUIRING A PUBLIC NOTICE
(1) NPDWR violations (MCL, MRDL, treat-
ment technique, monitoring and testing
procedure)
(i) Failure to comply with an applicable max-
imum contaminant level (MCL) or max-
imum residual disinfectant level (MRDL).
(ii) Failure to comply with a prescribed treat-
ment technique (TT).
(iii) Failure to perform water quality moni-
toring, as required by the regulations.
(iv) Failure to comply with testing procedures
as prescribed by a drinking water regula-
tion.
(2) Variance and exemptions under sections
1415 and 1416 of SDWA
(i) Operation under a variance or an exemp-
tion.
(ii) Failure to comply with the requirements of
any schedule that has been set under a
variance or exemption.
(3) Special public notices
(i) Occurrence of a waterborne disease out-
break. Exceedance of the secondary max-
imum contaminant level (SMCL) for fluo-
ride. Availability of unregulated contami-
nant monitoring data. Other situations de-
termined by the primacy agency to have a
potential for serious adverse effects on
human health.
(b) What type of public notice is
required for each violation or situation?
Public notice requirements are divided
into three tiers, to take into account the
seriousness of the violation or situation
and of any potential adverse health
effects that may be involved. The public
notice requirements for each violation
or situation listed in Table 1 of this
section are determined by the tier to
which it is assigned. Table 2 of this
section provides the definition of each
tier. Appendix A to this subpart
identifies the tier assignment for each
specific violation or situation.
-------
25990
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
TABLE 2 TO §141.201—DEFINITION OF
PUBLIC NOTICE TIERS
(1) Tier 1 public notice—reacted for NPDWR
violations and situations with significant po-
tential to have serious adverse effects on
human health as a result of short-term ex-
posure.
(2) Tier2 public notice—required for all other
NPDWR violations and situations with po-
tential to have serious adverse effects on
human health.
(3) Tier 3 public notice—required for all other
NPDWR violations and situations not in-
cluded In Tier 1 and Tier 2.
(c) Who must be notified? Each public
water system must provide public
notice to persons served by the water
system, in accordance with this subpart.
A copy of the notice must also be sent
to the primacy agency, in accordance
with the requirements under
§141.31(d).
§141.202 Tier 1 Public Notice—Form,
manner, and frequency of notice.
(a) Which violations or situations
require a Tier 1 public notice? Table 1
of this section lists the violation
categories and other situations requiring
a Tier 1 public notice. Appendix A to
this subpart identifies the tier
assignment for each specific violation or
situation.
TABLE 1 TO §141.202.—VIOLATION
CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUA-
TIONS REQUIRING A TIER 1 PUBLIC
NOTICE
(1) Violation of the MCL for total conforms,
when fecal coliform or E. coll are present
in the water distribution system (as speci-
fied in §141.63(b)), or failure to test for
fecal ooliforms or E. coll after the presence
of coliform bacteria in the water distribution
system is confirmed (as specified in
§141.21(0));
(2) Violation of the MCL for nitrate, nitrite, or
combined nitrate+nitrite, as defined in
§141.62;
(3) Violation of the MRDL for chlorine diox-
ide, when one or more repeat samples
taken in the distribution system exceed the
MRDL, or when required repeat samples
are not taken in the distribution system, as
defined in §141.65(a);
(4) Occurrence of a waterbome disease out-
break, as defined in § 141.2; and
(5) Other violations or situations with poten-
tial to have serious adverse effects on
human health as a result of short-term ex-
posure, as determined by the primacy
, agency either in its regulations or on a
case-by-case basis.
(b) When is the Tier 1 public notice
to be provided? What additional steps
are required?
Public water systems must:
(1) Provide a public notice as soon as
practicable but no later than 24 hours
after the system learns of the violation;
(2) Initiate consultation with the
primacy agency as soon as practicable,
but no later than 24 hours after the
public water system learns of the
violation or situation, to determine
additional public notice requirements;
and
(3) Comply with any additional public
notification requirements (including any
repeat notices) that are established as a
result of the consultation with the
primacy agency. Such requirements may
include the timing, form, manner,
frequency, and content of repeat notices
(if any) and other actions designed to
reach all persons served.
(c) What is the form and manner of
the public notice? Public water systems
must provide the notice in a form and
manner reasonably calculated to reach
all persons served within 24-hours. The
form and manner used by the public
water system are to fit the specific
situation, but must be designed to reach
residential, transient, and non-transient
users of the water system. In order to
reach all persons served, water systems
are to use, at a minimum, one or more
of the following forms of delivery:
(1) Appropriate broadcast media (such
as radio and television);
(2) Posting of the notice in
conspicuous locations; or
(3) Hand delivery of the notice to
persons served by the water system.
§ 141.203 Tier 2 Public Notice—Form,
manner, and frequency of notice.
(a) Which violations or situations
require a Tier 2 public notice? Table 1
of this section lists the violation
categories and other situations requiring
a Tier 2 public notice. Appendix A to
this subpart identifies the tier
assignment for each specific violation or
situation.
TABLE 1 TO §141.203.—VIOLATION
CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUA-
TIONS REQUIRING A TIER 2 PUBLIC
NOTICE
(1) All violations of the MCL, MRDL, and
treatment technique requirements not in-
cluded in the Tier 1 notice category;
(2) Violations of the monitoring and testing
procedure requirements, where the pri-
macy agency determines that a Tier 2 rath-
er than a Tier 3 public notice is required,
taking into account potential health impacts
and persistence of the violation; and
TABLE 1 TO §141.203.—VIOLATION
CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUA-
TIONS REQUIRING A TIER 2 PUBLIC
NOTICE—Continued
(3) Failure to comply with the terms and con-
ditions of any variance or exemption in
place.
(b) When is the Tier 2 public notice
to be provided? Public water systems
must provide the public notice as soon
as practicable, but no later than 30 days
after the system learns of the violation.
