DRAFT FOR COMMENT
r/EPA
The Stage 2 Disinfectants
and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (Stage 2
DBPR) Implementation
Guidance

-------
Office of Water (4606M)
EPA816-D-03-002
www.epa.gov/safewater
November, 2003                                                    Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                              Disclaimer

This document provides guidance to states, tribes, and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Regions exercising primary enforcement
responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and contains EPA's
current policy recommendations for complying with the Stage 2 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR). Throughout this document, the
terms "state" or "states" are used to refer to all types of primacy agencies
including U.S. territories, Indian tribes, and EPA Regions.

The statutory provisions and EPA regulations described in this document
contain legally binding requirements.  This document is not a regulation itself,
nor does it change or substitute for those provisions and regulations.  Thus, it
does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, or public water
systems. This guidance does not confer legal rights or impose legal
obligations upon any member of the public.

While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion
in this guidance, the obligations of the regulated community are determined by
statutes, regulations, or other legally binding requirements. In the event of a
conflict between the discussion in this document and any statute or regulation,
this document would not be controlling.

The general description provided here may not apply to a particular situation
based upon the circumstances.  Interested parties are free to raise questions and
objections about the substance of this guidance and the appropriateness of the
application of this guidance to a particular situation. EPA and other
decisionmakers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case
basis that differ from those described in this guidance where appropriate.

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for their use.

This is a living document and may be revised periodically without public
notice. EPA welcomes public input on this document at any time.  Guidance
provided in this draft document reflects provisions proposed on August 18,
2003 (68 FR 49547).

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Table of Contents
Table of Contents	  1
List of Figures 	  5
List of Tables	  6
List of Examples  	  7
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations	  9
Introduction 	  11

Section  1  Rule Requirements
        1.1    Introduction 	  15
              1.1.1   History  	  15
              1.1.2   Development of the Stage 2 DBPR 	  18
              1.1.3   Benefits of the Stage 2 DBPR  	  19
                     1.1.3.1 Quantifiable health benefits	  19
              1.2.1    New Definitions in the Stage 2 DBPR  	  22
                     1.2.1.1 What is a combined distribution system? 	  22
                     1.2.1.2 What is a consecutive system?  	  22
                     1.2.1.3 What is a consecutive system entry point? 	  22
                     1.2.1.4 What is finished water?	  22
                     1.2.1.5 What is a wholesale system?	  22
              1.2.2   IDSE Requirements [proposed §141.600]  	  22
                     1.2.2.1 Who must perform an IDSE? [proposed 141.600(b)] 	  23
                     1.2.2.2 What are the options for the IDSE?	  23
                     1.2.2.3 What are IDSE Reporting Requirements?	  28
              1.2.3   MCL Requirements	  30
                     1.2.3.1 What are the Stage 2A MCLs? [proposed §141.136] 	  32
                     1.2.3.2 What are the Stage 2B MCLs? [proposed §141.620] 	  32
                     1.2.3.3 What are the compliance deadlines for Stage 2A and Stage 2B?  ....  32
                     1.2.3.4 What are the new MCLGs? [proposed §141.53]	  33
              1.2.4   Stage 2B Compliance Monitoring [proposed §141.621]  	  33
                     1.2.4.1 What are Stage 2B compliance monitoring requirements?	  34
                     1.2.4.2 What are the requirements for developing a Stage 2B monitoring plan?
                            [proposed §141.622]  	  37
                     1.2.4.3 How do systems qualify for reduced Stage 2B monitoring? [proposed
                            §141.623]	  37
                     1.2 A A How are monitoring requirements determined for consecutive systems?
                              	  38
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         1                                  November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
               1.2.5    Significant Excursion Evaluations [proposed §141.626]	  38
               1.2.6    Chlorine and Chloramine requirements [proposed §141.624]  	  39
               1.2.7    Analytical Requirements [proposed §141.131]  	  39
               1.2.8    Bromate Requirements [proposed §141.132]	  39
               1.2.9    Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements [proposed §141.33, §141.630]  ....  39
                      1.2.9.1  What reporting and recordkeeping requirements apply to consecutive
                             systems?	  40
               1.2.10  Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations [proposed §141 Subpart Q,
                      Appendix A] 	  40
               1.2.11  CCR Requirements	  40
       1.3     Requirements of the Rule: States or Other Primacy Agencies  	  41
               1.3.1    Special Primacy Requirements [proposed  §142.16]	  41
               1.3.2    Records Kept by States [proposed §142.14]  	  42
               1.3.3    State Reporting Requirements 	  42
       1.4     Summary of Action Dates 	  42
               1.4.1    Applicability and Compliance Dates  	  42
               1.4.2    Timeline forthe Stage 2 DBPR  	  44
       References	  46

Section 2  Resources and Guidance
       2.1     Technical Guidance Manuals  	  50
       2.2     Rule Presentation	  50
       2.3     Fact Sheet and Draft Quick Reference Guide  	  51
       2.4     Q&As	  51

Section 3  State Implementation
       3.1     Overview of Implementation	  54
       3.2     Identify Affected Systems 	  57
               3.2.1    General Provisions  	  57
               3.2.2    Initial Distribution System  Evaluation (IDSE)	  57
               3.2.3    Wholesale and Consecutive Systems  	  57
       3.3 Communicate Stage 2 DBPR Requirements to Affected Systems	  58
               3.3.1    Requirements and Target Notification Time  Frames	  58
               3.3.2    Methods of Communication  	  60
       3.4     Update Data Management Systems	  63
       3.5     Address Special Primacy Conditions of the Stage 2 DBPR       	  63
       3.6     Consult with Systems Regarding IDSE	  64
               3.6.1    Standard Monitoring Program Alternative	  64
               3.6.2    SSS Alternative	  67
               3.6.3    40/30 Certification Alternative	  67
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         2                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
       3.7    Evaluate Waivers to IDSE Requirements for Systems Serving Fewer than 500 People
                	  68
       3.8    Review/Approve System Requests to Consider Multiple Consecutive System Entry
              Points from a Single Wholesale System as One Plant	  69
       3.9    Review/Approve IDSE Reports and Stage 2 DBPR Monitoring Plans	  69
       3.10   Evaluate System Requests for Compliance Schedule Extensions	  72

