Wednesday
August 19, 1998
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation: Consumer Confidence
Reports; Final Rule
44511
-------
44512 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[FRL-6145-3]
RIN2040-AC99
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Consumer Confidence
Reports
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Today, EPA is promulgating a
final rule that requires community water
systems to prepare and provide to their
customers annual consumer confidence
reports on the quality of the water
delivered by the systems. This action is
mandated by the 1996 amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
These reports will provide valuable
information to customers of community
water systems and allow them to make
personal health-based decisions
regarding their drinking water
consumption.
These reports are the centerpiece of
public right-to-know in SDWA. The
information contained in consumer
confidence reports can raise consumers'
awareness of where their water comes
from, help them understand the process
by which safe drinking water is
delivered to their homes, and educate
them about the importance of
preventative measures, such as source
water protection, that.ensure a safe
drinking water supply. Consumer
confidence reports can promote
dialogue between consumers and their
drinking water utilities, and can
encourage consumers to become more
involved in decisions which may affect
their health. The information in the
reports can be used by consumers,
especially those with special health
needs, to make informed decisions
regarding their drinking water. Finally,
consumer confidence reports are a key
that can unlock more drinking water
information. They will provide access
through references and telephone
numbers to source water assessments,
health effects data, and additional
information about the water system.
DATES: The effective date for this final
rule is September 18, 1998.
The information collection
requirements contained in subpart O of
part 141 have not been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and are not effective until OMB
has approved them. EPA will publish a
final rule announcing the effective date
when OMB approves the information
collection requirements.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the public
comments received, EPA responses, and
all other supporting documents are
available for review at the U.S. EPA
Water Docket (4101), Docket W-97-18,
401 M Street, SW, Washington DC
20460. For an appointment to review
the docket, call 202-260-3027 between
9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and refer to Docket
W-97-18.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free
800-426-4791 for general information
about, and copies of, this document. For
technical inquiries, contact: Francoise
M. Brasier 202-260-5668 or Rob Allison
202-260-9836.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority
H. Regulatory Background
JR. Significant Decisions Affecting the Final
Rule
IV. Description of Today's Action
V. Cost of the Rule
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. General
2. Use of Alternative Definition
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Environmental Justice
G. Risk to Children Analysis
H. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
I. Submission to Congress and the General
Accounting Office
Regulated persons. Potentially
regulated persons are community water
systems (CWSs).
Category
Publicly-owned CWSs
Pffvately-owned CWSs
Ancillary CWSs
Example of regulated entities
Municipalities; County Governments; Water districts; Water and Sewer Authorities.
Private water utilities; homeowners associations.
Persons who deliver drinking water as an adjunct to their primary business (e.g., trailer parks, retirement homes).
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 § 141.151 of the
rule. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult one of the
people listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
I. Statutory Authority
Section 114 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996 pub. L.
104-182), enacted August 6,1996.
amends section 1414(c) of the SDWA
(42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)). A new section
1414(c)(4) provides for annual consumer
confidence reports by community water
systems to their customers. Section
1414(c)(4)(A) mandates a number of
actions by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, who
is required to develop and issue
regulations within 24 months of the date
of enactment (i.e., by August 1998). The
regulations must be developed in
consultation with public water systems,
environmental groups, public interest
groups, risk communication experts, the
States, and other interested parties. The
regulations must, at a minimum, require
each community water system to mail to
each customer of the system at least
once annually a report on the level of
contaminants in the drinking water
purveyed by that system. The
regulations are required by section
1414(c)(4)(A) to provide a "brief and
plainly worded" definition of four
terms: "maximum contaminant level
goal," "maximum contaminant level,"
"variances," and "exemptions." In
addition, section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires
the regulations to contain brief
statements in plain language regarding
the health concerns that resulted in
regulation of each regulated
contaminant, and a brief and plainly-
worded explanation regarding
contaminants that may reasonably be
expected to be present in drinking
water, including bottled water. Finally,
section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires the
regulations to provide for an EPA toll-
free hotline that consumers can call for
more information and further
explanation.
Section 1414 of SDWA, as amended,
also provides, in a new section
1414(c)(4)(B) of the Act, additional
specific requirements for the contents of
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday. August 19. 1998/Rules and Regulation 44513
the consumer confidence reports. The
reports are required to include, but need
not be limited to, the following
information:
• The source of the water purveyed.
(Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(i).)
• A brief and plainly-worded
definition of the terms "maximum
contaminant level goal," "maximum
contaminant level," "variances," and
"exemptions," as provided in
regulations by the Administrator.
(Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(ii).)
• If any regulated contaminant is
detected in the water purveyed by the
community water system, a statement
setting forth: (1) The maximum
contaminant level goal, (2) the
maximum contaminant level, (3) the
level of such contaminant in the water
system, and (4) for any regulated
contaminant for which there has been a
violation of the maximum contaminant
level during the year covered by the
report, a brief statement in plain
language regarding the health concerns
that resulted in regulation of that
contaminant, as provided by the
Administrator in regulations under
section 1414(c)(4)(A). (Section
Information on compliance with
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWR) , as required by
die Administrator, and a notice if the
system is operating under a variance or
exemption and the basis on which the
variance or exemption was granted.
(Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv).)
• Information on the levels of
unregulated contaminants for which
monitoring is required under section
1445 (a) (2) (including levels of
Cryptosporidium and radon where
States determine they may be found.)
(Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(v).)
• A statement that the presence of
contaminants in drinking water does not
necessarily indicate that the drinking
water poses a health risk and that more
information about contaminants and
potential health effects can be obtained
by calling the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline. (Section 1 4 1 4 (c) (4) (B) (vi) .)
Section 1414(c)(4)(B) also provides
that a community water system may
include any additional information that
it deems appropriate for public
education. In addition, the
Administrator may require, through
regulation, a consumer confidence
report to include, for not more than
three regulated contaminants, a brief
statement in plain language regarding
the health concerns that resulted in
regulation of the contaminant even if
there has not been a violation of the
maximum contaminant level during the
year concerned.
Section 1414(c)(4)(C) authorizes the
Governor of a State to determine not to
apply the mailing requirement to
community water systems serving fewer
than 10,000 persons. Such systems then
would be required to inform their
customers that the system will not be
mailing the report; make the report
available on request to the public; and
publish the report annually in one or
more local newspapers serving the areas
in which the system's customers are
located.
Section 1414(c)(4)(D) allows those
community water systems that are not
required to meet the mailing
requirements, and which serve 500
persons or fewer, to meet their
consumer confidence report obligation
by preparing an annual report, making
it available upon request, and providing
notice of its availability at least once per
year to each customer by mail, by door-
to-door delivery, by posting, or by any
other means authorized in the
regulations.
Section 1414(c)(4)(E) provides that a
State exercising primary enforcement
responsibility may establish by rule,
after public notice and comment,
alternative requirements with respect to
the form and content of the consumer
confidence reports.
This rule is intended to fulfill the
rulemaking requirements oudined in
section 1414(c) (4).
II. Regulatory Background
The rule promulgated today was
proposed on February 13, 1998. As
required by SDWA, the Agency met
extensively with a broad range of groups
in the development of the proposal. In
particular, EPA formed a working group
under the aegis of the National Drinking
Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) to
analyze and debate issues related to the
proposal. In addition, EPA convened a
one-day meeting of a panel of experts in
public health and communication of
risk-related information. These
consultations are described in detail in
the preamble to the proposed rule (63
FR 7606, February 13, 1998). These
consultations helped EPA draft
proposed rule language which was then
reviewed by NDWAC. The provisions
contained in the proposal included all
the provisions for which NDWAC
reached consensus.
After it proposed the rule, EPA had a
series of-four focus groups conducted by
a contractor. The purpose of the focus
groups was to test various alternatives
for the definitions of MCL and MCLG
and to gauge die public's reactions to
health effects statements. In addition,
focus group participants were asked to
give their reaction to two consumer
confidence reports that had actually
been issued by community water
systems. The availability of a report on
the results of these focus groups was
announced in the Federal Register on
May 15,1998 with a request for
comments to be submitted to EPA no
later than June 15,1998. The Agency
received a few comments and
considered them, along with all other
comments received on the proposal, in
developing this final rule.
HI. Significant Decisions Affecting the
Final Rule
The proposed rule discussed, but did
not include, regulatory language
addressing two issues which were
discussed during the consultation
process. EPA believed additional input
through the comment process was
necessary in order to make informed
decisions.
The first issue was the request by
some stakeholders that reports include a
general warning that drinking water
may pose a special health risk for
pregnant women and children. The
second issue concerned die
Administrator's statutory authority to
require in the reports health effects
language for not more than three
regulated contaminants detected at
levels below the MCL. Both of these
issues relate to providing additional
health information and commenters
were asked to consider the link between
tiiese issues. The Agency has also
considered diis link when making
decisions in today's rulemaking.
A. Health Warning for Pregnant Women
and Children
During the development of the
proposal, some stakeholders advocated
requiring all consumer confidence
reports to include language alerting
consumers to the dangers posed to
pregnant women and children by
certain contaminants in drinking water,
such as nitrate, lead, and certain
unspecified pesticides. The Agency
stated in the proposal that inclusion of
such a warning in all reports did not
seem warranted but requested
comments in order to reconsider this
issue for the final rule. The Agency also
requested data on pesticides and other
contaminants which would support the
need for a special warning for pregnant
women and children.
Most commenters argued that a
general healtii warning for pregnant
women and children was unnecessary,
and would confuse and needlessly scare
consumers. These commenters agreed
witii die Agency that the MCL for nitrate
and the action level for lead protect at-
risk populations. Other commenters
-------
44514 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
argued that some form of warning was
necessary, particularly to address lead
and nitrate, but they agreed that such a
warning should only be included in
reports of systems which detected these
contaminants.
No data were submitted on special
risks presented by pesticides. The only
data that commenters submitted were
studies on the impact of lead on
children and of trihalomethanes on
pregnant women and fetuses. In
addition, some commenters requested
changes to the health effects language
proposed in appendix B regarding the
potential impacts of some contaminants
on pregnant women, children, and at-
risk populations. These comments are
addressed in section G of this preamble.
Some commenters suggested lead and
nitrate as two of the contaminants for
which the Administrator should use her
authority to require health effects
language even when systems are in
compliance with the regulations. As
explained below, the Agency believes
that it can better use this authority for
other contaminants.
B. Educational Information for Lead,
Nitrate, and Arsenic
The Agency sees merit in providing
additional information on lead and
nitrate under certain circumstances
since these are contaminants for which
a special risk for children has been
clearly established. EPA also believes
that consumers may require additional
Information about arsenic.
In the case of nitrate, there is only a
small margin of safety provided by the
MCL, and the amount of nitrate in
drinking water is subject to seasonal
fluctuations beyond water systems'
control. Although any recorded
violations of the MCL would require
public notification, it is possible due to
monitoring frequency that in areas
where nitrate levels are generally high,
short-term spikes above the MCL could
occur and not be detected. Therefore,
EPA believes that it is prudent to
require systems which detect nitrate
above 5 mg/1 (50% of the MCL) to
include some educational information
in their reports regarding the risk posed
by nitrates for infants. This Information
will help parents to understand fully the
potential effects of nitrate exposure
above the MCL.
For lead, the Agency's concern is that
while the sampling is designed to look
for the worst conditions, it is possible
that a significant number of households
could have high lead levels even though
a system is technically in compliance
with the lead rule. The closer a system
is to exceeding the action level in more
than 10% of the sampling sites, the
higher that likelihood. Lead poses a
substantial risk to infants and children,
but it is easy for parents to take the
small precautions necessary to reduce
this risk. The Agency believes that
incorporating educational information
about lead in the reports of systems
which detect lead above the action level
in more than 5% of homes sampled
(50% of the action level) is warranted.
Other commenters expressed
concerns about the adequacy of the MCL
for arsenic because it does not take into
account the contaminant's
carcinogenicity. EPA is required to
promulgate a revised arsenic standard
by January 2001. In the meantime, EPA
has decided that it is appropriate for
systems that detect arsenic above 25
Hg/1 (50% of the existing MCL) to
include additional information about
arsenic in their reports. As with nitrate,
EPA is using a threshold of 50% of the
MCL to trigger this requirement based
on comments received regarding the
appropriate threshold for risk-related
information. This requirement will be
deleted from this rule when a revised
arsenic MCL is promulgated. EPA is
including an example of acceptable
language in the regulation to help
systems provide accurate information to
customers. The regulations also provide
that systems can use this language or
develop their own in consultation wtth
the primacy agency.
Inclusion of this information on
arsenic, lead, and nitrate is mandatory,
and EPA is including an example of
acceptable language in the regulation to
help systems provide accurate
information to customers. However,
EPA believes that water systems should
have the flexibility to tailor their
information to specific local
circumstances. Therefore, the
regulations provide that systems can use
the language provided by EPA or
develop their own in consultation with
the primacy agency. The Agency is
using 50% of the MCL or action level as
the threshold for this requirement
because commenters generally agreed
that additional warnings should only be
required where systems actually detect
the contaminants. Many commenters
agreed that half the MCL would be an
appropriate threshold for requiring
additional risk-related information
(even if they expressed strong
reservations about the need to do so).
The requirement for these
informational statements is based on
EPA's authority to require information
in the reports other than that detailed in
SDWA section 1414(c). See section
1414(c)(4)(B).
C. Health Information for Additional
Contaminants
The 1996 SDWA Amendments
authorize the Administrator to require
inclusion of language describing health
concerns in reports for "not more than
three regulated contaminants" other
than those detected at levels above the
MCL. In the preamble to the proposal,
the Agency stated its intent to use the
authority provided by the statute in a
judicious manner and requested
comments on two options.
Option I was to require health effects
language whenever a regulated
contaminant, for which EPA has
proposed to lower the MCL or has
promulgated a revised MCL for which
the effective date has not yet occurred,
is detected at a level above the revised
level. The Agency noted that the •
immediate impact of this option would
be that water systems that detect Total
Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) above the
proposed revised MCL of 80 (Jg/1 would
have to include in their reports the
language of the proposed rule's
appendix B describing the health effects
of TTHMs. Further, the preamble
explained that the Agency would make
decisions on additional revised MCLs
on a case-by-case basis and that a likely
candidate for future requirements under
this scheme would be arsenic.
Option II was to select three
carcinogens for which the MCL allows
a risk level in the range of 10~4 to 10~5.
The Agency requested comments on
which of these contaminants would be
the most significant from a health
standpoint if detected in the finished
water. The Agency also requested
comments on whether it should select a
threshold for reporting on these
contaminants, such as detection >50%
of the MCL.