The primacy agency may allow
additional time in specific
circumstances of up to three months
from the date the system learns of the
violation. The public water system must
repeat the notice every three months,
unless the primacy agency determines
that specific circumstances warrant a
different repeat notice frequency. In no
circumstance will the repeat notice be
less frequent than once per year. If the
public notice is posted, the notice must
remain in place for as long as the ;
violation or situation exists.
(c) What is the form and manner of
the Tier 2 public notice? Public water
systems must provide the notice in a
form and manner that is reasonably
calculated to reach persons served in
the required time period. The form and
manner of the public notice may vary
based on the specific situation and type
of water system, but it must at a
minimum meet the following
requirements:
(1) Unless directed otherwise by the
primacy agency, community water
systems must provide notice by:
(i) Mail or other direct delivery to
each customer receiving a bill or other
service connections; and
(ii) Any other method reasonably
calculated to reach other persons
regularly served by the system, if they
would not normally be reached by the
notice required in paragraph (c)(l)(i) of
this section. Such methods may include:
publication in a local newspaper;
delivery of multiple copies for
distribution by single-biller customers
(e.g., apartment buildings or large
private employers); posting in public
places or on the Internet; or delivery to
community organizations.
(2) Unless directed otherwise by the
primacy agency, non-community water
systems must provide notice by:
(i) Posting the notice in conspicuous
locations frequented by persons served
by the system, or by mail or direct
delivery to each customer (where
known); and
(ii) Any other method reasonably
calculated to reach other persons served
by the system if they would not
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25991
normally be reached by the notice
required in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section. Such methods may include:
publication in a local newspaper or
newsletter distributed to customers; use
of E-mail to notify employees or
students; or, delivery of multiple copies
in central locations (e.g., community
centers).
§ 141.204 Tier 3 Public Notice—Form,
manner, and frequency of notice.
(a) Which violations or situations
require a Tier 3 public notice? Table I
of this section lists the violation
categories and other situations requiring
a Tier 3 public notice. Appendix A to
this subpart identifies the tier
assignment for each specific violation or
situation.
TABLE 1 TO §141.204.—VIOLATION
CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUA-
TIONS REQUIRING A TIER 3 PUBLIC
NOTICE
(1) Monitoring violations under 40 CFR part
141, unless the primacy agency deter-
mines that the violation requires a Tier 2
notice;
(2) Failure to comply with a testing procedure
established in 40 CFR part 141;
(3) Operation under a variance granted under
section 1415 or exemption granted under
section 1416 of the Act; and
(4) Any other violations and situations deter-
mined by the primacy agency to require a
Tier 3 public notice.
(b) When is the Tier 3 public notice
to be provided? (1) Public water systems
must provide the public notice not later
than one year after the public water
system learns of the violation or begins
operating under a variance or
exemption. Following the initial notice,
the public water system must repeat the
notice annually for as long as the
violation, variance, exemption, or other
situation exists. If the public notice is
posted, the notice must remain in place
for as long as the violation, variance,
exemption, or other situation exists.
(2) Instead of individual public
notices, a public water system may use
an annual report summarizing all
violations occurring during the previous
twelve months to meet the requirements
of paragraph (b)(l) of this section.
(c) What is the form and manner of
the Tier 3 public notice? Public water
systems must provide the notice in a
form and manner that is reasonably
calculated to reach all persons served in
the required time period. The form and
manner of the public notice may vary
based on the specific situation and type
of water system, but it must at a
minimum meet the following
requirements:
(1) Unless directed otherwise by the
primacy agency, community water
systems must provide notice by:
(i) Mail or other direct delivery to
each customer receiving a bill or other
service connections; and
(ii) Any other method reasonably
calculated to reach other persons
regularly served by the system, if they,
would not normally be reached by the
notice required in paragraph (c)(l)(i) of
this section. Such methods may include:
publication in a local newspaper;
delivery of multiple copies for
distribution by single-biller customers
(e.g., apartment buildings or large
private employers); posting in public
places or on the Internet; or delivery to
community organizations.
(2) Unless directed otherwise by the
primacy agency, non-community water-
systems must provide notice by:
(i) Posting the notice in conspicuous
locations frequented by persons served
by the system, or by mail or direct
delivery to each customer (where
known); and
(ii) Any other method reasonably
calculated to reach other persons served
by the system, if they would not
normally be reached by the notice
required in paragraph (c) (2) (i) of this
section. Such methods may include:
publication in a local newspaper or
newsletter distributed to customers; use
of E-mail to notify employees or
students; or, delivery of multiple copies
in central locations (e.g., community
centers).
(d) In what situations may the
Consumer Confidence Report be used to
meet the Tier 3 public notice
requirements? For community water
systems, the Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR) required under subpart O
of this part may be used as a vehicle for
the initial Tier 3 public notice and all
required repeat notices, as long as the •
CCR is provided to all persons served no
later than 12 months after the system
learns of the violation and as long as the
CCR follows the form, manner, and
content requirements of this section. .
§ 141.205 Content of the public notice.
(a) What elements must be included in
the public notice for violations of
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWR), including the
monitoring and testing procedure
requirements? When a public water ,
system violates an NPDWR, each public
notice must include the following
elements:
(1) A description of the violation,
including the contaminant of concern,
and (as applicable) the contaminant
level;
(2) When the violation occurred;
(3) Any potential adverse health
effects from the violation, including the
standard language under paragraph
(d)(l) or (d)(2) of this section, whichever
is applicable;
(4) The population at risk, including
subpopulations particularly vulnerable
if exposed to the contaminant in their
drinking water;
(5) Whether alternative water supplies
should be used;
(6) What actions consumers should
take, including when they should seek
medical help, if known;
(7) What the system is doing to correct
the violation;
(8) When the water system expects to
return to compliance;
(9) The phone number of the water
system owner, operator, or designee of
the public water system as a source of
additional information concerning the
notice; and
(10) A statement to encourage the
notice recipient to distribute the public
notice to other persons served, using the
standard language under paragraph
(d) (3) of this section.