Section 4  State Primacy Revision Application
       4.1    State Primacy Program Revision	  76
              4.1.1   The Revision Process 	  77
              4.1.2   The Final Review Process  	  77
       4.2    State Primacy Program Revision Extensions	  78
              4.2.1   The Extension Process  	  78
              4.2.2   Criteria that an Extension Request Must Meet	  79
       4.3    State Primacy Package	  84
              4.3.1   The State Primacy Revision Checklist [40 CFR 142.12(c)(l)]  	  84
              4.3.2   Text of the State's Regulation  	  84
              4.3.3   Primacy Revision Crosswalk 	  84
              4.3.4   State Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist [40 CFR 142.14 and 142.15]  .  85
              4.3.5   Special Primacy Requirements [Proposed §142.16]  	  86
              4.3.6   Attorney General's Statement of Enforceability [40 CFR 142.12(c)(2)]	  86
                      4.3.6.1  Guidance For States on Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws	  86
       4.4    Guidance for the Special Primacy Requirements of the Stage 2 DBPR	  88
              4.4.1   Special Primacy Requirements Regarding Very Small System Waivers	  88
              4.4.2   Special Primacy Requirements Regarding System-Specific Studies	  89
              4.4.3   Special Primacy Requirements Regarding Multiple Consecutive System Entry
                      Points  	  90
              4.4.4   Special Primacy Requirements Regarding Consecutive System Monitoring . .  91
              4.4.5   Special Primacy Requirements Regarding Significant Excursions  	  92

Section 5  SDWIS Reporting and SNC Definitions
       5.1    Safe Drinking Water Information System Reporting Under the Stage 2 DBPR	  96
              5.1.1   Federally Reported Violations  	  96
       5.2    Stage 2  DBPR - SNC Definition	  101
       5.3    Stage 2  DBPR Data Entry Instructions  	  101

Section 6  Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Examples
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         3                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Appendix A   Primacy Revision Crosswalk
Appendix B   Regulatory Language
Appendix C   Rule Fact Sheet/Draft Quick Reference Guide
Appendix D   Primacy Agency Data Entry Instructions, with Examples, for the Stage 2 DBPR
Appendix E   Flowcharts
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         4                                 November 2003

-------
                      Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Summary of Stage 2 DBPR Requirements for Systems	 21
Figure 1-2. Comparison of RAA and LRAA Compliance Calculations	 31
Figure 1-3. Implementation Timeline forthe Stage 2 DBPR	 45
Figure 3-1. Timeline of System and Primacy Agency Activities	 55
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        5                               November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
List of Tables
Table 1-1. IDSE Monitoring Requirements for Producing Systems  	 24
Table 1-2. IDSE SMP Requirements for 100 Percent Purchasing Systems	 25
Table 1-3. Compliance Monitoring Data Requirements for the 40/30 Certification  	 27
Table 1-4. IDSE Report Due Dates [proposed £141.600(c)] 	 28
Table 1-5. Compliance Schedule for Stage 2A and Stage 2B 	 33
Table 1-6. Summary of Stage 2 DBPR MCLGs	 33
Table 1-7. Stage 2B Compliance Monitoring Requirements for Producing Systems  	 35
Table 1-8. Stage 2B Population-based Compliance Monitoring Requirements for 100 Percent Purchasing
       Systems	 36
Table 1-9. Summary of Action Dates forthe Stage 2 DBPR	 43
Table 3-1. IDSE Reporting Schedule for Systems  	 58
Table 3-2. Compliance Schedule for Stage 2A and Stage 2B 	 60
Table 3-3. IDSE Monitoring Requirements for Producing Systems  	 65
Table 3-4. IDSE SMP Requirements for 100 Percent Purchasing Systems	 66
Table 3-5. Compliance Monitoring Data Requirements forthe 40/30 Certification  	 68
Table 4-1. State Rule Implementation and Revision Timetable forthe Stage 2 DBPR	 76
Table 4-2. State Primacy Revision Checklist	 85
Table 5-1. SDWIS/FED Codes for Federal Reporting Under the Stage 2 DBPR 	 97
Table 5-2. Federal Reporting forthe Stage 2 DBPR  	 98
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         6                                November 2003

-------
                      Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
List of Examples
Example 3-1. Example System Notification Letter 	 62
Example 4-1. Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of Program Revisions  . 78
Example 4-2. Example Extension Request Checklist	 81
Example 4-3. Example of Attorney General's Statement	 87
Example 6-1. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for TTHM MCL Violation	  108
Example 6-2. Example of a Notice in the CCR for TTHM MCL Violation  	  109
Example 6-3. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for HAAS RAA MCL Violation	  112
Example 6-4. Example of a Notice in the CCR for HAAS RAA MCL Violation	  113
Example 6-5. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for HAAS MCL Violation  	  116
Example 6-6. Example of a Notice in the CCR for HAAS MCL Violation	  117
Example 6-7. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for LRAA and Compliance  Calculations for TTHM
       and HAAS M&R Violations	  120
Example 6-8. Example of a Notice in the CCR for LRAA and Compliance Calculations for TTHM and
       HAAS M&R Violations  	  121
Example 6-9. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Conducting an IDSE and Submitting the IDSE
       Report by Specified Date, or Using IDSE Alternatives  	  123
Example 6-10. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Conducting an IDSE and Submitting the IDSE
       Report by Specified Date, or Using IDSE Alternatives  	  124
Example 6-11. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Submit DBP Monitoring Plan to
       Primacy Agency 	  126
Example 6-12. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Submit DBP Monitoring Plan to Primacy
       Agency  	  127
Example 6-13. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Bromate M&R Violation	  130
Example 6-14. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Bromate M&R Violation	  131
Example 6-15. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Maintain Copies of Monitoring Plan
       Recordkeeping Violation  	  133
Example 6-16. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Maintain Copies of Monitoring Plan
       Recordkeeping Violation)	  133
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        7                                November 2003

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                      Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
 CCR
 CDC
 CFE
 CFR
 CWSs
 DBFs
 DBPPs
 EA
 EPA
 FBRR
 FRDS
 GWUDI
 HAAS