Most commenters believed that
providing health effects language for
any contaminant detected below its
MCL would be confusing and urged
EPA to not do so. Stakeholders that
commented on the proposed options
generally preferred Option I but only for
newly promulgated MCLs, not for
proposed MCLs. They expressed the
belief that a promulgated MCL
establishes a clear threshold for
triggering the requirement. Also, by the
time EPA promulgates an MCL, it has
carefully documented the health effects
which are the basis for the regulation
and from which it can craft a short
health effects statement.
The Agency finds these arguments
persuasive and will use this authority in
future rulemaking to require health
effects language for contaminants when
MCLs are promulgated or revised. This
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation 44515
health effects language will be included
in the reports of systems which are not
technically in violation of the
regulations because the MCL is not yet
effective, but which detect the
contaminant above the new or revised
MCL.
As noted in the proposal, the first
rulemaking in which EPA will
implement this authority will be the
revision of the MCL for TTHMs
(currently scheduled for promulgation
later this year). In that rulemaking, EPA
will amend 40 CFR part 141, subpart O
(today's rule) to add a new paragraph (e)
to § 141.154 that will require systems
detecting TTHMs at levels above the
revised MCL to include in their reports
the health effects information for
TTHMs in appendix C prior to the
effective date of the new MCL. EPA will
make decisions about additional uses of
this authority (for two additional
contaminants) in later MCL
rulemakings.
IV. Description of Today's Action
This section explains the elements of
the regulation and the changes from the
proposal. In response to comments
received, EPA has made several
significant changes to the proposal,
clarified some requirements, and
slightly reorganized the regulatory
language. EPA evaluated all the
comments it received, and has prepared
a document explaining EPA's responses
to those public comments. That
document in available in the Water
Docket. The Agency also considered the
results of the focus group study as it
shaped this final rule.
A. Purpose and Applicability
Section 141.151 establishes the
purpose and applicability of this rule.
Today's rule establishes the minimum
requirements for the content of
consumer confidence reports. The rule
applies to existing and new community
water systems as defined in § 141.2.
In response to comments, EPA has
made several changes to this section.
First, some commenters expressed
concerns that the language of
§ 141.151(a), which sets a performance
standard for the reports, could be
construed as requiring systems to
include information on non-detected
contaminants. EPA is clarifying that
systems only need to address the risks
(if any) from detected contaminants by
adding the word "detected" to qualify
the word "contaminants."
Second, commenters suggested that
the term "hook-ups," used in the
definition of customers, was not
generally recognized by the industry
and that "service connection" should be
used instead. The Agency has made that
change.
Third, mapy commentefs believed
that the word "detected" needed to be
further defined by referring to detection
limits specified elsewhere in the
regulations. EPA agrees and has added
§ 141.151 (d) to clarify the meaning of
"detected" for this subpart.
Fourth, some commenters expressed
concerns that States might exercise the
flexibility to adopt alternative
requirements for the form and content of
the reports in ways that would
undermine the intent of the Statute.
EPA's intent in proposed § 141.151 (d)
was to clearly define this flexibility
consistent with the statutory language
and intent. EPA has expanded this
section (now codified as § 141.151(e)) to
clarify its meaning.
Finally, several commenters pointed
out that the first reports would be due
before States would have time to adopt
their own regulations. These
commenters stated their opinion that
this meant these reports would have to
be mailed to EPA even though the
proposal stated that reports should be
mailed to the States. EPA is clarifying
its intent by using the term "primacy
agency" in this final rule at §141.151 (f)
and defining it as: the agency in the
State or the tribal government which has
jurisdiction over, and primary
enforcement responsibility for, public
water systems, even if that agency does
not have interim or final primacy
enforcement authority over this rule.
Except in Wyoming, in the District of
Columbia, and on tribal lands, the
primacy agency is a state agency. EPA
intends to enter into Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU) with these state
agencies to share information about
water systems that fail to prepare and
deliver reports. EPA will enforce the
regulations until States get primacy for
this regulation.
B. Effective Dates
.Section 141.152 establishes the time
line for implementation of this rule.
Today's rule becomes effective 30 days
after publication in the Federal
Register. Community water systems
must deliver the first report to their
customers within 13 months of the
regulation's effective date. This
represents no change from the proposal,
which was supported by most of the
comments.
However, in response to comments,
EPA is making two significant changes
to this section. Many commenters
believed that the timing of the reports
should coincide with other reporting
required by the statute, such as annual
compliance reports, and that all reports
should be due on the same specific date.
However, a significant number of
commenters also believed that systems
should be given flexibility to deliver
reports as their billing cycle would
allow, and that systems already
delivering reports should be able to stay -
on their current schedule. Most
commenters also believed that reports
should contain calendar-year data.
EPA's proposal would have allowed
systems to choose any 12-month period
for their reports as long as the period
was consistent from report to report.
Commenters argued that calendar-year
data would allow States to assess report
accuracy and evaluate compliance more
easily.
EPA agrees with this second point
and therefore is requiring in
§ 141.152 (b) that the first report contain
calendar year 1998 data, and that each
report thereafter cover the succeeding
calendar year. As far as the timing of
delivery, EPA continues to believe that
some flexibility is essential to avoid
burdening systems with additional
mailings, or severely disrupting the
schedule of systems which already
provide consumer confidence reports to
their customers. However, since reports
are now required for calendar-year data,
it makes sense to require delivery of the
report as close to the end of the calendar
year as feasible, taking into account the
fact that some data are second-hand
(from wholesaler to retailer) and that
each of these entities should be
provided sufficient time. Therefore,
while the first report continues to be
due no later than 13 months after this
regulation becomes effective, the
regulations now provide in §141.152(b)
that the second report will be due by
July 1, 2000 and subsequent reports by
July 1 bf each year thereafter. Systems
may choose to deliver their reports
earlier than these dates.
EPA also agrees with commenters that
new systems should report data on a
calendar-year basis and on the same
schedule as existing systems. EPA has
revised § 141.152 (c) accordingly. It now
requires new community water systems
to deliver their first report by July 1
following their first full calendar year in
operation.
Finally, as suggested by commenters,
EPA is adding § 141.152(d) to require
drinking water wholesalers to deliver
data to the retailers by a date certain.
The first set of data will have to be
provided six months before retailers
must deliver their first reports, to give
retailers adequate time to prepare the
reports. In following years, data will
have to be delivered by April 1, unless
the wholesaler and the retailer agree in
a contract to a different date. EPA
-------
44516 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
believes that this flexibility is
appropriate since the wholesalers might
prepare the bulk of the CCRs for their
customers, in which case the customers
would not need the data so far in
advance,
C Content of the Reports
In the proposal, the Agency generally
limited the requirements for the content
of reports, found in §§ 141.153 and
141,154, to a clarification and
explanation of the requirements in
section 114 of the 1996 SDWA
Amendments. In addition to today's
rule, EPA is preparing detailed guidance
that will provide supplementary
information and examples of ways in
which systems can prepare and present
the data in consumer confidence
reports. The Agency is also developing
a computerized fill-in-the-blank
template that water systems will be able
to use if they are unable or do not
choose to develop their own consumer
confidence report format. The Agency is
aware of two organizations preparing
similar templates, the American Water
Works Association (AWWA) and the
National Rural Water Association
(NRWA).
1. Information on the Source of the
Water Purveyed
In § 141.153(b), EPA proposed that
reports identify the sources of the water
delivered by the community water
system by providing information on the
type of water (that is, whether the
source is ground water, surface water, a
combination of the two, or water
obtained from another system) and the
commonly-used name or names (if any)
and location of the body or bodies of
water.
One issue on which the Agency
specifically requested comment was the
extent to which reports should discuss
sources of contamination that may have
an impact on the quality of a system's
drinking water sources. The Agency
proposed that when a source water
assessment has been completed for the
water system, that system's consumer
confidence report must notify customers
of the availability of this information
and the means to obtain it. Some
commenters offered persuasive
arguments for the need to take
advantage of these reports to raise
consumers' awareness of the importance
of source water protection. They noted
that in addition to source water
assessments, information is available
through sanitary surveys and reports
prepared under section 305 (b) of the
Clean Water Act. Therefore, in the final
rule, EPA is continuing to mandate in
§ 141.153(b) a notice of the availability
of source water assessments. In
addition, EPA is encouraging systems
that have information.at hand regarding
contamination sources, to include
highlights of this information in their
reports. EPA is also requiring systems,
once the source water assessment is
available, to include in the report a brief
summary of the susceptibility of the
drinking water source, using language
provided by the primacy agency. EPA
anticipates that States will prepare for
the public brief summaries of source
water assessments as part of the source
water assessment process.
2. Definitions
The proposal included definitions in
§ 141.153(c) (1) and (2) of four terms:
"Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or
MCLG," "Maximum Contaminant Level
orMCL," "Variances," and
"Exemptions." These definitions
differed from those found in 40 CFR
141.2 in order to explain these key
regulatory terms in brief, plainly-
worded sentences that consumers could
easily understand.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
(MCLG) and Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL). EPA specifically requested
comments on its definitions for MCLG
and MCL, and noted that the risk
communication panel recommended
that EPA test its definitions and, if
necessary, revise them. The preamble
included alternative definitions to the
proposed language. EPA tested these
alternatives on focus groups of
consumers. The consumers reviewed
the proposed definitions as well as
definitions based on language suggested
in the preamble.
For MCLG, EPA tested three
definitions:
1. "The level of a contaminant in
drinking water below which there is no
known or expected risk to health."
2. "The maximum level of a
contaminant in drinking water at which
no known or anticipated adverse effects
on the health of persons occur and
which allows for an adequate margin of
safety."
3. "The level of a contaminant in
drinking water below which there is no
known or expected risk to health,
allowing an adequate margin of safety."
For MCL, EPA tested three
definitions:
1. "The highest level of a contaminant
that is allowed in drinking water."
2. "The maximum permissible level of
a contaminant in drinking water which
is delivered to any user of a public
water system."
3. "The highest level of a contaminant
that is allowed in drinking water, which
is set as close to the MCLG as feasible
using the best available treatment."
Commenters were split on this issue,
with a slight preference for EPA's
proposed definitions (the first
definitions above). However, many
commenters believed that EPA's
definitions were too short, that
consumers need information about how
MCLs and MCLGs are set, and that the
difference between MCLs and MCLGs
was lost. Members of the focus groups
were comfortable with the third
definitions above, which do provide
some additional information and
explain the difference between MCLGs
and MCLs. Since the Agency's primary
goal is to make these reports useful to
the general public, EPA is basing the
definitions in the final rule on this third
set of definitions, with editorial
modifications.
The Agency notes that it will continue
to rely on the standard reporting to
States and EPA of contaminant levels in
determining whether a compliance or
enforcement action is necessary. Neither
the simpler definitions of regulatory
terms nor the way in which data are
presented in the consumer confidence
reports will affect enforcement
decisions on compliance with MCLs or
action levels.
Variances and Exemptions. As
recommended by the NDWAC Working
Group, the proposal combined the
definitions of variances and exemptions
into a single definition, since the two
terms describe a single concept.
"Variances and exemptions" were
defined in the proposal as "State
permission not to meet an MCL or a
treatment technique under certain
conditions." EPA requested comment
on whether to add the phrase "provided
there is no unreasonable risk to health"
to the definition, in order to inform
report recipients that this is one of the
statutory conditions for receiving a
variance or exemption. Most
commenters agreed with including this
sentence. Two commenters argued
against it because they believe that it
would cause confusion and undermine
confidence in the MCLs. EPA agrees
with these commenters. Further, the
Statute provides for a different standard
when issuing a variance ("adequate
protection of human health") or an
exemption ("no unreasonable risk to
health"). For the sake of brevity and
accuracy, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to promulgate this
definition as proposed, with the minor
change that the definition applies to
systems "operating under" a variance or
exemption. One commenter pointed out
that, as proposed, the provision could
be construed to apply to a system which
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday. August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation 44517
had been granted a variance or
exemption in the past even if this
variance or exemption were no longer in
effect.
EPA is also clarifying that the
definitions apply only to variances and
exemptions granted by the States or EPA
pursuant to sections 1415 and 1416 of
SDWA.
The definitions section of the
proposed rule also included definitions
for "treatment technique" and "action
level" not mandated by SDWA but
considered necessary by EPA to address
situations likely to be encountered by
many systems. The only significant
comments on these definitions were
from California utilities which pointed
out that California has a different
meaning for action level. This is a clear
example of a requirement that a State
may adjust in its own regulations. EPA
is promulgating these definitions as
proposed with a slight revision to the
action level definition to render it more
technically accurate.
As stated in the proposal, EPA notes
that the use of these definitions in the
consumer confidence reports does not
alter the legal and enforceable
definitions of these terms.
3. Level of Detected Contaminants
Section 141.153 (d) of the proposal
generated the most comments and has
been changed significantly in this final
rule. In order to make the changes as
understandable as possible, this section
of the preamble first highlights the
major comments received and EPA's
revised approach in response to these
comments. A section-by-section
explanation of the changes follows this
discussion.
Major Comments Regarding
§ 141.153(d). By far the greatest number
of comments was submitted on the
proposed requirement that reports
include only one number per
contaminant—the highest level used to
determine compliance with an NPDWR.
During the deliberations on the
proposal, many stakeholders expressed
concern that the compliance number,
when based on an average of several
samples, was not the best reflection of
the quality of water delivered to homes
and the possible variability in the
quality of that water. Particularly, some
stakeholders were concerned that some
customers might, at times, get water
containing certain contaminants
exceeding the MCL and that reports
would provide no indication of that
possibility. To address this issue, EPA
took NDWAC's recommendation and
proposed that systems in which more
than 10 percent of the customers are
exposed to a level of contaminant which
is consistently higher than the MCL
would include in their report
information-regarding the -magnitude of
exposure and the location of the'
exposed population.
While some commenters agreed with
the intent of this provision, all
commenters, even some of its original
proponents, deemed it unworkable. On
the other hand, there was significant
support among commenters for
requiring inclusion of ranges of
contaminant levels whenever
compliance is based on an average. EPA
believes that ranges will provide a more
accurate picture of exposure to
contaminants in a way which all
systems can handle and which does not
add any burden, since all measured
contaminant levels are already in their
files. California utilities pointed out that
they provide ranges in their reports, and
that this has proven to be neither a
problem nor confusing to customers.
Some of the most voluminous
comments were based on
misunderstanding of what data EPA
intended the reports to contain when
systems provide water from various
sources, and how systems should deal
with the variability of the finished water
on a temporal or spatial basis. One
problem stemmed from EPA's inartful
use of the word "blended" in the
proposal's § 141.153(d)(3)(iii)(F). The
other problem stemmed from the
statement in proposed § 141.153(d)(l)
that the report should provide an
accurate picture of the level of
contaminants to which consumers may
have been exposed during the year.