(b) What elements must be included
in the public notice for public water
systems operating under a variance or
exemption? (1) If a public water system
has been granted a variance or an
exemption, the public notice must
contain:
(i) An explanation of the reasons for
the variance or exemption;
(ii) The date on which the variance or
exemption was issued;
(iii) A brief status report on the steps
the system is taking to install treatment,
find alternative sources of water, or
otherwise comply with the terms and
schedules of the variance or exemption;
and
(iv) A notice of any opportunity for
public input in the review of the
variance or exemption.
(2) If a public water system violates
the conditions of a variance or
exemption, the public notice must
contain the ten elements listed in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) How is the public notice to be
presented? (1) Each public notice
required by this section:
(i) Must be displayed in a
conspicuous way (where applicable);
(ii) Must not contain overly technical
language or very small print;
(iii) Must not be formatted in a way
that defeats the purpose of the notice;
(iv) Must not contain language which
nullifies the purpose of the notice.
(2) For public water systems serving
a large proportion of non-English
-------
25992
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
speaking consumers, as determined by
the primacy agency, the public notice
must contain information in the
appropriate language (s) regarding the
Importance of the notice or contain a
telephone number or address where
persons served may contact the water
system to obtain a translated copy of the
notice or to request assistance in the
appropriate language.
(d) What standard language must
public water systems Include in their
public notice? Public water systems are
required to include the following
standard language in their public notice:
(1) Standard health effects language
forMCL orMRDL violations, treatment
technique violations, and violations of
the condition of a variance or
exemption. Public water systems must
include in each public notice the health
effects language specified in Appendix
B to this subpart corresponding to each
MCL, MRDL, and treatment technique
violation listed in Appendix A to this
subpart, and for each violation of a
condition of a variance or exemption.
(2) Standard language for monitoring
and testing procedure violations. Public
water systems must include the
following language in their notice for all
monitoring and testing procedure
violations listed in Appendix A to this
subpart:
Because we ["did not monitor or test" or
"failed to monitor or test completely"] during
(compliance period], we do not know
whether the contaminant was present In your
drinking water during that time period, and
we are unable to tell whether your health was
at risk during that time.
(3) Standard language to encourage
the distribution of the public notice to
all persons served. Public water systems
must Include in or attach to their notice
the following language:
If other people receive water from you,
such as tenants, residents, patients, students,
or employees, It Is Important that you
provide this notice to them by posting It In
a conspicuous location or by direct hand or
mall delivery.
§ 141.206 Notice to new billing units or
new customers.
(a) What is the requirement for
community water systems? Community
water systems must give a copy of the
most recent public notice for any
continuing violation or the existence of
a variance or exemption to all new
billing units or new hookups prior to or
at the time service begins.
(b) What is the requirement for non-
community water systems? Non-
community water systems must
continuously post the public notice in a
conspicuous place in order to inform
new consumers of any continuing
violation, variance, or exemption for as
long as the violation exists.
§ 141.207 Special notice of the availability
of unregulated contaminant monitoring
results.
(a) When is the special notice to be
given? The owner or operator of a
community water system or non-
transient, non-community water system
required to monitor under § 141.40 must
notify persons served by the system of
the availability of the results of such
sampling no later than 12 months after
the monitoring results are known.
(b) What is me form and manner of
the special notice? The form and
manner of the public notice must follow
the requirements for a Tier 3 public
notice prescribed in §§ 141.204(c) and
(d). The notice must also identify a
person and provide the telephone
number to contact for information on
the monitoring results.
§ 141.208 Special notice for exceedance of
the SMCL for fluoride.
(a) When is the special notice to be
given? Community water systems that
exceed the secondary maximum
contaminant level (SMCL) for fluoride
as determined by the last single sample
taken in accordance with § 141.23, but
do not exceed the maximum
contaminant level for fluoride as
specified in § 141.62, must provide the
public notice in paragraph (c) of this
section to all persons served. Public
notice must be provided as soon as
practicable but no later than 12 months
from the day the water system learns of
the exceedance.
(b) What is the form and manner of
the special notice? The form and
manner of the public notice (including
repeat notices) must follow the
requirements for a Tier 3 public notice
in§§141.204(c)and(d).
(c) What mandatory language must be
contained in the special notice? The
notice must contain the following
language, including the language
necessary to fill in the blanks:
The drinking water provided by [name of
community water system] has a fluoride
concentration of [insert value] milligrams per
liter (mg/1). Although your drinking water
does not violate the drinking water standard
of 4 mg/1 for fluoride, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency requires us to notify you
when we discover that the fluoride levels in
your drinking water exceed 2 mg/1. This is
to alert you about a cosmetic dental problem
that might affect children under nine years
old.
Fluoride at lower levels helps prevent
cavities. However, children drinking water
containing fluoride at the levels present in
your drinking water may develop dental
fluorosis. Dental fluorosis, in its moderate or
severe forms, may result in a brown staining
and/or pitting of the permanent teeth. This
problem occurs only in developing teeth,
before they erupt from the gums.
Children under nine should be provided
with alternative sources of drinking water to
avoid the possibility of staining and pitting
of their permanent teeth. Older children and
adults may safely drink the water.
For more information and to learn about
available water treatment systems, please call
[name of water system contact] of [name of
community water system] at [phone number].
§ 141.209 Notice by primacy agency on
behalf of the public water system.
(a) When may the primacy agency
give the notice on behalf of the public
water system? The primacy agency may
give the notice required by this subpart
on behalf of the owner and operator of
the public water system if the primacy
agency complies with the requirements
of this subpart.