 HQ
 IDSE
 IESWTR
 IFE
 LRAA
 LT IESWTR
 LT2ESWTR
 MCAA
 MCL
 MCLG
 M-DBP Cluster
 MRDL
 MRL
 NCWS
 NIPDWR
 NPDWR
 NTNCWS
 OECA
 OGC
 OGWDW
 ORC
 PWS
 PWSS
 RAA
 SDWA
 SDWIS/FED
 SMP
 SNC
 sss
 Stage 1 DBPR
 Stage 2 DBPR
Consumer Confidence Report
Centers for Disease Control
Combined Filter Effluent
Code of Federal Regulations
Community Water Systems
Disinfection Byproducts
Disinfection Byproduct Precursors
Economic Analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
Federal Reporting Data System
Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
Haloacetic Acids (Monochloroacetic, Dichloroacetic, Trichloroacetic,
Monobromoacetic and Dibromoacetic Acids)
Headquarters
Initial Distribution System Evaluation
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Individual Filter Effluent
Locational Running Annual Average
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Monochloroacetic Acid
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
Microbial-Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
Minimum Reporting Level
Noncommunity Water System
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
Nontransient Noncommunity Water System
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of General Counsel
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Office of Regional Counsel
Public Water System
Public Water System Supervision
Running Annual Average
Safe Drinking Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal
Standard Monitoring Program
Significant Non-complier
System-specific Study
Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule	
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
                                                       November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
 SWTR              Surface Water Treatment Rule
 TCAA              Trichloroacetic Acid
 TCR                Total Coliform Rule
 TOC                Total Organic Carbon
 TTHM              Total Trihalomethanes (Chloroform, Bromodichloromethane,
                     Dibromochloromethane, and Bromoform)
 UV                 Ultraviolet Light
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        10                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Introduction
This document provides guidance to EPA regions and states exercising primary enforcement
responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) concerning how the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) interprets the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2
DBPR) under the SDWA.  It also provides guidance to the public and the regulated community on how
EPA intends to exercise its discretion in implementing the statute and  regulations. This draft guidance is
designed to implement national policy on these issues.

The SDWA provision and EPA regulations described in this document contain legally binding
requirements. This document does not substitute for those provision or regulations, nor is it a regulation
itself. It does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, states, or the regulated community and
may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances.  EPA and state decision makers
retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this draft guidance,
where appropriate. Any decisions  regarding a particular facility will be made based on the applicable
statutes and regulations. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise  questions and objections about the
appropriateness of the application of this draft guidance to a particular situation, and EPA will consider
whether or not the recommendations or interpretations in the guidance are  appropriate in that situation
based on the law and regulations. EPA may change this draft guidance in the future.

This draft manual contains the following sections:

Section 1 summarizes the rule requirements of the Stage 2 DBPR and presents a timetable of important
dates.  Section 2 lists the "stand-alone" guidance materials that will help states and public water systems
(PWSs) adopt each new requirement.  Section 3 discusses state implementation activities.  Section 4
covers state primacy revision requirements, including a detailed timeframe for application review and
approval.  This section also contains guidance and references to help states adopt each new special
primacy requirement included in these rules.  Section 5 addresses violation determination and associated
reporting requirements to assist states in their compliance activities.

The appendices of this document also provide information that will be useful to states and EPA regions
throughout the primacy revision application process. Appendix A contains the primacy revision
application crosswalk for the rule.  Appendix B contains the rule language of the Stage 2 DBPR.
Appendix C contains a fact sheet and a draft quick reference guide for the rule. Appendix D contains the
data entry instructions for the Stage 2 DBPR.

Please note that in several sections the guidance makes suggestions and offers alternatives that go beyond
the minimum requirements indicated.  EPA does this to provide information and/or suggestions that may
be helpful to implementation efforts. Such suggestions are prefaced by "may" or "should" and are to be
considered advisory.  They are not required elements of the Stage 2 DBPR.

EPA will undertake necessary rule implementation activities during the period of early  implementation.
During this period, the state may elect to undertake some or all of the implementation activities in
cooperation with EPA. This will facilitate continuity of implementation and ensure that system-specific
advice and decisions are made with the best available information and are consistent with existing state
program requirements.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         11                                  November 2003

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
Section 1	
Rule Requirements

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
1.1    Introduction
EPA proposed the Stage 2 DBPR in the Federal Register on August 18, 2003 (68 FR 49547; see
www.epa.gov/safewater/stage2/index.html'). This rule is part of a series of rules, the "Microbial-
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Cluster" (M-DBP Cluster), which is intended to improve control
of microbial pathogens while minimizing public health risks of disinfectants and disinfection byproducts
(DBPs). The  Stage 2 DBPR builds upon the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
(Stage 1 DBPR) by addressing the health risks of DBPs in community water systems (CWSs) and
nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) that add a primary or residual disinfectant other
than ultraviolet light (UV) or deliver water that has been treated with a primary or residual disinfectant
other than UV. Key provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR include:

              An initial distribution system evaluation (IDSE) to identify compliance monitoring
              locations that represent high total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAAS)
              concentrations throughout the distribution system.

              A locational running annual average (LRAA) calculated for each monitoring location in
              the distribution system for TTHM and HAAS.

              A two-phased approach to comply with TTHM and HAAS maximum contaminant levels
              (MCLs) (Stage 2A and Stage 2B).

       •      Significant excursion evaluations if high individual TTHM or HAAS concentrations are
              detected in the distribution system.

The Stage 2 DBPR has been proposed  concurrently with the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), which addresses the control of microbial pathogens. The LT2ESWTR
was proposed as a separate rule on August 11, 2003.

1.1.1  History

The 1974 SDWA called for EPA to regulate drinking water by creating the national interim primary
drinking water regulations (NIPDWR). In 1979, the first interim standard addressing DBPs was set for
TTHMs, a group of four volatile  organic chemicals that form when disinfectants react with natural
organic matter in the water.

Although the  SDWA was amended slightly in  1977, 1979, and 1980, the most significant changes to the
1974 law occurred when the SDWA was reauthorized in 1986.  To safeguard public health, the 1986
Amendments  required EPA to set health goals, or maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), and
MCLs for 83 named contaminants. Waterborne disease-causing microbial contamination had not been
sufficiently controlled under the original Act.  EPA was required to establish regulations within certain
time frames, require disinfection of all public water supplies, specify filtration requirements for nearly all
water systems that draw their water from surface sources, and develop additional programs to protect
ground water  supplies.

In 1989, EPA issued two important National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs): The
Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (40 CFR 141.21) and the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) (40 CFR
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        15                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
141 Subpart H).  The TCR and SWTR provide the foundation for the M-DBP Cluster, which are
summarized below.

Total Coliform Rule

The TCR covers all PWSs.  Coliforms, because they are easily detected in water, are used to assess a
water system's vulnerability to pathogens. In the TCR, EPA set an MCLG of zero for total coliforms.
EPA established an MCL for total coliform and required testing of total-coliform positive cultures for the
presence of Escherichia coli (E. coll) or fecal coliforms; these tests indicate more immediate health risks
from sewage or fecal contamination. If more than 5 percent of the samples within a month  contain
coliforms, water system operators must report this violation to the state and the public. In addition, the
TCR requires sanitary surveys every 5 years (or 10 years for noncommunity water systems  (NCWSs)
using a disinfectant and protected ground water) for every system that collects fewer than five routine
total coliform samples per month. These are typically systems that serve fewer than 4,100 people.