Some commenters misinterpreted these
sections as requiring separate columns
for each source, well, or point of entry,
and lengthy explanations of the
variability of the delivered water. This
was not the Agency's intent.
With respect to systems with multiple
sources, it is only when the water
coming from each source remains
completely hydraulically separated from
water from other sources that EPA
intended for reports to include separate
columns of data. Most cases pointed out
by commenters to show the infeasibility
of the requirement—for example,
"multiple sources of water serving an
integrated distribution system," or " in
the course of a given year an individual
resident could receive water from up to
three different surface water sources and
up to 30 different wells whose supplies
are co-mingled prior to receipt by the
customer" were cases to which EPA had
not intended the requirement apply.
EPA has clarified this requirement in
this final rule.
With respect to variability, in
proposed § 141.153(d)(l), EPA
prescribed a performance standard
similar to the one in § 141.151(a) but
with the additional concept that
operators needed to take into account
seasonal variations which produce
changes in water quality when selecting
one number to put in the table. Since
this final rule requires that the table
include ranges, EPA believes that this
reiteration of the performance standard
in § 141.151 (a) is no longer necessary
and has deleted this section from the
final rule.
Other significant comments
concerned the organization of the
information. While most commenters
agreed that data on regulated
contaminants should be highlighted as
the focus of the report, many worried
that the restriction of having to put all
the mandated data in one table as
required by proposed § 141.153(d)(3)
could result in a report that was not
consumer-friendly, and would limit
water systems' ability to be innovative
in presenting the information.
Commenters pointed out two further
weaknesses of the one-table approach.
First, for systems with many detected
contaminants, one table may become
overloaded with information.
Commenters pointed out that
contaminants could be split between
several displays, e.g., organics and
inorganics, or contaminants monitored
at the treatment plant, in the
distribution system, and at consumers'
taps. Second, commenters pointed out
that if a system wants to include
additional data regarding these
regulated contaminants, such as
frequency of testing, or number of
samples, it did not make sense to have
to display this information separately.
EPA agrees with the need to make
presentation of the data as consumer-
friendly as possible, and the need to
provide sufficient flexibility so that
reports can be improved based on
feedback from customers. Therefore,
EPA has modified this requirement to
provide that information outlined in
final § 141.153 (d) needs to be displayed
in one contiguous portion of the report,
but not necessarily in a single table.
Further changes to this section are
discussed below.
Another major concern of commenters
was the proposed requirement that
reports use whole numbers to describe
the MCL. Examples of such numbers
were included in proposed Appendix A.
Some commenters believed that EPA
was asking that numbers be rounded up
or that the detected level be expressed
in whole numbers also. This was not the
Agency's intent. As recommended by
NDWAC, EPA proposed this
requirement because it believes that
-------
44518 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
whole numbers make it easier for
consumers to compare the level of a
contaminant in the system's water with
the MCL. Many consumers have trouble
understanding decimal points. This was
evident in the focus groups, in which
people found reports containing mostly
whole numbers much easier to read
than reports where the significant digits
came after multiple zeros. AWWA
found similar results in its focus groups.
Some commenters expressed concerns
that whole numbers would look like big
numbers and would scare people. In
response, EPA is making a minor change
in the final rule to allow MCLs to be
expressed as any number greater than
1.0. Detected levels will generally be
much smaller— a fact that will be more
obvious if a person has to distinguish
the difference between, for example, 2
ppb and 0,002 ppb, rather than 0.002
ppm and 0.000002 ppm. In appendix A
to this subpart, EPA has listed the MCL
for each regulated contaminant in
standard units and provided the
multiplication factor (usually 1,000) and
the MCL in the unit appropriate for use
in the CCR. EPA notes that in appendix
A, as well as appendices B and C of this
final rule, the contaminants Ethylene
dibromide (EDB) and l,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane (DBCP) are grouped with
the synthetic organic chemicals, as
recommended by a commenter. EPA's
electronic template will allow operators
to enter the detected level of a
contaminant in its usual unit. The
software will do the conversion and
automatically enter in the MCL and
MCLG for that contaminant in
appropriate units for these reports.
Detailed Analysis of Section
I4l.l53(d). This section has been
reorganized so that it now pertains only
to contaminants for which monitoring is
mandatory under the regulations (except
Cryptosporidium). Requirements
pertaining to reporting of
Cryptosporidium. radon, and
contaminants which a system detected
through voluntary monitoring are now
in § 141.153(e). The specific
contaminants to which the requirements
of § 141.153 apply are listed in
In proposed § 141.153(d)(2). EPA
would have required that systems
identify the 12-month period during
which the data used to prepare the
report were collected. This final rule
establishes mandatory calendar-year
reporting requirements. Therefore, this
section is no longer necessary and is
deleted from this final rule.
In proposed § 141.153(d)(3). EPA
proposed that all mandatory data related
to regulated contaminants, and
contaminants subject to mandatory
monitoring (with the exception of
Cryptosporidium) , be displayed in one
discrete table. As explained above, EPA
is changing this requirement. Section
141.153(d)(2) of this rule provides that
all data relating to detected regulated
contaminants, all data relating to
unregulated contaminants for which
monitoring is mandatory under
§ 141.40, and all data related to
contaminants for which monitoring is
required under §§ 141.142 and 141.143
(except Cryptosporidium) be displayed
in one or several tables as long as these
tables are adjacent to one another and
the reader does not have to search for
the information.
In response to comments that finished
water should be the focus of the table(s),
EPA is also clarifying in
§ 141.153(d)(l)(iii) that, for data
collected under §§ 141.142 and 141.143
(the Information Collection Rule (ICR)),
systems must report only finished water
results.
When contaminants are monitored
less than once a year, the proposal
would have required that the report
include the latest result and an
explanation for why the sample was not
taken during the reporting period.
Commenters had concerns with the
burden on operators of developing an
explanation and with how far back in
time a system should search for
monitoring data. Commenters also
requested clarification regarding how
long ICR data should be reported. EPA
has clarified these issues in
§ 141.153(d)(3). Reports containing data
on contaminants detected in previous
calendar years only need to include the
date of the results and a statement
indicating that the data are from the
most recent testing done in accordance
with the regulations. No data older than
five years need be included in the first
or subsequent reports
(§ 141.153(d)(3)(i)). Results of ICR
monitoring need only be included for
five years or until the detected
contaminant becomes regulated,
whichever comes first
In response to comments,
§ 141.153(d)(4) of this final rule
specifies more precisely the data which
must be included in the table(s) for
regulated contaminants. As explained
above, EPA is making a minor change to
the proposed requirement that the MCL
must be expressed as a whole number.
Instead, the final rule requires that the
MCL must be expressed as a number
equal to or greater than 1.0. The MCLG
and detected contaminant level must be
expressed in the same units as the MCL.
The proposed rule required that only
the highest number reported to
demonstrate compliance with the MCL
should be included in the table.
However, in a major change from the
proposal, the final regulation requires
that, for contaminants for which
compliance with the MCL is determined
by calculating an average of several
samples, the range of results must also
be included. When compliance with the
MCL is calculated at a number of
sampling points by averaging quarterly
samples, the report must include the
highest average of any of the sampling
points and the range of all samples
(§ 141.153(d)(4)(iv)(B)). When
compliance is based on a system-wide
average, the reports must include that
average and the range of all samples
..
Some commenters pointed out that
under certain conditions averages may
be rounded to the same significant
number of decimals as the MCL. For
example, if the MCL for selenium is 0.05
mg/1 and the average of 4 samples is
0.052 mg/1, the system is considered in
compliance with the MCL because the
average result can be rounded to 0.05
mg/1. These commenters expressed
concerned that, in the CCR, when the
MCL is expressed as 50 ppb, the results
would have to be reported as 52 ppb
leading customers to believe that the
system was in non-compliance. This
was not the Agency's intent. The
Agency has clarified in a Note in
§ 1 4 1 . 1 53 (d) (4) (iv) (C) that when
rounding is allowed for compliance
purposes, it should be done prior to
multiplying the average number by the
factor necessary to report the results in
the same units as the MCL.
For turbidity, as requested by
commenters, the final regulations
contain separate requirements for: (1)
Systems which are required to install
filtration but have not yet done so and
for which turbidity has an MCL
(§ 141.153(d)(4)(v)(A)), (2) systems
which meet the filtration avoidance
criteria (§ 141.153(d)(4)(v)(B)), and (3)
systems which filter
(§ 141.153(d)(4)(v)(C)). These
requirements are designed to mirror the
requirements for contaminants subject
to an MCL by giving customers
information about the range of
conditions encountered by the system.
The final regulations also contain, in
§ 141.153(d)(4)(vi), specific
requirements for reporting of lead and
copper data. In addition to the 90th
percentile value of the latest round of
sampling, which customers can
compare to the action level and which
is equivalent to an "average" value for
other contaminants, the regulations
require reporting the number of
sampling sites that exceeded the action
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation 44519
level. This will help customers
understand that while a water system
may be in compliance with the action
level, people in certain homes may be
exposed to lead or copper above that
level.
Finally, for reporting of total
coliforms, as suggested by some
commenters, the regulations require that
the highest monthly number of positive
samples be reported for systems which
collect fewer than 40 samples per month
(§ 141.153(d)(4)(vii)). Systems which
collect 40 samples or more per month
must report the highest monthly
percentage of positive samples
(§ 141.153(d)(4)(vii)). For fecal
coliforms, reports must include the total
number of positive samples
The proposed rule required water
systems to include in the table the likely
source of any detected regulated
contaminant. EPA noted that it expected
systems to describe these sources in
generic terms such as "agricultural
runoff' or "petrochemical plants"
unless the system had information
obtained through source water
assessments or other means that would
allow the report to be more specific.
EPA also provided a generic listing of
potential sources in appendix A (now
titled appendix B) to help systems who
had no other available information. In
general, commenters found proposed
appendix A useful, but some expressed
concern that the list of sources for each
contaminant was mandatory and that a
report would have to include all listed
sources even if the operator knew that
such contaminant sources could not
exist in the system's location (e.g.,
cherry orchards in Alaska) . EPA's intent
is for this information to be as specific
as possible. If a system has specific
information through source water
assessments or other means, that
information should be included in the
report. In the absence of specific
information the system can choose from
among the sources listed in appendix B
those that best fit its situation. EPA has
clarified the requirement in
§ 141.153(d)(4)(ix). If the system
believes that none of the sources listed
in appendix B clearly fit the system's
situation, the report could include a
footnote explaining that the typical
sources of the contaminants are
included in the table but do not exist in
the source water areas to the best of the
system's knowledge. EPA has also made
some minor changes to the sources
listed in the proposal, pursuant to
comments received.
EPA has also revised the language of
proposed § 141. 153(d)(l) (iii)(F), now
§ 141.153(d)(5), to clarify that separate
data for multiple raw drinking water
sources for one community water
system are £>nly necessary; when the
drinking water sources remain separate
throughout the treatment plants and the
distribution system, and to clearly
include an option of doing several
reports rather than one if the amount of
data proved cumbersome.
In § 141.153(d)(3)(iv), EPA proposed
to require that community water
systems include specific information in
their consumer confidence reports for
every regulated contaminant detected in
violation of an MCL or exceeding an
action level. In general, commenters
were supportive of the requirement as
proposed and this section is
promulgated as proposed with minor
technical clarifications. Revised
§141.153(d)(6) requires that the table(s)
identify violations of MCLs and
treatment techniques. The report must
include: (1) An explanation of the
violation, including its length, which
may be measured in consecutive days or
weeks, or in repeated occurrences, (2)
the potential health effects using the
appropriate language of appendix C, and
(3) the actions taken by the system to
address the violation.
In proposed § 141.153(d)(3)(v), EPA
included a requirement that systems
report the highest detected level of
unregulated contaminants. Several
commenters pointed out that averages
would be more representative of the
quality of the water. EPA agrees, so, to
conform with decisions regarding
regulated contaminants, today's rule
requires at § 141.153 (d) (7) that reports
include the average and range of
detected unregulated contaminants.
4. Information on Other Contaminants
Section 141.153(e) of the final rule
specifies the information to be included
in the reports for Cryptosporidium,
radon, and contaminants detected
through voluntary monitoring. This
information can be displayed anywhere
in the report that the operator chooses.
In § 141.153(d)(4), the proposal
required systems to include information
on Cryptosporidium whether it is
detected in compliance with the ICR
regulations or through voluntary
monitoring performed by a system.
Many commenters believed that this
section required detailed explanation
regarding sampling and analysis
protocols. This is not EPA's intent. The
Agency believes that the information
can be presented in a succinct statement
that indicates whether Cryptosporidium
has been found and whether it was
found in the source water or finished
water. The systems are free to provide
their interpretation of the significance of
these results. EPA has modified the
language of this requirement, codified in
§ 141.153(e)(l), to make its intent
clearer.
When a system detects radon, the
Agency proposed that the reports
include the results of the monitoring,
information on how the monitoring was
performed, and an explanation of the
significance of the results. EPA stated
that it would provide examples in
guidance of what such an explanation
might be. Some commenters objected to
this requirement. Other commenters
were concerned that the requirement
would require detailed explanations of
sampling and analysis techniques. As
with Cryptosporidium, EPA's intent was
to give as much flexibility as feasible to
the systems and to use guidance to help
systems which detect radon comply
with the requirement. The final
regulations continue to require reporting
of radon detections but EPA has
modified the language in § 141.153(e)(2)
to clarify its intent.
When a system detects any other
unregulated contaminant through
voluntary monitoring, the proposed rule
strongly encouraged systems to include
the results of such monitoring if the
presence of that contaminant was a
reason-for concern. EPA recommended
that systems determine whether there
was a health advisory or a proposed
NPDWR for that contaminant in order to
determine whether there may be a
health concern.
Many commenters objected to this
recommendation, while others asked
that it be mandatory. EPA believes that,
in order for the public to make well-
informed health decisions, the reports
should contain information available to
the systems on any contaminant which
may have an impact on the health of
persons, whether or not monitoring for
that contaminant is currently required.
The Agency believes that requiring such
reporting is authorized under both
section 1414(c)(4)(B) (which states that
the contents of the report must include,
but not be limited to, certain items) and
section 1445(a)(l)(A) (which authorizes
the Administrator to require water
systems to report information to the
public on unregulated contaminants).
On the other hand, the Agency does not
want to discourage systems from
performing additional voluntary
monitoring by requiring disclosure of
information which they could not
explain. Therefore, the Agency is
including this provision in the final rule
as proposed.