(b) What is the responsibility of the
public water system when notice is
given by the primacy agency? The
owner or operator of the public water
system remains legally responsible for
ensuring that the requirements of this
subpart are met.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64. No. 92/Thursday, Mziy 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25993
APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICEI
(INCLUDING D/DBP AND IESWTR VIOLATIONS)
Contaminant
MCL/MRDL/rr violations 2
Tier of pub-
lic notice
required
Citation
Monitoring and testing procedure
violations
Tier of pub-
lic notice
required
Citation
, Violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR):3
Microbiological Contaminants
Total coliform
Fecal coliform/E coli
Turbidity
Surface Water Treatment Rule violations
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule violations
2
1
2
2
2
141 B3la\
141 63(b)
14.1 n 141 71 lt*\
141 70-141 73
141 170-141 1734
141.21 (a— a)
Inorganics
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos (fibers >10 urn)
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Mercury (inorganic)
Nitrate
Nitrite
Nitrate+Nitrite
Selenium
Thallium
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
•)
•]
•)
2
2
141 R9th\
141 11 lh\ 141 91ln\
141 62(b)
141 G2(bV
141 62(b)
141 62(b)
141 62(b)
141 62(b)
141 62(b)
141 62(b)
141 62(b)
141 62(b)
141 62(b)
141 62(b)
141 62(b)
I4i.«£o(a, c)
i4i.^o{a, i, mj
i*n.^o(a, c)
141.4/h^
141 OA(h\
141 94fh\
141 94fhl
141 O4/h\
141 94fh\
141 94fh\
141 94fh\
141 O4/h^
141 O4fh\
141 94/h\
141 94ftri
141 94fh\
141 94/h^
141 94fh\
141 O4^h\
-------
25994
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE1
(INCLUDING D/DBP AND IESWTR VIOLATIONS)—Continued
Contaminant
MCL/MRDL/TT violations2
Tier of pub-
lic notice
required
Citation
Monitoring and testing procedure
violations
Tier of pub-
lic notice
required
Citation
Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)
Xylenes (total)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
141.61(a)
141.61(a)
141.61(a)
141 .61 (a)
141 .61 (a)
141.61(a)
141.61(a)
141.61(a)
141 .61 (a)
141.61(a)
141 .61 (a)
141 .61 (a)
141.61(a)
141.61(a)
141.61(a)
141.61(a)
141.61(a)
141.61(a)
141.61(a)
141.61(a)
141.61(a)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141 .24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
141.24(f)
Radioactive Contaminants
Combined radium (226
& 228)
2
2
2
141.16
141.15(b)
141.15(3)
3
3
3
141.25(3), 141.26(b)
141.25(3), 141 .26(a)
141.25(a), 141 .26(a)
Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs), Byproduct Precursors, Disinfectant Residuals. Where disinfection is used in the treatment of drink-
Ing water, disinfectants combine with organic and inorganic matter present in water to form chemicals called disinfection byprod-
ucts (DBPs). EPA also sets standards for controlling the levels of disinfectants and DBPs in drinking water, which includes
trlhalomothanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs).5
— Chloroform
— Bromodlchloromethane
— Dlbromochloromethsne
— Bromoform
Mnlnnnntl^ Arlrie fHAAm
— Monochloroacetlc scid
— Dichloroscetic scid
— Trlchloroacetlc acid
— Monobromoacetic acid
nhlnritn
PhWino fMRHI \
Phlnromlno fMRDl ^
Chlorine dioxide (MRDL), 22. consecutive samples at entry point
only are above MRDL.
Chlorine dioxide (MRDL), sample(s) in distribution system sbove
MRDL.
Development of monitoring plsn
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
N/A
N/A
141.12,6141.64(3) ....
141 .64(3)
141.64(3)
141.64(a)
141.65(a)
141.65(a)
141.65(a),
141.133(c)(2).
141.65(3),
141.133(c)(2).
141.135(3-b)
N/A
N/A
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
141.30, 141.1 32(a-b)
141.132(a-b)
141.132(3-b)
141.132(3-0)
141.132(3,0)
141.132(3,0)
141.132(a, c),
141.133(C)(2)
141.132(3,0),
141.133(C)(2)
141.132(3, d)
141.172
141.132(0
Other Treatment Techniques
Eptchlorohydrin (TT)
2
2
141.111
141.111
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
II. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Results7
— — -^
Unramilatsd contaminants
N/A
N/A
3
141.40
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25995
APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE""
(INCLUDING D/DBP AND lESWTR VIOLATIONS)—Continued
Contaminant
Nickel
MCL7MRDL/TT violations 2
Tier of pub-
lic
notice re-
quired
N/A
Citation
N/A
Monitoring and testing procedure
violations
Tier of pub-
lic
notice re-
quired
3
Citation
141.23(c, k)
III. Public Notification for Variances and Exemptions
Operation under a variance or exemption
Violation of conditions of a variance or exemption
3
2
1415 14168
1415, 1416
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IV. Other Situations Requiring Public Notification
Fluoride secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) exceed-
ance.
Availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring data
Other situations as determined by primacy agency
3
3
1
(9)
143.3
141 40
141.2, 141.71(c)(2)(ii)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Appendix A Endnotes
1. Violations and other situations not listed
in this table do not require notice, unless
otherwise determined by the primacy agency.
Primacy agencies may move violations
requiring public notice to a higher tier as
well (e.g., Tier 3 to Tier 2).
2. MCL—Maximum contaminant level,
MRDL—Maximum residual disinfectant
level, TT—Treatment technique.
3. The term Violations of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) is used
here to include violations of MCL, MRDL,
treatment technique, monitoring, and testing
procedure requirements.
4. Most of the requirements of the Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (63
PR 69477) (§§141.170-141.171, 141.73-
141.174) become effective December 16, 2001
for Subpart H systems (surface water systems
and ground water systems under the direct
influence of surface water) serving more than
10,000. The Surface Water Treatment Rule
(§§ 141.70-141.73, 141.74) remains in effect
for these systems until that time. However,
§ 141.172 has some requirements that become
effective as soon as April 16, 1999.
5. Subpart H community and non-transient
non-community systems serving >10,000
must comply with new DBF MCLs,
disinfectant MRDLs, and related monitoring
requirements beginning December 16, 2001.