Surface Water Treatment Rule

PWSs using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) as a
supply are prone to microbial contamination of their source water.  Pathogenic microorganisms that can
contaminate source water can be removed or inactivated during the water treatment sedimentation,
filtration, and disinfection processes. EPA issued the SWTR in response to a Congressional mandate
requiring disinfection, and filtration where necessary, of systems that use surface water or GWUDI
sources.  The rule sets MCLGs for Legionella, Giardia lamblia, and viruses at zero because any exposure
to these contaminants presents some level of health risk.  The SWTR includes a treatment technique
requirement for inactivation, or removal and inactivation, of these organisms.

Specifically, the SWTR requires that Subpart H systems have sufficient treatment to reduce source water
concentrations of Giardia lamblia and viruses by at least 99.9 percent (3 log) and 99.99 percent (4 log),
respectively.  In addition, a disinfection residual must be maintained throughout the entire distribution
system.  For systems  that filter, the adequacy of the filtration process is determined by measuring the
turbidity of the treated water since high levels of turbidity often indicate that the filtration process is not
working properly. The  goal of the SWTR is to reduce risk to less than one infection per year per 10,000
people.

1996 SDWA Amendments

In 1990, EPA's  Science Advisory Board, an independent panel  of experts established by Congress, cited
drinking water contamination as one of the most important environmental risks and indicated that
disease-causing microbial contaminants (e.g., bacteria, protozoa, and viruses) are probably the greatest
remaining health-risk management challenge for drinking water suppliers.  Data from the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) confirm this concern and indicate that between 1980 and 1998, 419 waterborne
disease outbreaks were  reported, with over 511,000 estimated cases of disease. During this period, a
number of agents were implicated as causes of the outbreaks, including various protozoa, viruses, and
bacteria, as well as several chemicals (Craun and Calderon 1996, Levy et al.  1998, Barwick et al. 2000).
Most of the cases (but not the outbreaks) of illnesses were associated with surface water, including a
single outbreak  of approximately 403,000 cases of cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee, WI (Mac Kenzie et
al. 1994).
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         16                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
The SDWA was further amended in 1996 to improve public health protection by incorporating new data
on the adverse health effects of contaminants, the occurrence of contaminants in PWSs, and the estimated
reduction in health risks that would result from further regulation. The Amendments provided for use of
best-available, peer-reviewed science in decision making, and for risk reduction and cost analyses in the
regulatory decision process.

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule

The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) complements the surface water treatment rules by reducing
the potential for microbial pathogens, particularly Cryptosporidium oocysts, to pass through the filters
into the finished water of systems that use conventional and direct filtration. The FBRR requires affected
systems to notify the state in writing about its recycle practices, maintain specific records, and return
regulated recycle streams (i.e., spent filter backwash, thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering
processes), through all processes of a system's existing conventional or direct filtration system (unless
the state approves an alternate location).

IESWTR/LT1ESWTR/LT2ESWTR

The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule  (IESWTR) builds on the SWTR by adding
protection from Cryptosporidium through strengthened combined filter effluent (CFE) turbidity
performance standards and individual filter effluent (IFE) turbidity provisions. The IESWTR applies to
systems that serve more than 10,000 people.  For unfiltered systems, Cryptosporidium must be included
in watershed control requirements. In addition, the IESWTR builds on the TCR by requiring sanitary
surveys for all PWSs using surface water or GWUDI.  The IESWTR also requires covers for all new
finished water storage facilities and includes disinfection profiling and benchmarking provisions to
ensure  systems provide continued levels of microbial protection while taking the necessary steps to
comply with the DBF standards.

The provisions in the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LTIESWTR) address the
concerns covered by the IESWTR as they apply to small systems (i.e., systems serving fewer than 10,000
people) using surface water or GWUDI. The LT2ESWTR builds upon the SWTR, IESWTR, and
LT IESWTR by supplementing existing microbial treatment requirements for systems where additional
public health protection is needed.

Collectively, the SWTR, IESWTR, LT IESWTR, and LT2ESWTR place stringent treatment
requirements on systems using surface water or GWUDI as a source.

TTHMs/Stage 1 DBPR/Stage 2 DBPR

Many water systems treat their water with a chemical disinfectant in order to inactivate pathogens that
cause disease.  The public health benefits of common disinfection practices are significant and well-
recognized; however, disinfection poses risks of its own.  While disinfectants are effective  at controlling
many harmful microorganisms, they react with organic and inorganic matter (DBF precursors) in the
water and form DBFs, some of which pose health risks when present above certain levels.  Since the
discovery of chlorination byproducts in drinking water in 1974, numerous toxicological studies have
been conducted that show some DBFs to be carcinogenic and/or cause reproductive or developmental
effects in laboratory animals. Additionally, exposure to high levels of disinfectants over long periods of
time may cause health problems, including damage to blood and kidneys.  While many of these studies


Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        17                                  November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
have been conducted with disinfectants at high doses, the weight of evidence indicates that DBFs present
a potential public health problem that must be addressed even at low levels. One of the most complex
questions facing water supply professionals is how to reduce risks from disinfectants and DBFs while
providing adequate protection against microbial contaminants. Much of the population is exposed to
these risks; therefore, a substantial concern exists.

The TTHM Rule of 1979 set a TTHM standard for CWSs serving  10,000 or more people. The Stage  1
DBPR built on the TTHM Rule by lowering the MCL for TTHMs and widening the range of affected
systems to include all CWSs and NTNCWSs that add a disinfectant. The Stage 1 DBPR also established
new MCLs for chlorite, bromate, and HAAS as well as established maximum residual disinfection levels
(MRDLs) for the disinfectants chlorine, chloramine, and chlorine dioxide. In addition, the Stage 1 DBPR
requires conventional filtration systems to remove specified percentages of organic materials, measured
as total organic carbon (TOC), that may react with disinfectants to form DBFs.

The Stage 2 DBPR builds upon the Stage 1 DBPR by providing more consistent protection from DBFs
across the entire distribution system and by focusing on the reduction of DBF peaks. The Stage 2 DBPR
changes the way sampling results are averaged to determine compliance.  The determination for the Stage
2 DBPR is based on an LRAA (i.e., compliance must be met at each monitoring location) instead of the
system-wide running annual average (RAA) used under the Stage  1 DBPR. In addition to changes in
MCL compliance calculation, systems must also conduct an IDSE to identify compliance monitoring
locations that represent high TTHM and HAAS levels. Systems are also required to conduct a significant
excursion evaluation if they have DBP levels that are  significantly higher than the MCL.