-------
44520 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
5, Compliance With National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations
In the proposed rule, the Agency
required that reports contain
information on all NPDWR violations
other than those discussed above. This
Information was to include a clear and
readily understandable explanation of
the violation and its health significance.
EPA requested comments on the need to
Include all NPDWR violations as listed
In proposed § 141.153(e), and on how
detailed the explanation should be.
The majority of commenters agreed
that all violations, not just those posing
a health risk, should be reported in the
CCR, Commenters stated that increased
awareness of violations would lead to
Increased compliance with regulations.
Some commenters, however, argued that
this requirement would duplicate the
public notification (PN) requirements.
and that minor violations that do not
have a direct impact on health should
not be reported in the CCR.
The Statute clearly requires some
duplication between CCR and PN
requirements since both provisions
mandate reporting of violations. Since
neither the PN nor the CCR can assure
complete notification of all consumers,
in many instances the information will
not be repetitive for the public. The
Agency will explore in its revisions to
the PN rule the feasibility of allowing
the CCR to serve as PN for some
violations, thereby eliminating some
duplication. States can use their
authority to promulgate alternative
requirements in accordance with
S141.151 (e) to modify this requirement
for the purpose of their final regulation.
The Agency is retaining the
requirement that CCRs report all
NPDWR violations but is clarifying
proposed § 141.153(e). now § 141.153(f).
To aid readers, the Agency is placing
In the introductory paragraph the
requirements which apply to all
violations. The Agency is not
prescribing any mandatory language to
describe the health significance of
monitoring and reporting violations,
violations of recordkeeping or special
monitoring requirements, or violations
of the terms of a variance, an exemption,
or an administrative or judicial order
because the explanation has to be
tailored to the circumstances of the
violation. In some cases, there may be
no health significance—for example,
failure to send a report on time. In other
cases, the system should use the health
effect language of appendix C—for
example, repeated failure to perform
required monitoring for a contaminant
with acute health effects.
The Agency also notes that the length
of violation means the period of time
during which a system does not have
positive evidence that it has returned to
compliance. If a system does not sample
for an entire quarter, the report should
state that the violation lasted for a
quarter. It is also possible that a system
would be in violation for the first and
third quarters of a year. This should be
explained in the report.
Several commenters pointed out that
the language contained in proposed
§ 141.154 (b) for violations of the surface
water treatment rule was cumbersome
and difficult to understand. EPA agrees,
so this language has been simplified and
is now included in § 141.153(f)(2). The
language is mandatory for systems
which have failed to install adequate
filtration or disinfection treatment, or
have had failure of such equipment
which constitutes a violation of the
regulations, and for systems which fail
to follow proper procedures to avoid
filtration.
EPA also received comments
indicating that the health effects
language of proposed appendix B was
not appropriate for all violations of the
lead and copper rule. EPA agrees, and
in keeping with decisions regarding
monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping violations explained
above, EPA is not requiring the use of
final appendix C language for these
violations when they pertain to lead and
copper. However, the Agency is
requiring the use of appendix C
language for failures to meet corrosion
control requirements, the source water
treatment requirements, and the lead
service line replacement requirements
(§141.15300)).
One commenter pointed out that
discussions of violations of terms of
variances, exemptions, or judicial orders
should be limited to violations
occurring during the 12-month period
covered by the report. EPA agrees and
has added this clarification for all
violations.
Finally, commenters disagreed with
the description of Acrylamide and
Epichlorohydrin contained in proposed
§ 141.154(b)(2) and (3). EPA agrees that
these descriptions may not be adequate.
In any case, they are unnecessary.
Appendix B includes language
regarding the source of these
contaminants which a system can use
when it violates the treatment
technique. The proposed health effects
language has been moved to appendix C
for the sake of consistency. Section
141.153(f)(4) prescribes the use of this
language for violation of the treatment
techniques for Acrylamide and
Epichlorohydrin.
6. Variances and Exemptions
The proposal included a requirement
that reports must include information
regarding variances or exemptions
including: (1) An explanation of the
reasons for the variance or exemption,
(2) the dates when the variance or
exemption was issued and is due for
renewal, (3) a status report on the steps
the system is taking to install treatment,
find alternative sources of water, or
otherwise comply with the terms and
schedules for the variance or exemption,
and (4) a notice of opportunities for
public input into the process. Many
people commented that EPA should
only require a brief status report on
compliance with the terms of the
variance or exemption. This status
report is embodied by the requirements
of proposed § 141.153(f)(3), promulgated
as § 141.153(g)(3). EPA does not believe,
however, that this status report would
make sense to consumers without the
context that would be provided by final
rule § 141.153(g)(l) of the final rule. The
Agency also notes that section
1414 (c) (4) (B) (iv) of the Statute requires
reports to include the basis on which
the variance or exemption was granted.
The remaining information requires
only one or two sentences and is not
burdensome.
On the other hand, requiring a
complete explanation of the terms and
compliance schedule could be too long
to fit in the short summary report
envisioned by Congress. Therefore, the
Agency is promulgating this
requirement in the final rule as
proposed with a minor clarification that
the requirement applies to systems
currently operating under a variance or
an exemption.
7. Additional Information
The proposed rule included three
paragraphs in response to the statutory
requirements that the regulations
include a "brief and plainly worded
explanation regarding contaminants that
may reasonably be expected to be
present in drinking water, including
bottled water." As explained in the
proposal's preamble, EPA interpreted
this section of the law as a mandate
from Congress to include such an
explanation in consumer confidence
reports, because the people likely to
read the regulations themselves already
know why drinking water contains
contaminants. It is reasonable to
understand that Congress intended that
this explanation be provided to
customers.
In general, commenters did not have
many issues with the language proposed
at § 141.153(g)(l)(i) and (ii) which
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation ' 44521
fulfills the statutory requirement that an
explanation be included in the
regulation but provides systems the
flexibility to adapt that explanation to
their specific circumstances. There was
some confusion, however, as to what
EPA intended to require regarding
bottled water. Some commenters
believed that EPA meant for the reports
to include results of bottled water
analysis. This is not EPA's intent. The
Agency does believe, however, that all
customers have a right to know that
bottled water may contain
contaminants, just as tap water does,
and that this was the Congressional
concern behind the requirement that
these regulations contain a statement
about bottled water. Therefore, EPA has
revised proposed § 141.153(g)(l) (now
§ 141.153(h)(l)) to combine the language
of proposed paragraphs (iv) and (v) into
one mandatory paragraph. It explains
that drinking water, including bottled
water, may contain contaminants, that
the presence of contaminants does not
necessarily indicate that the water poses
a health risk, and that the EPA Safe
Drinking Water Hotline can provide
additional information about
contaminants and health effects.
EPA has slightly modified this
language to account for the point raised
by a commenter that some bottled water,
presumably distilled water, contains no
detectable contaminants. The language
of § 141.153(h)(l)(iii) is a slight
modification of the proposed language,
which clearly indicates that FDA's
regulations must be equally protective
of human health. This language is
optional.
In § 141.153(g)(3), EPA proposed that,
in communities with a large proportion
of non-English speaking residents, the
reports should, at a minimum, contain
some statement in the appropriate
language alerting customers to the
importance of the report. Some
commenters objected to this
requirement, arguing that it would be
difficult for systems to ascertain what
was a large proportion of non-English
speaking residents. EPA agrees and in
§ 141.153(h)(3) the final rule provides
that the primacy agency must determine
when a population of non-English
speakers is sufficiently large to require
systems to take special measures for
these residents.
D. Required Health Information and
Rationale
The Agency proposed at § 141.154 (a)
that all consumer confidence reports
include a statement that some people
may be more vulnerable to
contaminants in drinking water than the
general population. The statement
identified several categories of people
who may be particularly at risk from
infections, |md encouraged them to seek
advice from their health providers. It
further informed people that EPA/CDC
guidelines on appropriate means to
lessen the risk of infection from
Cryptosporidium can be obtained from
the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline
and provided the number, as required
by section 1414(c)(4)(A).
Commenters were generally
supportive of this statement and
§ 141.154 (a) is promulgated as
proposed, with the clarification that the
CDC guidelines pertain to "other
microbial contaminants" as well as
Cryptosporidium.
As discussed in section III of this
preamble, the regulations require
additional educational material for three
contaminants if they are detected above
50% of the MCL (arsenic and nitrates)
or above the action level in more than
5% of homes sampled (lead). These
requirements are codified at
§ 141.154(b), (c), and (d), respectively.
E. Report Delivery and Recordkeeping
In response to comments, some minor
modifications have been made to this
section. First, commenters argued that
as written, § 141.155(a) implied that
systems could use only the U.S. Postal
Service to deliver reports to customers.
EPA agrees that other means of
delivering the reports could be used as
long as reports get into customers'
homes. For example, a system's water
meter readers could deliver the reports.
Therefore, the regulations now state in
§ 141.155(a) that reports must be mailed
or otherwise directly delivered to the
customer.
In proposed § 141.155(a), EPA also
proposed that systems make a good faith
effort to reach consumers who do not
get water bills. The Agency discussed its
reasons for incorporating flexibility in
this provision and included in the
proposal examples of what such good
faith efforts might be: posting on the
Internet, publication of the report in
subdivision newsletters, asking
landlords to post reports in conspicuous
places. The proposal left to the State the
discretion to recommend specific means
of delivery. Many commenters argued
that this was insufficient and that EPA
should mandate specific requirements
designed to reach all consumers.
The Agency strongly supports the
right of all consumers to know about the
quality of their drinking water and
continues to believe that the means to
reach consumers must be tailored to
specific situations and cannot be
mandated at the Federal level.
Therefore, § 141.155 (b) does not
prescribe specific means for reaching
customers. However, to ensure that
systems are aware of the variety of
means at their disposition, EPA has
clarified in the final rule what it
considers an adequate good faith effort
and has provided a menu of options
from which the systems must select the
most appropriate means to reach their
consumers.
The Agency believes that flexibility in
these provisions is essential because it
will take some time for EPA, States, and
utilities working as partners to assess
the efficacy of various good faith efforts.
The Agency believes that this
assessment can be achieved through
voluntary means. It will require some
information gathering by the'States
regarding how systems are
implementing this provision. EPA also
assumes that some systems will attempt
to assess how effective their efforts are.
EPA believes that this evaluation, which
can be achieved through guidance after
the rule is in place, could lead to more
effective use of State and water system
resources.
In addition, based on comments
received regarding the possible use of
the Internet to reach consumers and the
public at large, the regulations now
require in §141.155 (f) that systems
serving 100,000 or more people post
their current year's report on the
Internet. These systems serve almost
50% of the population served by
community water systems and several of
these larger systems already post their
reports on the Internet. In addition, EPA
will work with the States to make
reports of systems serving more than
10,000 people available on the Internet
within the next few years. Eventually,
EPA expects that reports on the water
consumed by more than 90% of persons
served by community water systems
will be readily available through the
Internet. This would allow most
consumers to go to their public library
and have access to information from the
variety of systems whose water they
may consume.
EPA will also work with the systems
to ensure that the reports placed on the
Internet are accessible through EPA's
drinking water web site (www.epa.gov/
safewater). EPA's site provides
educational background on many of the
report's terms and concepts. It offers
resources such as fact sheets on
drinking water regulations and on the
potential health effects of each regulated
contaminant. The site provides e-mail
and telephone links so that consumers
can get answers to individual questions.
A state-by-state listing will provide
information on the source water
assessments referred to in the reports.
-------
4452? Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
Other EPA web sites, such as Surf Your
Watershed and the Index of Watershed
Indicators, give consumers access to
enormous amount of data and
information about source water.
Beginning in late 1999. the web site will
also provide access to EPA's National
Contaminant Occurrence Database
%vhich will contain information
regarding contaminants detected in
source water and finished water.
Some cornmenters suggested that a
deadline be included in the regulations
for mailing of the report to the State.
The Agency agrees, so § 141.155(c)
provides that reports be mailed to the
State at the same time that they are
distributed to customers, followed
within three months by a certification
that reports were distributed, and that
the information contained in the reports
is correct and consistent with
previously submitted data.
Section I4l.l55(c) of the proposal
would have required a water system to
mail a copy of its consumer confidence
report to any other agency in the State
with jurisdiction over community water
systems. This could include public
utility commissions, if they have
jurisdiction over rate making; public
health agencies, which may either have
primary jurisdiction over water systems
or share that jurisdiction with other
agencies; State environmental agencies;
and State agricultural or natural
resource agencies, if they have
jurisdiction over water rights, wells, or
other aspects of the system's source
water. This section also authorized the
State Director to designate any other
agencies or clearinghouses to which he
could require that systems send copies
of their reports. Commenters argued that
systems, particularly small systems,
may routinely deal only with the
primacy agency and not know of the
other agencies listed in the proposal.
EPA agrees, and the final regulations
provide that systems need only mail
additional copies of the report if
required by the primacy agency.
Finally, as suggested by commenters,
the Agency has added a five-year
recordkeeping requirement for these
reports §141.155(h).
F. Special State Implementation and
Primacy Requirements, and Rationale
Several commenters objected to EPA's
proposal that States must adopt the
requirements promulgated today (or
alternative requirements as provided by
§ 141.151) in order to maintain primacy.
These commenters based their rationale
on the fact that the consumer
confidence reports are not considered
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs) under the
statute. EPA agrees that these
regulations are not NPDWRs as defined
under SDWA section 1401. However,
EPA believes that it can require States
to adopt these requirements under the
authority of section 1413 (a) (2) which
requires States to adopt and implement
adequate procedures for enforcement of
NPDWRs. EPA believes that these
reports contain data which provide the
public with information which can be
used to promote compliance with the
regulations. Moreover, these reports are
required under section 1414 of the
SDWA which is the enforcement
provision of the Act for the public water
supply supervision program. EPA
believes therefore that Congress
intended these reports to be treated as
necessary for enforcement pursuant to
section 1413(a)(2), similar to public
notification requirements (also under
section 1414) which EPA has treated as
a primacy requirement under section
1413(a)(2). Therefore, EPA is
promulgating § 142.16(f) as proposed.
The proposed regulation included a
provision § 142.16(f)(2) that would have
given States two options in discharging
their responsibility to make reports
available to the public. They could keep
the reports themselves, or simply
maintain a list of operators' phone
numbers which could be provided to
the public.
Many States objected to having to
serve as clearinghouses for these
reports. They argued that the
certification required by § 141.155 (c)
would be sufficient for ascertaining
compliance with these regulations. They
also argued that maintaining the reports
would require manpower and filing
space. Some States also objected to the
requirement that they maintain a list of
operators' telephone numbers. Most
believed that it was unnecessary
because they already have such lists, but
others said that it would be
burdensome.