All other community and non-transient non-
community systems must meet the MCLs and
MRDLs beginning December 16, 2003.
6. § 141.12 will no longer apply after
December 16, 2003.
7. Monitoring is currently required for 34
unregulated contaminants listed in § 141.40.
These include aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, and
aldicarb sulfoxide.
8. This citation refers to sections 1415 and
1416 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. There
are no regulations requiring water systems to
comply with the conditions of a variance or
exemption. However, sections 1415 and 1416
require that "a schedule prescribed * * * for
a public water system granted a variance [or
exemption] shall require compliance by the
system * * *"
9. Primacy agencies may place other
situations in any tier they believe
appropriate, based on threat to public health.
APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Contaminant
MCLG1
mg/L
MCL2
mg/L
Standard
health
effects
language
for public
notification
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR)
Microbiological Contaminants
•ja Total coliform
1b Fecal coliform/H coli
2 Turbidity
Zero
Zero
None
Presence 3
Presence
1 NTU4/5
NTUs
Coliforms are bacteria that are naturally present in the environment
and are used as an indicator that other, potentially-harmful, bacteria
may be present. Coliforms were found in more samples than allowed
and this was a warning of potential problems.
Fecal Coliforms and E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that
the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Mi-
crobes in these wastes can cause short-term effects, such as diar-
rhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They may
pose a special health risk for infants, young children, and people
with severely compromised immune systems.
Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with
disinfection and provide a medium for microbial growth. Turbidity
may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These or-
ganisms include bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause
symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea and associated head-
aches.
-------
25996
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.
-STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION—
Continued
Contaminant
Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (IESWTR) viola-
tions:
3. Giardia lamblia
4. Viruses
5. Heterotrophlc plate count (HPC)
bacteria6
6. Leglonella
7. Cryptosporidium
MCLQ1 mg/L
Zero
MCL2 mg/L
TT7
Standard health effects language for public notification
Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms.
These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and parasites which can
cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
headaches.8
Inorganics
8. Antimony
9. Arsenic
10. Asbestos (>10 urn)
11. Barium
12. Beryllium
13. Cadmium
14. Chromium (total)
15 Cyanide
16. Fluoride
17. Mercury (inorganic)
18. Nitrate
19. Nitrite
20. Nitrate+Nitrite
21. Selenium
22. Thallium
0.006
None
7MFL9
2
0.004
0.005
0.1
0.2
4.0
0.002
10
1
10
0.05
0.0005
0.006
0.05
7MFL
2
0.004
0.005
0.1
0.2
4.0
0.002
10
1
10
0.05
0.002
Some people who drink water containing antimony well in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience increases in blood cho-
lesterol and decreases in blood sugar.
Some people who drink water containing arsenic in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience skin damage or problems with
their circulatory system, and may have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
Some people who drink water containing asbestos in excess of the
MCL over many years may have an increased risk of developing be-
nign intestinal polyps.
Some people who drink water containing barium in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience an increase in their blood pres-
sure.
Some people who drink water containing beryllium well in excess of
the MCL over many years could develop intestinal lesions.
Some people who drink water containing cadmium in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience kidney damage.
Some people who use water containing chromium well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience allergic dermatitis.
Some people who drink water containing cyanide well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience nerve damage or problems
with their thyroid.
Some people who drink water containing fluoride in excess of the MCL
over many years could get bone disease, including pain and tender-
ness of the bones. Children may get mottled teeth.
Some people who drink water containing inorganic mercury well in ex-
cess of the MCL over many years could experience kidney damage.
Infants below the age of six months who drink water containing nitrate
in excess of the MCL could become seriously ill and, if untreated,
may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blue-baby syn-
drome.
Infants below the age of six months who drink water containing nitrite
in excess of the MCL could become seriously ill and, if untreated,
may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blue-baby syn-
drome.
Infants below the age of six months who drink water containing nitrate
and nitrite in excess of the MCL could become seriously ill and, if
untreated, may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blue
baby syndrome.
Selenium is an essential nutrient. However, some people who drink
water containing selenium in excess of the MCL over many years
could experience hair or fingernail losses, numbness in fingers or
toes, or problems with their circulation.
Some people who drink water containing thallium in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience hair loss, changes in their blood,
or problems with their kidneys, intestines, or liver.
Lead and Copper Rule
23. Lead
Zero
m°
Infants and children who drink water containing lead in excess of the
action level could experience delays in their physical or mental de-
velopment. Children could show slight deficits in attention span and
learning abilities. Adults who drink this water over many years could
develop kidney problems or high blood pressure.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25997
APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION—
Continued
Contaminant
24 Copper
MCLG 1 mg/L
1.3
MCL 2 mg/L
TT11
, Standard health effects language for public notification
Copper is an essential nutrient, but some people who drink water con-
taining copper in excess of the action level over a relatively short
amount of time could experience gastrointestinal distress. Some peo-
ple who drink water containing copper in excess of the action level
over many years could suffer liver or kidney damage. People with
Wilson's Disease should consult their personal doctor.
Synthetic Organic Compounds
25. 2,4-D
26 2 4 5-TP (Silvex)
27 Alachlor
28. Atrazine
29 Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs)
30 Carbofuran
31 Chlordane
32. Dalapon
33 Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate
34 Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
35. Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) ..
36 Dinoseb
37 Dioxin (237 8-TCDD)
38. Diquat
39. Endothall
40 Endrin
41 Ethylene dibromide
42 Glyphosate
43 Heptachlor
44 Heptachlor epoxide
0.07
0.05
Zero
0.003
Zero
0.04
Zero
0.2
0.4
Zero
Zero
0.007
Zero
0.02
0.1
0.002
Zero
0.7
Zero
Zero
0.07
0.05
0.002
0.003
0.0002
0.04
0.002
0.2
0.4
0.006
0.0002
0.007
3x10-8
0.02
0.1
0.002
0.00005
0.7
0.0004
0.0002
Some people who drink water containing the weed killer 2,4-D well in
excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with
their kidneys, liver, or adrenal glands.