The Multiple Barrier Approach

By building on the foundation of the original SDWA, subsequent amendments  to the Act have improved
the quality of drinking water and increased public health protection.  The 1996 SDWA Amendments,  for
example, require EPA to develop rules to balance the  risks presented by microbial pathogens and DBFs.
The Stage 2 DBPR is one of the most recent rules in the M-DBP Cluster that expands on the foundation
of prior rulemaking efforts.

Since multiple  threats require multiple barriers, the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR expand on the
foundation of the TCR, SWTR, TTHM Rule, Stage 1  DBPR, IESWTR, LT1ESWTR, and FBRR
standards to target health risks not addressed by prior regulations. By encompassing these previously
unaddressed health risks from microbials  and DBFs, the M-DBP Cluster continues to maximize drinking
water quality and public health protection.

1.1.2  Development of the Stage 2 DBPR

In March 1999, EPA reconvened the M-DBP Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for the
Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR. This Committee also participated in the development of the IESWTR,
LT1ESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR. The Committee's members represented EPA, state, and local public
health and regulatory agencies, local elected officials, Native American tribes,  drinking water suppliers,
chemical and equipment manufacturers, and public interest groups. Technical  support for the
Committee's discussions was provided by a technical workgroup established by the Committee at its first
meeting.  The Committee's activities resulted in the collection and evaluation of substantial new
information related to key elements for both rules. This included new data on pathogenicity, occurrence,
and treatment of microbial contaminants, specifically including Cryptosporidium, as well as new data on

Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        18                                November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
DBP health risks, exposure, and control.  The Committee held ten meetings (from September 1999 to
July 2000), which were open to the public, to discuss issues pertaining to the Stage 2 DBPR and
LT2ESWTR. There was also an opportunity for public comment at each meeting.

In September 2000, the Committee signed the Agreement in Principle, a full statement of the consensus
recommendations of the group.  The agreement was published in a December 29, 2000 Federal Register
notice (65 FR 83015) and includes the list of committee members and their organizations. The
Committee's recommendations were incorporated into the proposed Stage 2 DBPR.

The M-DBP Committee reached an agreement on the following major issues regarding the Stage 2
DBPR:

       •      Compliance calculation for TTHMs and HAA5s revised from an RAA to an LRAA.

              Compliance carried out in two phases of the rule.

       •      Performance of an ID SE.

              Continued importance of simultaneous compliance with DBP and microbial regulations.

              Unchanged MCL  for bromate.

1.1.3  Benefits of the Stage 2  DBPR

1.1.3.1 Quantifiable health benefits

Although DBFs in drinking water  have also been associated with non-cancerous health effects, the
quantified benefits that result from the Stage 2 DBPR are associated only with estimated reductions in
DBP-related bladder cancer. A complete discussion of risk assessment methodology and assumptions
can be found in the Stage 2 DBPR Economic Analysis (EA) (USEPA 2003).

Overall, the Stage 2 DBPR may reduce an average of 21 to 179 bladder cancer cases per year.  The
present value benefits for reductions in bladder cancer that are the result of the Stage 2 DBPR range from
$0 million to $986 million annualized over 20 years using a 3 percent discount rate. Using a 7 percent
discount rate, the annualized present value benefits range from $0 million to $854 million.

1.1.3.2 Non-quantifiable health  and non-health related benefits

Although significant benefits will  result from the Stage 2 DBPR in  terms of the  reduction in bladder
cancer, the major potential benefits of this rule remain unquantified. Two major unqualified health-
related benefits are the potential reduction in adverse reproductive and developmental effects and a
reduction in other cancers potentially associated with DBP exposure.  Reproductive and developmental
endpoints that may be associated with DBP exposure include fetal losses (miscarriage and stillbirth),
neural tube defects, heart defects, and cleft palate. Although the science on reproductive and
developmental health effects as a result of DBP exposure is not strong enough to include them in the
primary Stage 2 DBPR analysis of benefits, the data appear to be sufficient to warrant concern. Both
epidemiological and toxicological  studies indicate that other cancers may be associated with DBP
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        19                                November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
exposure, but currently there is not enough data to quantify or place a monetary value on these cancer
risks.

In addition to unquantified health benefits, there are many non-health benefits of the rule. The Stage 2
DBPR may increase consumer confidence in the quality of drinking water, leading to less averting
behavior (e.g., boiling tap water or purchasing bottled water). Most people who switch to bottled water
or use filtration devices do so because of taste and odor problems and health-related issues. Chlorine
dioxide and chloramines have historically been used to address taste and odor problems.  To the extent
that the Stage 2 DBPR changes perceptions of the health risks associated with drinking water and
improves taste and odor, it may reduce actions such as buying bottled water or installing filtration
devices. Any resulting cost savings would be a regulatory benefit.

As PWSs move away from conventional treatment to more advanced technologies, other non-health
benefits are anticipated.  For example, chlorine dioxide is effective in controlling the spread of zebra
mussels, an invasive species that has caused significant ecological damage in some U.S. waterways. In
addition, installation of certain advanced technologies can remove many contaminants in addition to
those specifically targeted by the Stage 2 DBPR, including those that EPA may regulate in the future.
For example, membrane technology (depending on pore size), can be used to lower DBP formation, but it
can also remove many other contaminants that EPA is in the process of regulating.  Removal of any
contaminants that may face regulation could result in future cost savings to a water system.

1.2    Requirements of the Rule: PWSs

The following section provides a summary of the rule requirements, preceded by information on new
terms defined in the Stage 2 DBPR rule language. The requirements are from the proposed Stage 2
DBPR published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2003. For a copy of the actual rule language, see
Appendix B or visit EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/safewater/stage2/index.html.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        20                                 November 2003