Most members of the public who
submitted comments believed, however,
that easy access to reports by all
members of the public was an essential
element of any right-to-know regulation.
Their comments were echoed by
consumer advocates who requested a
national clearinghouse.
Based on all the comments received,
EPA now believes that it is important
for the States to maintain copies of the
reports for two reasons. First, the
Agency is convinced that there must be
some access provided to the general
public to reports other than from then-
own system. People with special needs
may need to know about drinking water
quality in other parts of the country
when they travel, or might want to
check a report from another part of the
country when planning a move. Second,
EPA believes that States themselves
would want to have easy access to the
reports in order to make decisions on
how to exercise their flexibility to adopt
alternative requirements, and in order to
seek good new ideas for the reports.
EPA is therefore requiring at
§ 142.16(f)(2) that States make reports
available to the public upon request and
at § 142.16(f)(3) that States maintain a
copy of the reports for one year. This
does not mean that all reports must be
housed in one central location. Large
States with field offices could maintain
the reports in those offices. States could
also arrange with an independent
clearinghouse to make the reports
available to the public. The option that
States maintain lists of the operators'
telephone numbers has been deleted.
Some commenters asked for
clarification regarding implementation
of the regulations during the interim
period between effective date of the
federal requirements and effective date
of State requirements. During this
interim period, EPA must enforce the
regulation in lieu of the States; however,
the systems will submit their reports to
the primacy agency. Therefore, a
provision has been added in
§ 142.16(f)(4) which clarifies that States
must report violations to EPA so that
EPA can take enforcement action as
appropriate. Note that EPA interprets its
regulations on primacy State reporting
at § 142.14(a) to require reporting of
CCR violations. The term "national
primary drinking water regulations" in
that section refers generally to the
regulations EPA has codified in 40 CFR
part 141 (entitled National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations), including
today's regulations, rather than the
somewhat narrower use of the term
"primary drinking water regulation"
under section 1401 of SDWA. Today's
rule at § 142.16(f}(4) is intended merely
to clarify the intent of § 142.15(a) (1)
with respect to consumer confidence
reporting.
G. Health Effect Language and Rationale
In appendix B of the proposal, EPA
included brief statements on health
concerns of regulated contaminants to
be used when systems reported
detections in violation of NPDWRs. The
Agency indicated that the language in
proposed appendix B was a distillation
of information contained in EPA fact
sheets, which were included in the
docket for this rulemaking. EPA
requested comment on the accuracy and
adequacy of this language. EPA also
tested some of these statements with the
focus groups. In general, comments
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation 44523
were supportive and most members of
the focus groups formed correct
opinions regarding the relative risk of
the various scenarios presented to them.
Therefore, EPA is promulgating
appendix B, now titled appendix C, as
proposed with some minor
modifications.
First, several commenters were
concerned that the statements
overstated risk and did not clearly
convey that the basis for contaminant
standard-setting is a probability that
certain effects might occur in certain
people, not a certainty. The statements
now start with the words "some people"
rather than "people" to convey the
probabilistic nature of the standard-
setting process.
Some commenters also asked for
clarification regarding the words "well
in excess of the MCL" used in some of
the statements. In the proposal, EPA
used these words to differentiate
between carcinogens and chronic
contaminants for which MCLs are set
with a substantial margin of safety. EPA
has reviewed this margin of safety and
is keeping the words "well in excess"
only for contaminants for which the
MCL is at least a thousand times lower
than the level at which there have been
any observed health effects.
Some commenters disputed the
accuracy of some of the health effects
noted for some contaminants. As
suggested by a commenter, EPA has
reviewed the health effects noted in
EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), which is atpeer-reviewed
compilation of the latest health
information regarding contaminants.
The Agency made some changes based
on this information. It should be noted,
however, that appendix C does not, and
is not intended to, catalog all possible
health effects for each contaminant.
Rather, it is intended to inform
consumers of the most significant and
probable health effects associated with
the contaminant in drinking water.
Based on comments received, EPA
has also removed the reference to cancer
for.any Group C ("possible")
carcinogen. EPA believes that the
evidence of cancer for any of these
contaminants is too weak to warrant
inclusion in appendix C. All
contaminant-specific changes are
explained in detail in the comment-
response document included in the
docket for this rule.
V. Cost of the Rule
EPA estimated the costs of complying
with the requirements of the proposed
rule and described the results of that
analysis in the background information
for the proposed rule (63 FR 7618-
7619). EPA has adjusted its estimate to
account for additional requirements
added in the final rule: That systems
store a copy of the report for five years
after distributing it, and that systems
COST SUMMARY TABLE :
serving 100,000 or more people place
their CCR on the Internet.
The costs of complying with the rule
were evaluated in terms of fixed costs
and variable costs. Fixed costs include
those costs that a community water
system must incur to comply with the
requirements regardless of how many
copies of the report it must deliver.
These costs include the costs associated
with reviewing the regulations,
collecting data regarding monitoring
results and MCL violations, preparing
the technical content of the consumer
confidence report in a format suitable
for distribution, identifying the
recipients of the reports, and providing
instructions about report production.
Variable costs are costs that increase or
decrease along with the number of
consumer confidence reports to be
delivered. These costs include costs of
producing the reports (costs of paper,
photocopying or printing, and labels)
and postage.
Based on its analysis, the Agency
estimates the annual cost of delivering
a report to every customer served by all
community water systems nationally
(except for California, which already
requires notices similar to the consumer
confidence reports in this rule) is
$20,807,555. EPA estimates that the
average cost per system is
approximately $442.
Some figures do not add because of rounding
Systems serving < 500
Systems serving 501—3 300 .
Systems serving 3,301—10,000
Systems serving 10 001— 50 000 .
Systems serving > 100,000
Total for all Systems
Total State or Primacy Agency Cost
Cost of rule
Number of
systems
27,135
12,983
3,882
2,319
336
Average
labor hours
per system
4.9
13.5
19.5
246
25.1
Average
labor cost
per system
$49
135
468
787
803
Other costs
per system
(e.g., post-
age)
$035'
248
816
2301
2644
Total cost
for size cat-
egory
$1 346815
4 968 334
4 983 712
8 349 790
1 158904
20 807 555
2,784,692
23,592,247
EPA recognizes that these cost
estimates may appear understated to
many commenters. These comrnenters
stressed several factors that they
believed EPA had overlooked or
significantly underestimated, including
some factors that have been discussed
earlier, such as the need to report on
multiple sources of water. In particular,
however, two important trends emerged
in the comments.
One trend was represented by several
commenters from very small systems,
who argued that any CCR would be a
financial burden to them. In addition to
ignoring the Congressional mandate for
the CCR, however, such commenters
also frequently overlooked key factors
that will affect the costs to small
systems. These factors include, first, the
statutory and regulatory provisions for
waiver of delivery requirements for such
systems. EPA did not receive any
indications in the comments submitted
on the proposed rule that State
Governors would not make the
necessary findings and certifications to
allow the smallest systems to post their
CCRs rather than deliver them to each .
customer, or that small systems would
not be allowed to adopt alternatives to
mail delivery. Therefore, the Agency's
estimates reflect a significant use of
alternative means of distribution by
small systems. Second, EPA anticipates
that the burden of preparation of the
CCR for small systems will be
substantially lessened by use of report
templates, which will enable small
-------
44524 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
systems to avoid the costs of graphically
designing reports; looking up and
copying information, such as health
effects language or typical sources of
contamination; and calculating the
conversions necessary to report
detections in the form called for by the
rule. Such templates will be made
available by EPA and by trade
associations representing water supply
systems, and the Agency has reflected
the widespread use of such templates in
its estimates. In addition, EPA expects
that small systems will receive
assistance and support from State
primacy agencies in collecting and
interpreting data.
The second trend was represented by
commenters from larger systems, many
of which already prepare and distribute
various reports to their customers. They
frequently suggested that use of
professional graphic designers, use of
multicolor printing, use of multiple
pages for reports, and delivery to larger
numbers of customers than incorporated
into the EPA's cost estimate would lead
to higher costs than those developed for
this proposed rule. EPA recognizes that
larger systems, in particular, may wish
to develop CCRs that have very high
graphic qualities that appeal to wide
audiences, and certainly does not want
to inhibit systems from making their
CCRs as appealing as possible. In such
cases, EPA recognizes, the costs of
preparation and delivery of the CCR will
be greater than those estimated for this
rule.
The purpose of the estimate provided
in this rule, however, is to indicate the
minimum cost that might be incurred by
a system to comply with the
Congressional and regulatory
requirements. This approximation of the
true cost of the regulations, as such,
does not include the cost of
embellishments that systems may
reasonably find desirable but are not
required. Contrary to the assumptions of
some commenters, no costs of testing
source water are properly attributable to
the costs of complying with the CCR
rule. EPA notes that even some large
metropolitan water systems have
succeeded in preparing clear and
appealing water quality reports that can
be placed on a single sheet of paper; that
do not rely on multicolor printing but
are nevertheless graphically distinctive;
and that can be delivered without the
very substantial increases in postage
costs suggested as necessary by some
commenters. Therefore, taking the "bare
bones" nature of the CCR, as well as the
tools that will be available for its
production and the special procedures
that will be allowed for its distribution
by small systems, EPA considers that its
estimated costs of compliance are
adequate.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $ 100 million or more, or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of the recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of 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." Therefore, EPA submitted this .
action to OMB for review. Substantive
changes made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations are
documented in the public record.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. General
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), requires EPA to consider
explicitly the effect of proposed
regulations on small entities. Under the
RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 etseq., an agency
must prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis (RFA) describing the economic
impact of a rule on small entities as part
of rulemaking. However, under section
605 (b) of the RFA, if EPA certifies that
the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, EPA is not
required to prepare a RFA.
EPA has determined that this rule will
affect small water utilities, since it is
applicable to all community water
systems, including small systems.
However. EPA has estimated the impact
of the rule and concluded that the
impact of the rule will not be
significant. Therefore, the Administrator
is today certifying, pursuant to section
605 (b) of the RFA, that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The basis for this certification is as
follows: the annualized compliance
costs of the rule represent less than one
percent of sales for small businesses and
less than one percent of revenues for
small governments. 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. This is the cut-off
level specified by Congress in this
provision for small system flexibility in
delivery of the reports. Because this
does not correspond to the definition
established under the RFA, EPA
consulted with the Small Business
Administration (SBA) on the use of this
alternative definition (see next section).
Further information supporting this
certification is available in the public
docket for this rule.
Since the Administrator is certifying
this rule, the Agency did not prepare a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
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
community water systems in the design
of consumer confidence reports; offering
them the choice to use a simplified
format to prepare the reports; and
incorporating procedures by which
small systems can make reports
available to their customers by methods
other than mailing. Further, the Agency
notes that in general the regulations
issued under SDWA place a lesser
burden on small systems, for example,
for most regulated contaminants, small
systems have to collect fewer samples.
Therefore, small systems operators will
have significantly less information to
report in consumer confidence reports.-
2. Use of Alternative Definition
As discussed at length in the
preamble to the proposed rule, EPA is
defining, for the purposes of this rule-
making, a "small entity" as a public
water system that serves 10,000 or fewer
people. In the proposal, EPA requested
comments on the issue. The Agency's
review of those comments showed that
stakeholders support the proposed
definition. The SBA Office of Advocacy
agreed with the Agency's choice of
systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
for an alternative small business
definition for this rulemaking. EPA
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation 44525
intends to define "small entity" in the
same way for regulatory flexibility
assessments under the RFA for all future
drinking water regulations.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 etseq. An Information Collection
Request (ICR) document has been
prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1832.01) 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 or by calling
(202) 260-2740. The information
collection requirements are not effective
until OMB approves them.
This information is being collected in
order to fulfill the statutory
requirements of section 114(c)(4) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
of 1996 (Public Law 104-182) enacted
August 6, 1996. Responses are
mandatory.
The burden to the regulated
community is based on the cost of the
rule discussed under section V. The
burden to community water systems is
approximately 460,000 hours at an
annual cost of $20,807,555. The
estimated number of respondents is
47,040 community water systems. The
frequency of responses is annual. The
average burden per response is
approximately 10 hours. The annual
burden to EPA and State primacy
agencies over three years is based on 3
elements: preparing reports for some
small community water systems,
receiving and reviewing reports, and
filing reports. EPA estimates the annual
burden incurred by implementing
agencies for activities associated with
the proposed regulations to be
approximately 98,230 hours at an
annual cost of $2,784,692.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to, or for, a
Federal Agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing way to comply with any
previous applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An Agency may not cohduct 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.
Send comments 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 to the Director, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2137), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC
20460; and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
Comments are requested within
September 18, 1998. Include the ICR
number in any correspondence.
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
Unless the Federal government
provides funds for State, local, or Tribal
governments to pay the direct costs of
implementing a Federal mandate upon
them. Executive Order 12875,
"Enhancing Intergovernmental
Partnerships," October 26, 1993,
requires an agency to consult with State,
tribal, and local entities in the
development of rules that will affect
them, provide OMB a description of the
issues raised, and provide an Agency
statement supporting the need to issue
the regulation. As described in section
II of the Supplementary Information
above, EPA held extensive meetings
with a wide variety of State, tribal, and
local representatives, who provided
meaningful and timely input in the
development of the proposed rule.
Summaries of the meetings have been
included in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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 $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful, timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and
informing, educating and advising small
governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments in the aggregate, or
the private sector, in any one year.
Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections of 202 and 205
of the UMRA. This rule will establish
requirements that affect small
community water systems. However,
EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because the
regulation requires minimal expenditure
of resources. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA.
F. Environmental Justice
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), The
Agency has considered environmental
justice related issues with regard to the
potential impacts of this action on the
environmental and health conditions in
low-income and minority communities.
The Agency believes that two of today's
proposed requirements will be
particularly beneficial to these
communities. One is that community
water systems must include information
in language other than English if a
-------
44526 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
significant portion of the population, as
determined by the Primacy Agency,
does not speak English. The other is that
systems must make a good faith effort to
reach consumers who are not bill paying
customers.
G. Risk to Children Analysis
On April 23,1997, the President
Issued Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 1988). A "covered
regulatory action" is defined in section
2-202 as a substantive action in a
rulemaking that (a) is likely to result in
a rule that may be "economically
significant" under Executive Order
12866 and (b) concerns an
environmental health risk or safety risk
that an agency has reason to believe may
disproportionally affect 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 die planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency. This rule is
not a "covered regulatory action" as
defined in die Order because it is not
economically significant (see section V
above). EPA believes, however, that the
rule has the potential to reduce risks to
children.