Some people who drink water containing silvex in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience liver problems.
Some people who drink water containing alachlor in excess of the MCL
over many years could have problems with their eyes, liver, kidneys,
or spleen, experience anemia, or may have an increased risk of get-
ting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing atrazine well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience problems with their cardio-
vascular system or reproductive difficulties.
Some people who drink water containing benzo(a)pyrene in excess of
the MCL over many years may experience reproductive difficulties or
may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing carbofuran in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience problems with their blood, or
nervous or reproductive systems.
Some people who drink water containing chlordane in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience problems with their liver, or
nervous system, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing dalapon well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience minor kidney changes.
Some people who drink water containing di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate well
in excess of the MCL over many years could experience general
toxic effects or reproductive difficulties.
Some people who drink water containing di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in
excess of the MCL over many years may have problems with their
liver, or experience reproductive difficulties, and may have an in-
creased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing DBCP in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience reproductive difficulties and may
have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing dinoseb well in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience reproductive difficulties.
Some people who drink water containing dioxin in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience reproductive difficulties and may
have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing diquat in excess of the MCL
over many years could get cataracts.
Some people who drink water containing endothall in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience problems with their stomach
or intestines.
Some people who drink water containing endrin in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience liver problems.
Some people who drink water containing ethylene dibromide in excess
of the MCI. over many years could experience problems with their
liver, stomach, reproductive system, or kidneys, and may have an in-
creased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing glyphosate in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience problems with their kidneys
or reproductive difficulties.
Some people who drink water containing heptachlor in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience liver damage and may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing heptachlor epoxide in excess
of the MCL over many years could experience liver damage, and
may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
-------
25998
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION—
Continued
Contaminant
MCLG1 mg/L
MCL2 mg/L
Standard health effects language for public notification
45. Hexachlorobenzene
46. Hexachlorocyclo pentadiene
47. LIndane
48. Methoxychlor
49. Oxamyt (Vydate) ...
50. Pentachlorophenol
51. Pldoram
52. Polychlorfnated biphenyls
(PCBs).
53. Simazlne ...
54. Toxaphene
Zero
0.05
0.0002
0.04
0.2
Zero
0.5
Zero
0.004
Zero
0.001
0.05
0.0002
0.04
0.2
0.001
0.5
0.0005
0.004
0.003
Some people who drink water containing hexachlorobenzene in excess
of the MCL over many years could experience problems with their
liver or kidneys, or adverse reproductive effects, and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing hexachlorocyclopentadiene
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience prob-
lems with their kidneys or stomach .
Some people who drink water containing lindane in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience problems with their kidneys or
liver.
Some people who drink water containing methoxychlor in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience reproductive difficulties.
Some people who drink water containing oxamyl in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience slight nervous system effects.
Some people who drink water containing pentachlorophenol in excess
of the MCL over many years could experience problems with their
liver or kidneys, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing picloram in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience problems with their liver.
Some people who drink water containing PCBs in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience changes in their skin, problems
with their thymus gland, immune deficiencies, or reproductive or
nervous system difficulties, and may have an increased risk of get-
ting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing simazine in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience problems with their blood.
Some people who drink water containing toxaphene in excess of the
MCL over many years could have problems with their kidneys, liver,
or thyroid, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Volatile Organic Chemicals
55. Benzene
56 Carbon tetrachloride
57. Chlorobenzene
(monochlorobenzene).
58. oDichlorobenzene
59. p-Dichlorobenzene
60. 1 2-DIchloroethane
61 1 1 -Dichloroethyiene
62 c/s-1 2-Dichloroethylene
63 Irons-] 2-Dichloroethylene
64. Dichloromethane
65. 1 2-Dichloropropane
68. Ethylbenzene
Zero
Zero
0.1
0.6
0.075
Zero
0.007
0.07
0.1
Zero
Zero
0.7
0.005
0.005
0.1
0.6
0.075
0.005
0.007
0.07
0.1
0.005
0.005
0.7
Some people who drink water containing benzene in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience anemia or a decrease in
blood platelets, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing carbon tetrachloride in excess
of the MCL over many years could experience problems with their
liver and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing Chlorobenzene in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience problems with their liver
or kidneys.
Some people who drink water containing o-dichlorobenzene well in ex-
cess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with
their liver, kidneys, or circulatory systems.
Some people who drink water containing p-dichlorobenzene in excess
of the MCL over many years could experience anemia, damage to
their liver, kidneys, or spleen, or changes in their blood.
Some people who drink water containing 1 ,2-dichloroethane in excess
of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
Some people who drink water containing 1,1-dichloroethylene in ex-
cess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with
their liver.
Some people who drink water containing cis-1 ,2-dichloroethylene in ex-
cess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with
their liver.
Some people who drink water containing trans-1 ,2-dichloroethylene
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience prob-
lems with their liver.
Some people who drink water containing dichloromethane in excess of
the MCL over many years could have liver problems and may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing 1 ,2-dichloropropane in excess
of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
Some people who drink water containing ethylbenzene well in excess
of the MCL over many years could experience problems with their
liver or kidneys.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
25999
APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION—
Continued
Contaminant
67 Styrene
68 Tetrachloroethylene
69 Toluene .
70 1 2 4-TrichIorobenzene
71 1 1 1 -Trichloroethane
72 1 1 2-Trichloroethane
73 Trichloroethylene
74 Vinyl chloride
75. Xylenes (total)
MCLG 1 mg/L
0 1
Zero
1
0.07
0.2
0.003
Zero
Zero
10
MCL 2 mg/L
0 1
0005
1
0.07
0.2
0.005
0.005
0.002
10
Standard health effects language for public notification
Some people who drink water containing styrene well in excess of the
MCL over many years could have problems with their liver, kidneys,
or circulatory system.