-------
                                  Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
               Figure 1-1.  Summary of Stage 2 DBPR Requirements for Systems
                                          Systems  Subject to the Stage 2 DBPR
                               (All surface water and ground water CWSs and NTNCWSs that add a primary or residual
                    disinfectant other than ultraviolet light (U V) or deliver water that has been treated with a primary or residual disinfectant
                                                          other than U V.)
                                                   Rule Implementation
                      (All systems subject to the rule should perform rule implementation activities such as reading the rule, training, etc.)
                                     Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE)
                             (All CWSs and NTNCWSs must perform an IDSE, or meet the criteria not to perform an IDSE.)
                                                               ±.
                              Systems not performing an
                                     IDSE
Systems qualifying
  for the 40/30
   certification
Systems performing
an IDSE
                                 Systems receivinj
                                   a very small
                                  system waiver
       NTNCWSs
        serving
     <10,000 people
                               Systems may or may not
                          have to select new Stage 2B DBPR
                           monitoring sites and submit report
                                    Systems submit an
                                  IDSE report identifying
                                   Stage 2B site selection
                                          Compliance with Stage 2 DBPR MCLs
                 (All systems subject to the rule must meet Stage 2 DBPR LRAA MCLs-applicable for Stage 2A MCLs at Stage 1 DBPR locations
                	and Stage 2B MCLs at revised locations.  Systems may or may not have to make treatment changes.)	
                                            Routine Monitoring Requirements
                       (Some systems subject to the Stage 2 DBPR may have additional routine monitoring requirements beyond those
                      	already required by the Stage 1 DBPR.)	
                   Producing surface water
                   systems serving at least

                   have to add a sampling
                          site.
Producing surface water systems serving fewer than
  10.000 people and all producing ground water
   systems must add one sampling site if they
  determine that high TTHMs and HAA5s do not
         occur at the same location.
                                                                        All 100 percent purchasing
                                                                        systems may have additional
                                                                         routine monitoring sites,
                                                                           depending on their
                                                                         population served, source
                                                                          water type, and Stage 1
                                                                          DBPR monitoring plan.
                                            Significant Excursion Evaluations
                      (All systems subject to the rule must perform significant excursion evaluations if they exceed threshold DBP levels,
                     	and review results with the state no later than the time of the next sanitary survey.)	
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
                     21
                                                                                                    November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
1.2.1   New Definitions in the Stage 2 DBPR

1.2.1.1 What is a combined distribution system?

The proposed §141.2 defines the combined distribution system as the interconnected distribution system
of wholesale systems and of the consecutive system(s) that receive finished water from those wholesale
system(s).

1.2.1.2 What is a consecutive system?

The proposed §141.2 defines a consecutive system as a PWS that buys or otherwise receives some or all
of its finished water from one or more wholesale systems for at least 60 days per year. In addition to
buying finished water, some consecutive systems also operate a treatment plant (meaning a plant that
treats source water to produce finished water).

1.2.1.3 What is a consecutive system entry point?

The proposed §141.2 defines a consecutive system entry point as a location at which finished water is
delivered at least 60 days per year from a wholesale system to a consecutive system.

1.2.1.4 What is finished water?

The proposed §141.2 defines finished water as water that has been introduced into the distribution
system of a PWS and is intended for distribution without further treatment, except the level of treatment
necessary to maintain water quality (such as booster disinfection). With this definition, water entering
the distribution  system is finished water even if a system  subsequently applies additional treatment like
booster disinfection to maintain a disinfectant residual throughout the distribution system.

1.2.1.5 What is a wholesale system?

The proposed §141.2 defines a wholesale system  as a PWS that treats source water and then sells or
otherwise delivers finished water to another PWS for at least 60 days per year. Delivery may be through
a direct connection or through the distribution system of another consecutive system. Under this
definition, a consecutive system that passes water from a wholesaler to another consecutive system and
does not also treat source water is not a wholesale system. Rather, the system that actually produces the
finished water is responsible for wholesale system requirements under the Stage 2 DBPR.

1.2.2  IDSE Requirements [proposed §141.600]

The Stage 2 DBPR establishes requirements for carrying out an IDSE. IDSEs are studies that, when used
in conjunction with existing compliance monitoring, help systems identify and select future compliance
monitoring sites representing high TTHM and HAAS  levels in the distribution system. This section
identifies which systems are required to meet IDSE requirements, summarizes the different IDSE
options, and presents IDSE reporting requirements.  For more detailed information on conducting and
implementing IDSEs, refer to EPA's Draft Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual
(EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date).
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        22                                  November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
1.2.2.1 Who must perform an IDSE? [proposed 141.600(b)]

Systems subject to IDSE requirements are:

       •       CWSs that add a primary or residual disinfectant other than UV or deliver water that has
               been treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other than UV; or

       •       NTNCWSs serving at least 10,000 people that add a primary or residual disinfectant
               other than UV or deliver water that has been treated with a primary or residual
               disinfectant other than UV.

NTNCWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people and systems serving fewer than 500 people that receive a
small system waiver are not subject to IDSE provisions and do not have to submit an IDSE report. These
systems do, however, have to develop and keep on file a Stage 2B monitoring plan (see section 1.2.2.3).
In addition, Subpart H NTNCWSs serving from 3,301 to 9,999 have to submit their Stage 2B monitoring
plan to the state. NTNCWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people, systems serving fewer than 500 people
that receive a small system  waiver, and systems that qualify for the 40/30 certification may still need to
add or eliminate monitoring sites to meet Stage 2B requirements.

1.2.2.2 What are the options for the IDSE?

There are four options for systems that are subject to the IDSE requirements:

       •       Standard Monitoring Program

       •       System Specific Study

               40/30 Certification

       •       Very Small System Waiver

Standard Monitoring Program [proposed §141.602J

The IDSE Standard Monitoring Program (SMP) entails 1 year of distribution system monitoring on a set
schedule. EPA has developed two monitoring schemes for the SMP based on whether or not a system
treats water:

       •       A plant-based approach for producing systems that is dependent on population served,
               source water, AND the number of plants in a system, as with Stage 1 DBPR compliance
               monitoring, and applies to systems that produce  some or all of their own finished water.
               For the purpose of the Stage 2 DBPR, a plant can be either a treatment plant (that
               provides, at a minimum, disinfection using a disinfectant other than UV) or a consecutive
               system entry point that operates for at least 60 consecutive days per year.

       •       A population-based approach for 100 percent purchasing systems that is dependent on
               population  served and source water and applies to only those systems that purchase 100
               percent of their finished water from other systems.


Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        23                                  November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Tables 1-1 and 1-2 present the IDSE SMP requirements for producing and 100 percent purchasing
systems, respectively.