This regulation on consumer
confidence reports addresses the
particular risks that certain
contaminants in drinking water may
pose to children. The regulation
requires that the reports include
additional information aimed at parents
of young children when lead or nitrates
are detected in a system's water above
certain levels. The health effects
language provided in appendix C of the
rule identifies risks to infants and
children from drinking water containing
lead, nitrate, or nitrite in excess of
specified levels.
H. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act. the Agency is required to use
voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory 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 standard bodies. Where
available and potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards are not
used by EPA, the Act requires the
Agency to provide Congress, through
the Office of Management and Budget,
an explanation of the reasons for not
using such standards. Because this rule
does not involve or require the use of
any technical standards, EPA does not
believe that this Act is applicable to this
rule. Moreover, EPA is unaware of any
voluntary consensus standards relevant
to this rulemaking. Therefore, even if
the Act were applicable to this kind of
rulemaking, EPA does not believe that
there are'any "available or potentially
applicable" voluntary consensus
standards.
I. Submission to Congress and the
General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1998, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
Agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. This rule is not a
major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This rule will be effective on September
18, 1998. For judicial review purposes,
the effective date and time of this final
rule is 1 p.m. eastern time on September
2, 1998, as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 141 and
142
Environmental protection.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Chemicals, Indian-lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
Dated: August 11, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 are
amended as follows:
PART 141—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 141
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2,
300g-3. 300g-4, 300g-5.300g-6, 300j-4,
300J-9, and300j-ll.
2. Subpart O is added to read as
follows:
Subpart O—Consumer Confidence Reports
Sec.
141.151 Purpose and applicability of this
subpart.
141.152 Effective dates.
141.153 Content of the reports.
141.154 Required additional health
information.
141.155 Report delivery and recordkeeping.
Appendix A to Subpart O—Converting MCL
Compliance Values for Consumer
Confidence Reports
Appendix B to Subpart O—Regulated
Contaminants
Appendix C to Subpart O—Health Effects
Language
Subpart O—Consumer Confidence
Reports
§ 141.151 Purpose and applicability of this
subpart.
(a) This subpart establishes the
minimum requirements for the content
of annual reports that community water
systems must deliver to their customers.
These reports must contain information
on the quality of the water delivered by
the systems and characterize the risks (if
any) from exposure to contaminants
detected in the drinking water in an
accurate and understandable manner.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of
§ 141.3, this subpart applies only to
community water systems.
(c) For the purpose of this subpart,
customers are defined as billing units or
service connections to which water is
delivered by a community water system.
(d) For the purpose of this subpart,
detected means: at or above the levels
prescribed by § 141.23(a)(4) for
inorganic contaminants, at or above the
levels prescribed by § 141.24® (7) for
the contaminants listed in § 141.61 (a), at
or above the level prescribed by
§ 141.24(h)(18) for the contaminants
listed in § 141.61 (c), and at or above the
levels prescribed by § 141.25 (c) for
radioactive contaminants.
(e) A State that has primary
enforcement responsibility may adopt
by rule, after notice and comment,
alternative requirements for the form
and content of the reports. The
alternative requirements must provide
the same type and amount of
information as required by §§ 141.153
and 141.154, and must be designed to
achieve an equivalent level of public
information and education as would be
achieved under this subpart.
. (f) For purpose of §§ 141.154 and
141.155 of this subpart, the term
"primacy agency" refers to the State or
tribal government entity that has
jurisdiction over, and primary
enforcement responsibility for, public
water systems, even if that government
does not have interim or final primary
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday. August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation 44527
enforcement responsibility for this rule.
Where the State or tribe does not have
primary enforcement responsibility for
public water systems, the term "primacy
agency" refers to the appropriate EPA
regional office.
§141.152 Effective dates.
(a) The regulations in this subpart
shall take effect on September 18, 1998.
(b) Each existing community water
system must deliver its first report by
October 19, 1999, its second report by
July 1, 2000, and subsequent reports by
July 1 annually thereafter. The first
report must contain data collected
during, or prior to, calendar year 1998
as prescribed in § 141.153 (d) (3). Each
report thereafter must contain data
collected during, or prior to, the
previous calendar year.
(c) A new community water system
must deliver its first report by July 1 of
the year after its first full calendar year
in operation and annually thereafter.
(d) A community water system that
sells water to another community water
system must deliver the applicable
information required in § 141.153 to the
buyer system:
(1) No later than April 19, 1999, by
April 1, 2000, and by April 1 annually
thereafter or
(2) On a date mutually agreed upon by
the seller and the purchaser, and
specifically included in a contract
between the parties.
§ 141.153 Content of the reports.
(a) Each community water system
must provide to its customers an annual
report that contains the information
specified in this section and § 141.154.
(b) Information on the source of the
water delivered:
(1) Each report must identify the
source (s) of the water delivered by the
community water system by providing
information on:
(i) The type of the water: e.g., surface
water, ground water; and
(ii) The commonly used name (if any)
and location of the body (or bodies) of
water.
(2) If a source water assessment has
been completed, the report must notify
consumers of the availability of this
information and the means to obtain it.
In addition, systems are encouraged to
highlight in the report significant
sources of contamination in the source
water area if they have readily available
information. Where a system has
received a source water assessment from
the primacy agency, the report must
include a brief summary of the system's
susceptibility to potential sources of
contamination, using language provided
by the primacy agency or written by the
operator.
(c) Definitions.
(1) Each report must include the
following definitions: ':•??
(i) Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
orMCLG: The level of a contaminant in
drinking water below which there is no
known or expected risk to health.
MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.
(ii) Maximum Contaminant Level or
MCL: The highest level of a contaminant
that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs
are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible
using the best available treatment
technology.
(2) A report for a community water
system operating under a variance or an
exemption issued under §1415 or 1416
of SDWA must include the following ,
definition: Variances and Exemptions:
State or EPA permission not to meet an
MCL or a treatment technique under
certain conditions.
(3) A report which contains data on a
contaminant for which EPA has set a
treatment technique or an action level
must include one or both of the
following definitions as applicable:
(i) Treatment Technique: A required
process intended to reduce the level of
a contaminant in drinking water.
(ii) Action Level: The concentration of
a contaminant which, if exceeded,
triggers treatment or other requirements
which a water system must follow.
(d) Information on Detected
Contaminants.
(1) This sub-section specifies the
requirements for information to be
included in each report for
contaminants subject to mandatory
monitoring (except Cryptosporidium). It
applies to:
(i) Contaminants subject to an MCL,
action level, or treatment technique
(regulated contaminants);
(ii) Contaminants for which
monitoring is required by § 141.40
(unregulated contaminants); and
(iii) Disinfection by-products or
microbial contaminants for which
monitoring is required by §§ 141.142
and 141.143, except as provided under
paragraph (e)(l) of this section, and
which are detected in the finished
water.
(2) The data relating to these
contaminants must be displayed in one
table or in several adjacent tables. Any
additional monitoring results which a
community water system chooses to
include in its report must be displayed
separately.
(3) The data must be derived from
data collected to comply with EPA and
State monitoring and analytical
requirements during calendar year 1998
for the first report and subsequent
calendar years thereafter except that:
(i) Where a system is allowed to
monitor for regulated contaminants less
often than once a year, the table (s) must
include the date and results of the most
recent sampling and the report must
include a brief statement indicating that
the data presented in the report are from
the most recent testing done in
accordance with the regulations. No
data older than 5 years need be
included.
(ii) Results of monitoring in
compliance with §§141.142 and
141.143 need only be included for 5
years from the date of last sample or
until any of the detected contaminants
becomes regulated and subject to
routine monitoring requirements,
whichever comes first.
(4) For detected regulated
contaminants (listed in appendix A to
this subpart), the table(s) must contain:
(i) The MCL for that contaminant
expressed as a number equal to or
greater than 1.0 (as provided in
appendix A to this subpart);
(ii) The MCLG for that contaminant
expressed in the same units as the MCL;
(iii) If there is no MCL for a detected
contaminant, the table must indicate
that there is a treatment technique, or
specify the action level, applicable to
that contaminant, and the report must
include the definitions for treatment
technique and/or action level, as
appropriate, specified in paragraph (c) (3)
of this section;
(iv) For contaminants subject to an
MCL, except turbidity and total
coliforms, the highest contaminant level
used to determine compliance with an
NPDWR and the range of detected
levels, as follows:
(A) When compliance with the MCL
is determined annually or less
frequently: The highest detected level at
any sampling point and the range of
detected levels expressed in the same
units as the MCL.
(B) When compliance with the MCL is
determined by calculating a running
annual average of all samples taken at
a sampling point: the highest average of
any of the sampling points and the
range of all sampling points expressed
in the same units as the MCL.
(C) When compliance with the MCL is
determined on a system-wide basis by
calculating a running annual average of
all samples at all sampling points: the
average and range of detection
expressed in the same units as the MCL.
Note to paragraph (d)(4)(iv): When
rounding of results to determine compliance
with the MCL is allowed by the regulations,
rounding should be done prior to multiplying
the results by the factor listed in appendix A
of this subpart;
(v) For turbidity.
-------
44528 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
(A) When it is reported pursuant to
§ 141.13: The highest average monthly
value.
(B) When it is reported pursuant to
the requirements of § 141.71: the highest
monthly value. The report should
Include an explanation of the reasons
for measuring turbidity.
(C) When it is reported pursuant to
§ 141.73: The highest single
measurement and the lowest monthly
percentage of samples meeting the
turbidity limits specified in § 141.73 for
the filtration technology being used. The
report should include an explanation of
the reasons for measuring turbidity;
(vi) For lead and copper: the 90th
percentile value of the most recent
round of sampling and the number of
sampling sites exceeding the action
level;
(vil) For total coliform:
(A) The highest monthly number of
positive samples for systems collecting
fewer than 40 samples per month; or
(B) The highest monthly percentage of
positive samples for systems collecting
at least 40 samples per month;
(viii) For fecal coliform: The total
number of positive samples; and
(Ix) The likely source(s) of detected
contaminants to the best of the
operator's knowledge. Specific
information regarding contaminants
may be available in sanitary surveys and
source water assessments, and should
be used when available to the operator.
If the operator lacks specific information
on the likely source, the report must
include one or more of the typical
sources for that contaminant listed in
appendix B to this subpart which are
most applicable to the system.
(5) If a community water system
distributes water to its customers from
multiple hydraulically independent
distribution systems that are fed by
different raw water sources, the table
should contain a separate column for
each service area and the report should
identify each separate distribution
system. Alternatively, systems could
produce separate reports tailored to
include data for each service area.
(6) The table(s) must clearly identify
any data indicating violations of MCLs
or treatment techniques and the report
must contain a clear and readily
understandable explanation of the
violation including: the length of the
violation, the potential adverse health
effects, and actions taken by the system
to address the violation. To describe the
potential health effects, the system must
use the relevant language of appendix C
to this subpart.
(7) For detected unregulated
contaminants for which monitoring is
required (except Cryptosporidium), the
table (s) must contain the average and
range at which the contaminant was
detected. The report may include a brief
explanation of the reasons for
monitoring for unregulated
contaminants.
(e) Information on Cryptosporidium,
radon, and other contaminants:
(1) If the system has performed any
monitoring for Cryptosporidium,
including monitoring performed to
satisfy the requirements of § 141.143,
which indicates that Cryptosporidium
may be present in the source water or
the finished water, the report must
include:
(i) A summary of the results of the
monitoring; and
(ii) An explanation of the significance
of the results.
(2) If the system has performed any
monitoring for radon which indicates
that radon may be present in the
finished water, the report must include:
(i) The results of the monitoring; and
(ii) An explanation of the significance
of the results.
(3) If the system has performed
additional monitoring which indicates
the presence of other contaminants in
the finished water, EPA strongly
encourages systems to report any results
which may indicate a health concern.
To determine if results may indicate a
health concern, EPA recommends that
systems find out if EPA has proposed an
NPDWR or issued a health advisory for
that contaminant by calling the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
EPA considers detects above a proposed
MCL or health advisory level to indicate
possible health concerns. For such
contaminants, EPA recommends that
the report include:
(i) The results of the monitoring; and
(ii) An explanation of the significance
of the results noting the existence of a
health advisory or a proposed
regulation.
(f) Compliance with NPDWR. In
addition to the requirements of
§ 141.153(d)(7), the report must note any
violation that occurred during the year
covered by the report of a requirement
listed below, and include a clear and
readily understandable explanation of
the violation, any potential adverse
health effects, and the steps the system
has taken to correct the violation.
(1) Monitoring and reporting of
compliance data;
(2) Filtration and disinfection
prescribed by subpart H of this part. For
systems which have failed to install
adequate filtration or disinfection
equipment or processes, or have had a
failure of such equipment or processes
which constitutes a violation, the report
must include the following language as
part of the explanation of potential
adverse health effects: 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.
(3) Lead and copper control
requirements prescribed by subpart I of
this part. For systems which fail to take
one or more actions prescribed by
§§141.80(d), 141.81, 141.82, 141.83 or
141.84, the report must include the
applicable language of appendix C to
this subpart for lead, copper, or both.
(4) Treatment techniques for
Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin
prescribed by subpart K of this part. For
systems which violate the requirements
of subpart K of this part, the report must
include the relevant language from
appendix C to this subpart.
(5) Recordkeeping of compliance data.
(6) Special monitoring requirements
prescribed by §§ 141.40 and 141.41; and
(7) Violation of the terms of a
variance, an exemption, or an
administrative or judicial order.
(g) Variances and Exemptions. If a
system is operating under the terms of
a variance or an exemption issued under
§ 1415 or 1416 of SDWA, the report
must contain:
(1) An explanation of the reasons for
the variance or exemption;
(2) The date on which the variance or
exemption was issued;
(3) A brief status report on the steps
the system is taking to install treatment,
find alternative sources of water, or
otherwise comply with the terms and
schedules of the variance or exemption;
and
(4) A notice of any opportunity for
public input in the review, or renewal,
of the variance or exemption.
(h) Additional information:
(1) The report must contain a brief
explanation regarding contaminants
which may reasonably be expected to be
found in drinking water including
bottled water. This explanation may
include the language of paragraphs
(h) (1) (i) through (iii) or systems may
use their own comparable language. The
report also must include the language of
paragraph (h) (1) (iv) of this section.
(i) The sources of drinking water (both
tap water and bottled water) include
rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs,
springs, and wells. As water travels over
the surface of the land or through the
ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring
minerals and, in some cases, radioactive
material, and can pick up substances
resulting from the presence of animals
or from human activity.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation 44529
(ii) Contaminants that may be present
in source water include:
(A) Microbial contaminants, such as
viruses and bacteria, which may come
from sewage treatment plants, septic
systems, agricultural livestock
operations, and wildlife.