Some people who drink water containing tetrachloroethylene in excess
of the MCL over many years could have problems with their liver,
and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing toluene well in excess of the
MCL over many years could have problems with their nervous sys-
tem, kidneys, or liver.
Some people who drink water containing 1 2 4-trichlorobenzene well in
excess of the MCL over many years could experience changes in
their adrenal glands.
Some people who drink water containing 1,1,1-trichloroethane in ex-
cess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with
their liver, nervous' system, or circulatory system.
Some people who drink water containing 1,1,2-trichloroethane well in
excess of the MCL over many years could have problems with their
liver, kidneys, or immune systems.
Some people who drink water containing trichloroethylene in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience problems with their liver
and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing vinyl chloride in excess of the
MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing xylenes in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience damage to their nervous system.
Radioactive Contaminants
76 Beta/photon emitters
77. Alpha emitters
78. Combined radium (226 & 228) ...
Zero
Zero
Zero
4 mrem/yr12
15 pCi/L13
5 pCi/L
Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit forms of radiation
known as photons and beta radiation. Some people who drink water
containing beta and photon emitters in excess of the MCL over many
years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation
known as alpha radiation. Some people who drink water containing
alpha emitters in excess of the MCL over many years may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
Some 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.
Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs), Byproduct Precursors, and Disinfectant Residuals: Where disinfection is used in the treatment of
drinking water, disinfectants combine with organic and inorganic matter present in water to form chemicals called disinfection
byproducts (DBPs). EPA also sets standards for controlling the levels of disinfectants and DBPs in drinking water, which include
trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs).14
79. Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)
—Chloroform
—Bromodichloromethane
—Dibromochloromethane
—Bromoform
80. Haloacetic Acids (HAA5)
—Monochloroacetic acid
—Dichloroacetic acid
—Trichloroacetic acid
—Monobromoacetic acid
—Dibromoacetic acid
81. Bromate
82. Chlorite
83. Chlorine
Zero15
Zero
0.06
Zero
None
Zero
0.3
None
None
Zero
0.08
0.10/
0.0801617
0.06018
0.010
1.0
4.0 (MRDL)20
Some people who drink water containing trihalomethanes in excess of
the MCL over many years may experience problems with their liver,
kidneys, or central nervous system, and may have an increased risk
of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing HAAs in excess of the MCL
over many years may have an increased risk of developing cancer.
Some people,who drink water containing bromate in excess of the
MCL over many years may have an increased risk of developing
cancer.
Some infants and young children who drink water containing chlorite in
excess of the MCL could experience nervous system effects. Similar
effects may occur in fetuses of pregnant mothers who drink water
containing chlorite in excess of the MCL. Some people may experi-
ence anemia.
Some people who contact drinking water containing chlorine well in ex-
cess of the MRDL could experience irritating effects to their eyes
and nose. Some people who drink water containing chlorine well in
excess of the MRDL could experience stomach discomfort.
-------
26000
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION—
Continued
Contaminant
84. Chloramines
85a. Chlorine dioxide, >2 consecu-
tive samples at entry point only
are above MRDL.
85b. Chlorine dioxide, sample(s) in
distribution system are above
MRDL.
86. Control of DBP precursors
(TOG).
MCLG 1 mg/L
4 (MRDLG)
0.8 (MRDLG)
0.8 (MRDLG)
None
MCL2 mg/L
4.0 (MRDL)
0.8 (MRDL)
0.8 (MRDL)
TT
Standard health effects language for public notification
Some people who contact drinking water containing chloramines well in
excess of the MRDL could experience irritating effects to their eyes
and nose. Some people who drink water containing chloramines well
in excess of the MRDL could experience stomach discomfort or ane-
mia.
Some infants and young children who drink water containing chlorine
dioxide in excess of the MRDL could experience nervous system ef-
fects. Similar effects may occur in fetuses of pregnant mothers who
drink water containing chlorine dioxide in excess of the MRDL. Some
people may experience anemia.
The chlorine dioxide violations reported today are the result of
exceedances at the treatment facility only, not within the distribution
system which delivers water to consumers. Continued compliance
with chlorine dioxide levels within the distribution system minimizes
the potential risk of these violations to consumers.
Some infants and young children who drink water containing chlorine
dioxide in excess of the MRDL could experience nervous system ef-
fects. Similar effects may occur in fetuses of pregnant mothers who
drink water containing chlorine dioxide in excess of the MRDL. Some
people may experience anemia.
The chlorine dioxide violations reported today include exceedances of
the EPA standard within the distribution system which delivers water
to consumers. Violations of the chlorine dioxide standard within the
distribution system may harm human health based on short-term ex-
posures. Certain groups, including fetuses, infants, and young chil-
dren, may be especially susceptible to nervous system effects from
excessive chlorine dioxide exposure.
Total organic carbon (TOC) has no health effects. However, total or-
ganic carbon provides a medium for the formation of disinfection by
products. These byproducts include trihalomethanes (THMs) and
haloacetic acids (HAAs), which may lead to adverse health effects,
liver or kidney problems, or nervous system effects.
Other Treatment Techniques
87. Acrylamide
88. Epichlorohydrin
Zero
Zero
TT
TT
Some people who drink water containing high levels of acrylamide over
a long period of time could have problems with their nervous system
or blood, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer. ,
Some people who drink water containing high levels of epichlorohydrin
over a long period of time could experience stomach problems, and
may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Appendix B Endnotes
1. MCLG—Maximum contaminant level
goal.
2. MCL—Maximum contaminant level.
3. For water systems analyzing at least 40
samples per month, no more than 5.0 percent
of the monthly samples may be positive for
total collforms. For systems analyzing fewer
than 40 samples per month, no more than
one sample per month may be positive for
total coliforms.