Systems conducting the SMP must monitor during the peak historical month for DBF levels or warmest
water temperature. All IDSE samples must be taken as dual sample sets (i.e., a TTHM and a HAAS
sample will be taken at each site).  The IDSE monitoring results will not be used for determining
compliance with MCLs and are not required to be reported in the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR).
Systems must prepare and submit a report summarizing results and justifying selection of Stage 2B
compliance monitoring sites (see section 1.2.2.3 for IDSE reporting requirements).
         Table 1-1.  IDSE Monitoring Requirements for Producing Systems
                                                                                     1,2
System Size
(Population
Served3)
Residual
Disinfectant
Number of Distribution System Sites (by
location type) per Plant
Near
Entry
Point
Average
Residence
Time
High
TTHM
High
HAAS
Total Number
of Sites per
Plant
Monitoring
Frequency4
Subpart H Systems5
<500
500 - 9,999
>10,000
Chlorine or
Chloramines
Chlorine or
Chloramines
Chlorine
Chloramines
-
-
1
2
-
-
2
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
8
8
Every 180
days
Every 90
days
Every 60
days
Ground Water Systems
<10,000
>10,000
Chlorine or
Chloramines
Chlorine or
Chloramines
-
-
-
-
1
1
1
1
2
2
Every 180
days
Every 90
days
  Proposed § 141.602(a)
  For the purpose of this guidance manual, producing systems are those that do not buy 100 percent of their water
  year-round (i.e., they produce some or all of their own finished water).
  Population served is usually a system's residential population. It does not include populations served by
  consecutive systems that purchase water from that system.
  Monitoring frequency is the approximate number of days between monitoring events. A dual sample set must be
  collected at each location. A dual sample set is one TTHM and one HAAS sample that is taken at the same time
  and location.
  Subpart H systems are those that use surface water or GWUDI as a source and, for the purpose of this guidance,
  also includes consecutive systems that deliver such water.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
24
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
      Table 1-2.  IDSE SMP Requirements for 100 Percent Purchasing Systems
                                                                                            1,2
System Size
(Population Served3)
Number of Distribution System
Sites (by location type) per System
Near
Entry
Point4
Average
Residence
Time
High
TTHM
High
HAAS
Total Number
of Sites per
System
Monitoring
Frequency for
the 1-year IDSE
Period5
Subpart H Systems6
<500
500 - 4,999
5,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 24,999
25,000 - 49,999
50,000 - 99,999
100,000 - 499,999
500,000 -< 1.5 million
1.5 million - < 5 million
> 5 million
-
-
-
1
2
3
4
6
8
10
-
-
1
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
1
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
12
14
1
1
1
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
2
2
4
8
12
16
24
32
40
48
Every 180 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 60 days
Every 60 days
Every 60 days
Every 60 days
Every 60 days
Every 60 days
Every 60 days
Ground Water Systems
<500
500 - 9,999
10,000 - 99,999
100,000 - 499,999
> 500,000
-
-
1
1
2
-
-
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
3
4
2
2
6
8
12
Every 180 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
1  Proposed § 141.602(b)
2  For the purposes of this manual, 100 percent purchasing systems are those systems that buy or otherwise receive
  all of their finished water from one or more wholesale systems year-round.
3  Population served is usually a system's residential population. It does not include populations served by
  consecutive systems that purchase water from that system.
4  See section 8.2 for requirements when the number of entry points in a system is different from the number of
  required near-entry point sites in this table.
5  Monitoring frequency is the approximate number of days between monitoring events. A dual sample set must be
  collected at each location. A dual sample set is one TTHM and one HAAS sample that is taken at the same time
  and location.
6  Subpart H systems are those that use surface water or GWUDI as a source and, for the purpose of this guidance,
  also includes  consecutive systems that deliver such water.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
25
November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
System Specific Study [proposed §141.603(a)]

To comply with the IDSE requirement, systems may choose to perform a system-specific study (SSS)
based on other monitoring studies or data. These studies must identify equivalent or superior monitoring
sites representing high TTHM and HAAS levels as would be identified by IDSE monitoring. Examples
of acceptable studies include a hydraulic modeling study that simulates water movement in the
distribution system or recent TTHM and HAAS monitoring data that encompass a wide range of sample
sites, including those with representative high TTHM and HAAS concentrations. Systems must submit a
report summarizing the results of their system-specific study and justifying selection of Stage 2B
compliance monitoring sites (see section 1.2.2.3 for IDSE reporting requirements).

40/30 certification [proposed§141.603(b)]

Another alternative systems have for fulfilling the IDSE requirements is to demonstrate low TTHM and
HAAS distribution system concentrations by meeting the following criteria:

              All individual TTHM results (as opposed to  results measured as an RAA) must be less
              than or equal to 0.040 mg/L.

              All individual HAAS results (as opposed to results measured as an RAA) must be less
              than or equal to 0.030 mg/L.

              Results must span at least a 2-year period prior to Stage 2 DBPR site selection for
              Subpart H systems and must include all Stage 1 DBPR compliance  monitoring results.

              TTHM and HAAS samples must have been analyzed by a laboratory certified under the
              drinking water certification program to perform these measurements and using approved
              methods.

              For ground water systems serving 10,000 or more people with historical TTHM data but
              no HAAS data, a simulated distribution systems test can be used to  evaluate HAAS
              concentrations.  Historical TTHM data must be below 0.040 mg/L and simulated
              distribution system HAAS data below 0.030  mg/L for systems to qualify.

       •      No TTHM or HAAS monitoring violations during the period specified in Table 1-3.

Even though these systems are not required to perform a study or conduct additional monitoring for the
IDSE, they must evaluate their existing Stage 1 DBPR sites to determine if they meet the requirements of
the Stage 2 DBPR and submit an IDSE report.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        26                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
 Table 1-3.  Compliance Monitoring Data Requirements for the 40/30 Certification1
Source Water
Type
Subpart H
Ground water
Population Served2
>10,000 people
<10,000 people that have a system
serving >10,000 people in their combined
distribution system4
<10,000 people that do not have a system
serving >10,000 people in their combined
distribution system4
>10,000 people
<10,000 people that have a system
serving >10,000 people in their combined
distribution system4
<10,000 people that do not have a system
serving >10,000 people in their combined
distribution system4
Regulation and Monitoring Period3
Stage 1 DBPR compliance data from January 2002
to December 2003
Stage 1 DBPR compliance data collected in 2004
Stage 1 DBPR compliance data from January 2004
to December 2005
TTHM Rule compliance data from 2003 and Stage
1 DBPR compliance collected in 2004
Stage 1 DBPR compliance data collected in 2004
Stage 1 DBPR compliance data from January 2004
to December 2005
1  Proposed § 141.603(b)
2  Population served is usually a system's retail population. It should not include populations served by consecutive
  systems that purchase water from that system.
3  All data must have been analyzed by a certified laboratory and done by approved methods (as required by the
  Stage 1 DBPR). In addition, systems must not have had any TTHM or HAA5 monitoring violations during the
  period specified.
4  A combined distribution system is the totality of the distribution system of all wholesale systems and the
  consecutive systems that receive finished water from the wholesale systems.