(B) Inorganic contaminants, such as
salts and metals, which can be
naturally-occurring or result from urban
stormwater runoff, industrial or
domestic wastewater discharges, oil and
gas production, mining, or farming.
(C) Pesticides and herbicides, which
may come from a variety of sources such
as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff,
and residential uses.
(D) Organic chemical contaminants,
including synthetic and volatile organic
chemicals, which are by-products of
industrial processes and petroleum
production, and can also come from gas
stations, urban stormwater runoff, and
septic systems.
(E) Radioactive contaminants, which
can be naturally-occurring or be the
result of oil and gas production and
mining activities.
(iii) In order to ensure that tap water
is safe to drink, EPA prescribes
regulations which limit the amount of
certain contaminants in water provided
by public water systems. FDA
regulations establish limits for
contaminants in bottled water which
must provide the same protection for
public health.
(iv) Drinking water, including bottled
water, may reasonably be expected to
contain at least small amounts of some
contaminants. The presence of
contaminants does not necessarily
indicate that water poses a health risk.
More information about contaminants
and potential health effects can be
obtained by calling the Environmental
Protection Agency's Safe Drinking
Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
(2) The report must include the
telephone number of the owner,
operator, or designee of the community
water system as a source of additional
information concerning the report.
(3) In communities with a large
proportion of non-English speaking
residents, as determined by the Primacy
Agency, the report must contain
information in the appropriate
languagefs) regarding the importance of
the report or contain a telephone
number or address where such residents
may contact the system to obtain a
translated copy of the report or
assistance in the appropriate language.
(4) The report must include
information (e.g., time and place of
regularly scheduled board meetings)
about opportunities for public
participation in decisions that may
affect the quality of the water.
(5) The systems may include such
additional information as they deem
necessary for public education
consistent with, and not detracting
from, the purpose of the report.'
§ 141.154 Required additional health
information.
(a) All reports must prominently
display the following language: Some
people may be more vulnerable to
contaminants in drinking water than the
general population. Immuno-
compromised persons such as persons
with cancer undergoing chemotherapy,
persons who have undergone organ
transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or
other immune system disorders, some
elderly, and infants can be particularly
at risk from infections. These people
should seek advice about drinking water
from their health care providers. EPA/
CDC guidelines on appropriate means to
lessen the risk of infection by
Cryptosporidium and other microbial
contaminants are available from the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
(b) A system which detects arsenic at
levels above 25 "fig/1, but below the
MCL:
(1) Must include in its report a short
informational statement about arsenic,
using language such as: EPA is
reviewing the drinking water standard
for arsenic because of special concerns
that it may not be stringent enough.
Arsenic is a naturally-occurring mineral
known to cause cancer in humans at
high concentrations.
(2) May write its own educational
statement, but only in consultation with
the Primacy Agency.
(c) A system which detects nitrate at
levels above 5 mg/1, but below the MCL:
(1) Must include a short informational
statement about the impacts of nitrate
on children using language such as:
Nitrate in drinking water at levels above
10 ppm is a health risk for infants of less
than six months of age. High nitrate
levels in drinking water can cause blue
baby syndrome. Nitrate levels may rise
quickly for short periods of time
because of rainfall or agricultural
activity. If you are caring for an infant
you should ask advice from your health
care provider.
(2) May write its own educational
statement, but only in consultation with
the Primacy Agency.
(d) Systems which detect lead above
the action level in more than 5%, but
fewer that 10%, of homes sampled:
(1) Must include a short informational
statement about the special impact of
lead on children using language such as:
Infants and young children are typically
more vulnerable to lead in drinking
water than the general population. It is
possible that lead levels at your home
may be higher than at other homes in
the community as a result of materials
used in your home's plumbing. If you
are concerned about elevated lead levels
in your home's water, you may wish to
have your water tested and flush your
tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before
using tap water. Additional information
is available from the Safe Drinking
Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
(2) May write its own educational
statement, but only in consultation with
the Primacy Agency.
§141.155 Report delivery and
recordkeeping. • . . •
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(g) of this section, each community
water system must mail or otherwise
directly deliver one copy of the report
to each customer.
(b) The system must make a good faith
effort to reach consumers who do not
get water bills, using means
recommended by the primacy agency.
EPA expects that an adequate good faith
effort will be tailored to the consumers
who are served by the system but are
not bill-paying customers, such as
renters or workers. A good faith effort to
reach consumers would include a mix
of methods appropriate to the particular
system such as: Posting the reports on
the Internet; mailing to postal patrons in
metropolitan areas; advertising the
availability of the report in the news
media; publication in a local
newspaper; posting in public places
such as cafeterias or lunch rooms of
public buildings; delivery of multiple
copies for distribution by single-biller
customers such as apartment buildings
or large private employers; delivery to
community organizations.
(c) No later than the date the system
is required to distribute the report to its
customers, each community water
system must mail a copy of the report
to the primacy agency, followed within
3 months by a certification that the
report has been distributed to
customers, and that the information is
correct and consistent with the
compliance monitoring data previously
submitted to the primacy agency.
(d) No later than the date the system
is required to distribute the report to its
customers, each community water
system must deliver the report to any
other agency or clearinghouse identified
by the primacy agency.
(e) Each community water system
must make its reports available to the
public upon request.
(f) Each community water system
serving 100,000 or more persons must
-------
44530 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
post its current year's report to a
publicly-accessible site on the Internet.
(g) The Governor of a State or his
designee. or the Tribal Leader where the
tribe has met the eligibility
requirements contained in § 142.72 for
the purposes of waiving the mailing
requirement, can waive the requirement
of paragraph (a) of this section for
community water systems serving fewer
than 10,000 persons. In consultation
with the tribal government, the Regional
Administrator may waive the
requirement of § 141.155 (a) in areas in
Indian country where no tribe has been
deemed eligible.
(1) Such systems must:
(i) Publish the reports in one or more
local newspapers serving the area in
which the system is located;
(ii) Inform the customers that the
reports will not be mailed, either in the
newspapers in which the reports are
published or by other means approved
by the State; and
(iii) Make the reports available to the
public upon request.
(2) Systems serving 500 or fewer
persons may forego the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(l)(i) and (ii) of this
section if they provide notice at least
once per year to their customers by
mail, door-to-door delivery or by
posting in an appropriate location that
the report is available upon request.
(h) Any system subject to this subpart
must retain copies of its consumer
confidence report for no less than 5
years.
Appendix A to Subpart O—Converting MCL Compliance Values for Consumer Confidence Reports
Key
AL»Action Level
MCL*Maxlmum Contaminant Level
MCLG«Maxlmum Contaminant Level Goal
MFL-mllllon fibers per liter
mrcm/ye!ir««mHHrems per year (a measure of radiation absorbed by the body)
NTU«Nephelometric Turbidity Units
pCJ/1-plcocurles per liter (a measure of radioactivity)
ppm«parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/I)
ppb-parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (tig/1)
ppt«parts per trillion, or nanograms per liter
iwx}i«pans per quadrillion, or picograms per liter
TT«Trcatrnent Technique
Contaminant
Microbiological Contaminants
1 Total Coliform Bacteria ,
3 Turbidity
Radioactive Contaminants
RAlnha nmlrtprc
Inorganic Contaminants
11 Raruflifim
16 Fluodda —
17 I fatH
Synthetic Organic Contaminants including
Pesticides and Herbicides
no 9 4-O
96 O A *?.TP rcth/AxI
28 B©nzo(a)pyrene [PAH]
29. Carbofuran •»••
MCL in compliance units
(mg/L)
4 mrem/yr
15 pCi/l
5 pCi/l
.006
05
7 MFL
2
004
.005
1
AL=1.3
.2
4
AL-.015
002
10
1
.05
002
.07
.05
002
.003
.0002
.04
multiply by ...
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1,000,000
1000
MCL in CCR units
Presence of coliform bac-
teria in 55% of monthly
samples.
A routine sample and a
repeat sample are total
coliform positive, and
one is also fecal coli-
form or E. coli positive.
TT (NTU)
4 mrem/yr
15 pCi/l
5 pCi/l
6 ppb
50 ppb
7 MFL
2 ppm
4 ppb
5 ppb
100 ppb
AL-1.3ppm
200 ppb
4 ppm
AL-15 ppb
2 ppb
10 ppm
1 ppm
50 ppb
2 ppb
70 ppb
50 ppb
TT
2 ppb
3 ppb
200 ppt
40 ppb
MCLG in
CCR units
0
0
n/a
0
0
0
6
n/a
7
2
4
5
100
1.3
200
4
0
2
10
. 1
50
0.5
70
50
0
0
3
0
40
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation 44531
Contaminant
30. Chlordane
31 . Dalapon
32. Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate
33. Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
34. Dibromochloropropane
35. Dinoseb
36. Diquat
37. Dioxin [2,3,7,8-TCDD]
38. Endothall
39. Endrin
40. Epichlorohydrin
41 Ethylene dibromide
42. Glyphosate
43. Heptachlor
44. Heptachlor epoxide
45 Hexachlorobenzene
46. Hexachloro-cyclopentadiene
47 Lindane
48. Methoxychlor
49. Oxamyl [Vydate]
50. PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls]
51 Pentachlorophenol
52. Picloram
53. Simazine
54. Toxaphene
Volatile Organic Contaminants
55. Benzene
56 Carbon tetrachloride
57. Chlorobenzene
58. o-Dichlorobenzene
59 p-Dich!orobenzene
60. 1 ,2-Dichloroethane
61 1 1 -Dichloroethylene .
62 cis-1 2-Dichloroethylene
63 trans-1 2-Dichloroethylene
64 Dichloromethane
65 1 ,2-Dichloropropane
66. Ethylbenzene
67* Styrene
68 Tetrachloroethylene
69 1 2 4-Trichlorobenzene
70. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
71 . 1,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
72. Trichloroethylene
73 TTHMs [Total trihalomethanes]
74. Toluene
75. Vinyl Chloride
76. Xylenes
MCL in compliance units
(mg/L) •
.002
.2
.4
.006
.0002
.007
.02
.00000003
.1
.002
.00005
.7
.0004
.0002
.001
.05
0002
.04
.2
.0005
.001
.5
.004
.003
.005
005 . .
.1
.6
.075
.005
.007
07
1 ....
.005
.005
.7
.1
.005
.07
.2
.005
.005
.10
1
.002
10
multiply by ...
1000
1000
1000
1000
1 000 000
1000
1000
1 000 000 000
1000
1000
1 000 000
1000
1 000 000
1 ,000 000
1000
1000
1 000 000
1000
1000
1 000 000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
MCL in CCR units
2 Dob
200 ppb '
400 ppb
6 ppb
200 ppt
20 oob
30 ppq
100 DDb
2 DDb
TT
50 ppt
700 ppb
400 DDt
200 DDt
1 DDb
50 ppb
200 ppt
40 Dob
200 DDb
500 ppt
500 ppb
4 oob
3 DDb
5 DDb
5 ppb
100 DDb
600 DDb
75 Dob
5 DDb
7 DDb
70 ppb
100 ppb
5 ppb
5 DDb
700 DDb
100 ppb
5 DDb
70 ppb
200 DDb
5 DDb
5 DDb
100 ppb
1 DDm
2 DDb
10 DDm
MCLG in
CCR units
o
200
400
o
0
7
20
0
100
2
o
o
700
0
0
o
50
200
40
200
o
o
500
4
0
0
o
100
600
75
0
7
70
100
0
0
700
100
0
70
200
3
0
0
1
0
10
Appendix B to Subpart O—Regulated Contaminants
Key
AL=Action Level
MCL=Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG=Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MFL=million fibers per liter
mrem/year=millirems per year (a measure of radiation absorbed by the body)
NTU=Nephelometric Turbidity Units
pCi/l=picocuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity)
ppm=parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/1)
ppb=parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (jig/1)
ppt=parts per trillion, or nanograms per liter
ppq=parts per quadrillion, or picograms per liter
TT=Treatment Technique
Contaminant (units)
Microbiological Contaminants
1 Total Conform Bacteria
MCLG
0
MCL
Presence of coliform
bacteria in S5% of
monthly samples.
Major sources in drinking water
Naturally present in the environment
-------
44532 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
Contaminant (units)
2< Fecal colifoim and E. col/
3 Turbidity
Radioactive Contaminants
4 Buts/photon emitters (mrem/yf)
5 Alpha emitters (pCi/1)
6 Combined radium (pCi/1) ••
Inorganic Contaminants
7 Antimony (ppb)
9 Asb©stos (MFL)
11 Rmvilliim fnnM
15 Cyanide (ppb)
17 Lead (ppb)
9fl MiHrilA fn A «v-TP rcHvaxl fantrt
26 Alichlor (ooW
*W ntl9«0th\/(ihayvft nHlnato fnnM
*¥* Hi/O.nlhiflHowft nhthalafft fnnM
36. Diouat foobl
MCLG
0
n/a
0
0
0
6
n/a
7
2
4
5
100
1.3
200
4
0
2
10
1
50
0.5
70
50
0
0
3
0
40
0
200
400
0
0
7
20
.MCL
A routine sample and a
repeat sample are
total coliform positive,
and one is also fecal
coliform or E. coli
positive.
TT
4
15
5
6
50
7
2
4
5
100
AL-1.3
200
4
AL-15
2
10
1
50
2
70
50
TT
2
3
200
40
2
200
400
6
200
7
20
Major sources in drinking water
Human and animal fecal waste.
Soil runoff.
Decay of natural and man-made deposits.
Erosion of natural deposits.
Erosion of natural deposits. .
Discharge from petroleum refineries; fire
retardants; ceramics; electronics; solder.
Erosion of natural deposits; Runoff from or-
chards; Runoff from glass and electronics pro-
duction wastes.
Decay of asbestos cement water mains; Erosion
of natural deposits.
Discharge of drilling wastes; Discharge from
metal refineries; Erosion of natural deposits.
Discharge from metal refineries and coal-burning
factories; Discharge from electrical, aerospace,
and defense industries.
Corrosion of galvanized pipes; Erosion of natural
deposits; Discharge from metal refineries; run-
off from waste batteries and paints.
Discharge from steel and pulp mills; Erosion of
natural deposits.
Corrosion of household plumbing systems; Ero-
sion of natural deposits; Leaching from wood
preservatives.
Discharge from steel/metal factories; Discharge
from plastic and fertilizer factories.
Erosion of natural deposits; Water additive which
promotes strong teeth; Discharge from fertilizer
and aluminum factories.
Corrosion of household plumbing systems; Ero-
sion of natural deposits.
Erosion of natural deposits; Discharge from refin-
eries and factories; Runoff from landfills; Run-
off from cropland.
Runoff from fertilizer use; Leaching from septic
tanks, sewage; Erosion of natural deposits.