4. MTU—Nephelometric turbidity unit.
5. The MCL for the monthly turbidity
average Is 1 MTU; the MCL for the 2-day
average is 5 MTU. The standard language for
turbidity may also be used where a turbidity
exceedance is the reason for a treatment
technique violation.
6. The bacteria detected by HPC are not
necessarily harmful. HPC is simply an
alternative method of determining
disinfectant residual levels. The number of
such bacteria Is an indicator of whether there
Is enough disinfectant in the distribution
system.
7. TT—Treatment technique.
8. This language may be used for both
SWTR and IESWTR violations.
9. Millions of fibers per liter.
10. Action Level=0.015 mg/L.
11. Action Level=1.3 mg/L.
12. Millirems per year.
13. Picocuries per liter.
14. Surface water systems and ground
water systems under the direct influence of
surface water are regulated under Subpart H
of 40 CFR part 141. Subpart H community
and non-transient non-community systems
serving S10.000 must comply with DBP
MCLs and disinfectant maximum residual
disinfectant levels (MRDLs) beginning
December 16, 2001. All other community and
non-transient noncommunity systems must
meet the MCLs and MRDLs beginning
December 16, 2003.
15. The MCLG for chloroform may change
if the final DBP rule changes.
16. The MCL of 0.10 mg/1 for TTHMs is in
effect until December 16, 2001 for Subpart H
community water systems larger than 10,000.
This MCL is in effect until December 16,
2003 for community water systems with a
population larger than 10,000 using only
ground water not under the direct influence
of surface water. After these deadlines, the
MCL will be 0.080 mg/1. On December 16,
2003, all systems serving less than 10,000
will have to comply with the new MCL as
well.
17. The MCL for total trihalomethanes is
the sum of the concentrations of the
individual trihalomethanes.
18. The MCL for haloacetic acids is the
sum of the concentrations of the individual
haloacetic acids.
19. MRDLG—Maximum residual
disinfectant level goal.
20. MRDL—Maximum residual
disinfectant level.
Appendix C to Subpart Q of Part 141, List
of Acronyms Used in Public Notification
Regulation
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
CWS Community Water System
DBP Disinfection Byproduct
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule
IOC Inorganic Chemical
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 92/Thursday, May 13, 1999/Proposed Rules
26001
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfectant
Level
NCWS Non-Community Water System
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation
NTNCWS Non-Transient Non-Community
Water System
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water
OW Of flee of Water
PN Public Notification
PWS Public Water System
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant
Level
SOC Synthetic Organic Chemical
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TCR Total Coliform Rule
TT Treatment Technique
TWS Transient Non-Community Water
System
VOC Volatile Organic Chemical
PART 142—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 142
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2,
300 g-3, 300g-4, 300 g-5, 300 g-6, 300 j-4,
300 j-9, and300j-ll.
2. Section 142.14 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (f) as (gj and
adding a new (f), to read as follows:
§ 142.14 Records kept by States.
(f) Public notification records under
subpart Q of part 141 of this chapter
received from public water systems
(including the certifications of
compliance and copies of the public
notices) and any state determinations
establishing alternative public
notification requirements for the water
systems must be retained for three years.
*****
3. Section 142.15 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(l), to read as
follows:
§142.15 Reports by States.
(a) * * *
(1) New violations by public Welter
systems in the State during the previous
quarter of State regulations adopted to
incorporate the requirements of national
primary drinking water regulations,
including violations of the public
notification requirements under subpart
Q of part 141 of this chapter;
*****
4. Section 142.16 is amended by
revising paragraph (a), to read as
follows:
§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
(a) State public notification
requirements. (1) Each State that has
primary enforcement authority under
this part must submit complete and
final requests for approval of program
revisions to adopt the requirements of
subpart Q of part 141 of this chapter,
using the procedures in § 142.12(b)
through (d).
(2) As part of the revised primacy
program, a State must also establish
enforceable requirements and
procedures when the State opts to add
to or change the minimum requirements
under:
(i) 40 CFR 141.201 (a)—To require
public water systems to give a public
notice for situations other than those
listed in appendix A of subpart Q of part
141 of this chapter, where the State
determines that the situation has the
potential for serious adverse effects on
human health;
(ii) 40 CFR 141.202(a)—To require
public water systems to give a Tier 1
public notice (rather than a Tier 2 or
Tier 3 notice) for violations or situations
other than those listed in appendix A of
subpart Q of part 141 of this chapter;
(iii) 40 CFR 141.202(b)(3)—rTo require
public water systems to comply with
additional Tier 1 public notification
requirements set by the State
subsequent to the initial 24-hour notice,
as a result of their consultation with the
State required under § 141.202(b)(2) of
this chapter;
(iv) 40 CFR 141.203 (a)—To require
the public water systems to provide a
Tier 2 public notice (rather than Tier 3)
for monitoring or testing procedure
violations specified by the State;
(v) 40 CFR 141.203(b)—To grant
public water systems an extension of
time (up to three months) for
distributing the Tier 2 public notice,
under specific circumstances defined in
the State's primacy program;
(vi) 40 CFR 141.203(b)-—T:o require a
different repeat notice frequency for the
Tier 2 public notice (to be no less
frequent than once per year), under
specific circumstances defined in the
States's primacy program; and
(vii) 40 CFR 141.203(c) and
141.204(c)—To require a different form
and manner of delivery for Tier 2 and
3 public notices.
(3) At its option, a State may, by rule,
and after notice and comment, establish
alternative public notification
requirements with respect to the form
and content of the public notice
required under subpart Q of part 141 of
this chapter. The alternative
requirements must provide the same
type and amount of information
required under subpart Q and must be
designed to achieve an equivalent level
of public notice of violations as would
be achieved under subpart Q of part 141
of this chapter.
PART 143—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 143
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f etseq.
§143.5 [Amended]
2. Part 143 is amended by removing
§ 143.5.
[FR Doc. 99-11162 Filed 5-6-99; 9:42 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
------- |