Runoff from fertilizer use; Leaching from septic
tanks, sewage; Erosion of natural deposits.
Discharge from petroleum and metal refineries;
Erosion of natural deposits; Discharge from
mines.
Leaching from ore-processing sites; Discharge
from electronics, glass, and drug factories.
Runoff from herbicide used on row crops.
Residue of banned herbicide.
Added to water during sewage/wastewater treat-
ment.
Runoff from herbicide used on row crops.
Runoff from herbicide used on row crops.
Leaching from linings of water storage tanks and
distribution lines.
Leaching of soil fumigant used on rice and al-
falfa.
Residue of banned temniticide.
Runoff from herbicide used on rights of way.
Discharge from chemical factories.
Discharge from rubber and chemical factories.
Runoff/leaching from soil fumigant used on soy-
beans, cotton, pineapples, and orchards.
Runoff from herbicide used on soybeans and
vegetables.
Runoff from herbicide use.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation 44533
Contaminant (units)
37. Dioxin [2,3,7,8-TCDD] (ppq)
38 Endothall (ppb)
39. Endrin (ppb)
40. Epichlorohydrin
41. Ethylene dibromide (ppt)
42. Glyphosate (ppb)
43 Heptachlor (ppt)
44 Heptachlor epoxide (ppt)
45. Hexachlorobenzene (ppb) 1
46. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (ppb)
47. Lindane (ppt)
48 Methoxyohlor (ppb) . .
49 Oxamyl [Vydate](ppb)
50. PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls] (ppt)
51. Pentachlorophenol (ppb)
52. Picloram (ppb)
53 Simazine (ppb)
54. Toxaphene (ppb)
Volatile Organic Contaminants
55. Benzene (ppb)
56. Carbon tetrachloride (ppb)
57 Chlorobenzene (ppb)
58. o-Dichlorobenzene (ppb)
59 p-Dichlorobenzene (ppb)
60 1 2-Dichloroethane (ppb)
61. 1 ,1 -Dichloroethylene (ppb)
62 cis-1 2-DichloroethyIene (ppb) .
63 trans-1 ,2-DichloroethyIene (ppb)
64 Dichloromethane (ppb)
65 1 2-Dichloropropane (ppb)
66 Ethylbenzene (ppb)
67. Styrene (ppb)
QQ Tetrachloroethylene (ppb) . ..
69 1 2 4-Trichlorobenzene (ppb)
70 1 1 1-Trichloroethane (ppb)
71 1 1 2-Trichloroethane (ppb)
72 Trichloroethylene (ppb)
73 TTHMs [Total trihalomethanes] (ppb)
74 Toluene (pprn)
75 Vinyl Chloride (ppb)
76 Xylenes (ppm)
MCLG
0
100
2
0
0
700
0
0
0
50
200
40
200
0
0
500
4
0
0
0
100
600
75
0
7
70
100
0
0
700
100
0
70
200
3
0
o
1
0
10
MCL
30 " '.I':
100
2
TT
50
700
400
200
1
50 .. .
200
40
200
500 ....:
1
500 . . .
4
3
5
5
100
600
75
5
7
70
100 /.
5
5
700
100
5
70 . .
200
5
5
100
1
2
10
Major sources in drinking water
combustion; Discharge from chemical.factories.
impurity of some water treatment chemicals.
chemical factories.
Discharge from chsmicai factories
Runoff/leach ing from insecticide used on cattle
lumber, gardens.
vegetables, alfalfa, livestock.
potatoes and tomatoes.
Runoff from landfills* Discharge of waste chemi-
cals.
Discharge from wood preserving factories
Herbicide runoff
Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on cotton
and cattle.
Discharge from factories* Leaching from gas stor-
age tanks and landfills.
Discharge from chemical plants and other indus-
trial activities.
Discharge from chemical and agricultural chemi-
cal factories.
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
Discharge from pharmaceutical and chemical fac-
tories.
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
Discharge from rubber and plastic factories*
Leaching from landfills.
Leaching from PVC pipes* Discharge from fac-
tories and dry cleaners.
Discharge from textile-finishing factories
factories.
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
Discharge from metal degreasing sites and other
factories.
By-product of drinking water chlorination
Discharge from petroleum factories
Leaching from PVC piping* Discharge from plas-
tics factories.
Discharge from petroleum factories* Discharge
from chemical factories.
Appendix C to Subpart O—Health
Effects Language
Microbiological Contaminants
(1) Total Coliform. 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.
(2) Fecal coliform/E.Coli. Fecal coliforms
and E. coli are bacteria whose presence
indicates that the water may be contaminated
with human or animal wastes. Microbes in
these wastes can cause short-term effects,
such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches,
or other symptoms. They may pose a special
health risk for infants, young children, and
people with severely compromised immune
systems.
(3) Turbidity. Turbidity has no health
effects. However, turbidity can interfere with
disinfection and provide a medium for
microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the
presence of disease-causing organisms. These
organisms include bacteria, viruses, and
parasites that can cause symptoms such as
nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
headaches.
-------
44534 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
Radioactive Contaminants
(4) Beta/photon emitters. Certain minerals
arc 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.
(5) Alpha emitters. 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.
(6) Combined Radium 226/228. 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.
Inorganic Contaminants
(7) Antimony. Some people who drink
water containing antimony well in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
increases In blood cholesterol and decreases
in blood sugar.
(8) Arsenic. 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.
(9) Asbestos. Some people who drink water
containing asbestos in excess of the MCL
over many years may have an increased risk
of developing benign intestinal polyps.
(10) Barium. Some people who drink water
containing barium in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience an increase in
their blood pressure.
(11) Beryllium. Some people who drink
water containing beryllium well in excess of
the MCL over many years could develop
intestinal lesions.
(12) Cadmium. Some people who drink
water containing cadmium in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
kidney damage.
(13) Chromium. Some people who use
water containing chromium well in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
allergic dermatitis.
(14) Copper. Copper is an essential
nutrient, but some people who drink water
containing copper in excess of the action
level over a relatively short amount of time
could experience gastrointestinal distress.
Some people who drink water containing
copper in excess of the action level over
many years could suffer liver or kidney
damage. People with Wilson's Disease should
consult their personal doctor.
(IS) Cyanide. Some people who drink
water containing cyanide well in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
nerve damage or problems with their thyroid.
(16) Fluoride. Some people who drink
water containing fluoride in excess of the
MCL over many years could get bone disease,
including pain and tenderness of the bones.
Children may get mottled teeth.
(IT) Lead. Infants and children who drink
water containing lead in excess of the action
level could experience delays in their
physical or mental development. Children
could show slight deficits in attention span
and learning abilities. Adults who drink this
water over many years could develop kidney
problems or high blood pressure.
(18) Mercury (inorganic). Some people who
drink water containing inorganic mercury
well in excess of the MCL over many years
could experience kidney damage.
(19) Nitrate. Infants below the age of six
months who drink water containing nitrate in
excess of the MCL could become seriously ill
and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms
include shortness of breath and blue-baby
syndrome.
(20) Nitrite. Infants below the age of six
months who drink water containing nitrite in
excess of the MCL could become seriously ill
and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms
include shortness of breath and blue-baby
syndrome.
(21) Selenium. Selenium is an essential
nutrient. However, some people who drink
water containing selenium in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience hair
or fingernail losses, numbness in fingers or
toes, or problems with their circulation.
(22) Thallium. 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.
Synthetic Organic Contaminants Including
Pesticides and Herbicides
(23) 2,4-D. 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.
(24) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex). Some people who
drink water containing silvex in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience liver
problems.
(25) Acrylamide. 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.
(26) Alachlor. Some people who drink
water containing alachlor in excess of the
MCL over many years could have problems
with their eyes, liver, kidneys, or spleen, or
experience anemia, and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
(27) Atrazine. Some people who drink
water containing atrazine well in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
problems with their cardiovascular system or
reproductive difficulties.
(28) Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH). Some people
who drink water containing benzo(a)pyrene
in excess of the MCL over many years may
experience reproductive difficulties and may
have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(29) Carbofuran. 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.
(30) Chlordane. 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.
(31) Dalapon. Some people who drink
water containing dalapon well in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
minor kidney changes.
(32) Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate. 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.
(33) Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. 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 increased risk
of getting cancer.
(34) Dibromochloropropane (DBCP). 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.
(35) Dinoseb. Some people who drink
water containing dinoseb well in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
reproductive difficulties.
(36) Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). 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.
(37) Diquat. Some people who drink water
containing diquat in excess of the MCL over
many years could get cataracts.
(38) Endothall. Some people who drink
water containing endothall in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their stomach or intestines.
(39) Endrin. Some people who drink water
containing endrin in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience liver problems.
(40) Epichlorohydrin. 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.
(41) Ethylene dibromide. Some people who
drink water containing ethylene dibromide in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver,
stomach, reproductive system, or kidneys,
and may have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
(42) Glyphosate. Some people who drink
water containing glyphosate in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their kidneys or reproductive
difficulties.
(43) Heptachlor. Some people who drink
water containing heptachlor in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience liver
damage and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(44) Heptachlor epoxide. Some people who
drink water containing heptachlor epoxide in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience liver damage, and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
(45) Hexachlorobenzene. Some people who
drink water containing hexachlorobenzene in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver or
kidneys, or adverse reproductive effects, and
may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(46) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Some
people who drink water containing
hexachlorocyclopentadiene well in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
problems with their kidneys or stomach.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation 44535
(47) Lindane. Some people who drink
water containing lindane in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their kidneys or liver.
(48) Methoxychlor. Some people who
drink water containing methoxychlor in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience reproductive difficulties.
(49) Oxamyl [Vydate]. Some people who
drink water containing oxamyl in excess of
the MCL over many years could experience
slight nervous system effects.
(50) PCBs [Polychlorinatedbiphenyls].
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 getting cancer.
(51) Pentachlorophenol. 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.
(52) Picloram. Some people who drink
water containing picloram in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their liver.
(53) Simazine. Some people who drink
water containing simazine in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
problems with their blood.
(54) Toxaphene. 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 Contaminants
(55) Benzene. Some people who drink
water containing benzene in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
anemia or a decrease in blood platelets, and
may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(56) Carbon Tetrachloride. Some people
who drink water containing carbon
tetrachloride in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience problems with then-
liver and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(57) Chlorobenzene. Some people who
drink water containing chlorobenzene in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver or
kidneys.
(58) o-Dichlorobenzene. Some people who
drink water containing o-dichlorobenzene
well in excess of the MCL over many years
could experience problems with their liver,
kidneys, or circulatory systems.
(59) p-Dichlorobenzene. Some people who
drink water containing p-dichlorobenzene in
excess of the MCL over many years could
experience anemia, damage to their liver,
kidneys, or spleen, or changes in their blood.
(60) 1,2-Dichloroethane. Some people who
drink water containing 1,2-dichloroethane in
excess of the MCL over many years may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
(61) 1,1-Dichloroethylene. Some people
who drink water containing 1,1-
dichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience problems with
their liver.
(62) cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene. Some people
who drink water containing cis-1,2-
dichlorbethylenfin excess of the MCL over
many years could experience problems with
their liver. . "
(63) trans-l,2-Dicholoroethylene. Some
people who drink water containing trans-1,2-
dichloroethylene well in excess of the MCL
over many years could experience problems
with their liver.
(64) Dichloromethane. Some people who
drink water containing dichloromethane in
excess of the MCL over many years could
have liver problems and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
(65) 1,2-Dichloropropane. Some people
who drink water containing 1,2-
dichloropropane in excess of the MCL over
many years may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(66) Ethylbenzene. Some people who drink
water containing ethylbenzene well in excess
of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver or
kidneys.
(67) Styrene. Some people who drink water
containing styrene well in excess of the MCL
over many years could have problems with
their liver, kidneys, or circulatory system.
(68) Tetrachloroethylene. Some people
who drink water containing
tetrachloroethylene in excess of the MCL
over many years could have problems with
their liver, and may have an increased risk
of getting cancer.
(69) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene. 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.
(70) 1,1,1 ,-Trichloroethane. Some people
who drink water containing 1,1,1-
trichloroethane in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience problems with
their liver, nervous system, or circulatory
system.
(71) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane. 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.
(72) Trichloroethylene. 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.
(73) TTHMs [Total Trihalomethanes).
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
systems, and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(74) Toluene. Some people who drink
water containing toluene well in excess of
the MCL over many years could have
problems with their nervous system, kidneys,
or liver.
(75) Vinyl Chloride. Some people who
drink water containing vinyl chloride in
excess of the MCL over many years may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
(76) Xylenes. Some people who drink
water containing xylenes in excess of the
MCL over many years could experience
damage to their nervous system.
PART 142—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 142
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4,
SOOj-9, and300j-ll.
2. Section 142.10 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (b) (6) (vii) as
follows:
§ 142.10 Requirements for a determination
of primary enforcement responsibility.
*****
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(vii) Authority to require community
water systems to provide consumer
confidence reports as required under 40
CFR part 141, subpart O.
* * * * *
3. Section 142.16 is amended by
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
* * * * *
(f) Consumer Confidence Report
requirements.
(1) Each State that has primary
enforcement responsibility must adopt
the requirements of 40 CFR part 141,
subpart O no later than August 21, 2000.
States must submit revised programs to
EPA for approval using the procedures
in § 142.12(b) through (d).
(2) Each State that has primary
enforcement responsibility must make
reports submitted to the States in
compliance with 40 CFR 141.155(b)
available to the public upon request.
(3) Each State that has primary
enforcement responsibility must
maintain a copy of the reports for a
period of one year and the certifications
obtained pursuant to 40 CFR 141.155(b)
for a period of 5 years.
(4) Each State that has primary
enforcement responsibility must report
violations of this subpart in accordance
with the requirements of § 142.15 (a) (1).
4. Section 142.72 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 142.72 Requirements for Tribal eligibility.
The Administrator is authorized to
treat an Indian tribe as eligible to apply
for primary enforcement for the Public
Water System Program and the authority
to waive the mailing requirements of
§ 141.155 (a) if it meets the following
criteria:
*****
5. Section 142.78 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 142.78 Procedure for processing an
Indian Tribe's application.
-------
44536 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 160/Wednesday, August 19, 1998/Rules and Regulation
(b) A tribe that meets the
requirements of § 141.72 is eligible to
apply for development grants and
primacy enforcement responsibility for
a Public Water System Program and
associated funding under section
1443(a) of the Act and for primary
enforcement responsibility for public
water systems under section 1413 of the
Act and for the authority to waive the
mailing requirement of § 144.155(a).
fFRDoc. 98-22056 Filed 8-18-98:8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
-------
------- |