Very Small System Waiver [proposed §141.603(c)]

States can waive the IDSE requirement for systems serving fewer than 500 people that monitor for Stage
1 DBPR compliance at the maximum residence time site if the state determines that this site captures
both the high TTHM and high HAAS levels in the distribution system. Small systems are more likely
than other systems to have their high TTHM and high HAAS site in the same location. If the state has
granted a very small system waiver for the IDSE, the system is not required to conduct an IDSE or submit
an IDSE report.

States may  decide to waive the IDSE requirement for all systems serving fewer than 500 people or some
subset of all systems serving fewer than 500 people.  To issue blanket waivers, states must develop a very
small system waiver procedure and submit it as part of their primacy package (see section 4.4 for
guidance on how to develop a very small system waiver procedure).
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
27
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
1.2.2.3     What are IDSE Reporting Requirements?

Who must submit an IDSE report [proposed §141.604]?

Systems performing IDSE monitoring, a system-specific study, or submitting data for the 40/30
certification must submit an IDSE report to their primacy agency for approval.  Systems serving less than
500 people that receive a waiver and NTNCWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people do not have to submit
an IDSE report.

When is the report due to  the state [[proposed §141.600(c)]?

Table 1-4  summarizes when IDSE reports are due to the state, according to system size and source water
type.  For  consecutive systems, the schedule for completing the IDSE depends on the population of the
wholesale system (e.g., if a small water system serving fewer than 10,000 people purchases water from a
large system serving 10,000 people or more, then the small system is required to comply with the
schedule of the large system).

               Table 1-4. IDSE Report Due Dates [proposed £141.600(c)]
IF YOU ARE THIS TYPE
OF SYSTEM
Subpart H serving >10,000
Subpart H serving <10,000
Groundwater serving >10,000
Groundwater serving <10,000
Consecutive system
YOU MUST SUBMIT YOUR IDSE REPORT TO THE STATE BY1
[insert date 24 mos following publication]
[insert date 48 mos following publication]2
[insert date 24 mos following publication]
[insert date 48 mos following publication]2
At the same time as the system with the earliest compliance date in the
combined distribution system 3
 Systems that meet the 40/30 certification criteria in proposed §141.603(b) are encouraged to submit their IDSE
report as soon as the certification criteria are met.
2 Systems must comply by [insert date 24 mos following publication] if they are a wholesale system and any system
in the combined distribution system serves at least 10,000 people. Systems must comply by [insert date 48 mos
following publication] if no system in the combined distribution system serves at least 10,000 people.
3 Systems must comply by [insert date 24 mos following publication] if any system in the combined distribution
system serves at least 10,000 people.  Systems must comply by [insert date 48 mos following publication] if no
system in the combined distribution system serves at least 10,000 people.

What must the IDSE report include [proposed §141.604]?

For systems conducting the SMP, the IDSE report must include:

  •         Additional data used to select IDSE monitoring sites.

  •         The original IDSE monitoring plan and an explanation of any deviations from that plan.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        28                                  November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
           All IDSE TTHM and HAAS analytical results in a tabular or spreadsheet format (for systems
           that conduct IDSE monitoring).

           A schematic of the distribution system (with Stage 1 and IDSE monitoring results, location,
           and date of all samples noted).

  •         Recommendations for TTHM and HAAS Stage 2B DBPR compliance monitoring sites.

  •         Recommendations for months in which TTHM and HAAS monitoring will occur.

           System characteristics (e.g., system type, population served, whether the system is a
           consecutive system, number of treatment plants and consecutive system entry points for
           systems conducting plant-based monitoring).

For systems conducting the SSS, the IDSE report must include:

           Studies, reports,  data, analytical results, and/or modeling demonstrating that the
           recommended monitoring sites representing high TTHM and HAAS levels are comparable or
           superior to those that would otherwise have been identified by IDSE monitoring.

           An analysis demonstrating that the SSS characterized expected TTHM and HAAS levels
           throughout the entire distribution system.

           A schematic of the distribution system (with Stage 1 and IDSE monitoring results, location,
           and date of all samples noted).

  •         Recommendations for TTHM and HAAS Stage 2B DBPR compliance monitoring sites.

  •         Recommendations for months in which TTHM and HAAS monitoring will occur.

           System characteristics (e.g., system type, population served, whether the system is a
           consecutive system, number of treatment plants and consecutive system entry points for
           systems conducting plant-based monitoring).

Systems with an under 40/30 certification must include:

           Data demonstrating that all samples are less than or equal to 0.040 mg/L TTHM and 0.030
           mg/L HAAS (for systems that qualify for the 40/30 waiver).

           A schematic of the distribution system (with Stage 1 monitoring results, location, and date of
           all samples noted).

  •         Recommendations for TTHM and HAAS Stage 2B DBPR compliance monitoring sites.

  •         Recommendations for months in which TTHM and HAAS monitoring will occur.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         29                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
           System characteristics (e.g., system type, population served, whether the system is a
           consecutive system, number of treatment plants and consecutive system entry points for
           systems conducting plant-based monitoring).

How long must the IDSE report be retained?

Systems must retain a complete copy of the IDSE report for 10 years after the date it was submitted. If
the state modifies the monitoring requirements or approves alternative monitoring sites, systems must
keep a copy of the state's notification on file for 10 years after the date of notification. The IDSE report
and any state notification must be available for review by the state or the public.

1.2.3      MCL Requirements

The Stage 2 DBPR changes the way sampling results are averaged to determine compliance with MCLs.
The determination for the Stage 2 DBPR is based on a LRAA instead of the system-wide RAA used
under the Stage 1 DBPR.  The primary objective of the LRAA is to reduce exposure to high DBP levels.
For an LRAA, an annual average must be computed at each monitoring site. The RAA compliance basis
of the 1979 TTHM Rule and the Stage 1 DBPR allows a system-wide annual average under which high
DBP concentrations in one or more locations are averaged with, and dampened by, lower concentrations
elsewhere in the distribution system. Figure 1-2 illustrates the difference in calculating compliance with
the MCLs for TTHM between a Stage  1 DBPR RAA and the Stage 2 DBPR LRAA.

The Stage 2 DBPR will be implemented in two stages, Stage 2A and Stage 2B.  Stage 2A provides
systems with transitional MCLs (in addition to the current Stage 1 DBPR MCLs) to allow them more
time to comply with the more stringent Stage 2B MCLs. Consecutive systems must comply with the
same MCLs for TTHM and HAAS as CWSs and NTNCWSs subject to the Stage 2 DBPR. The next two
sections describe the MCLs for Stage 2A and Stage 2B, followed by an explanation of compliance
deadlines.

Note that the Stage 1 DBPR MCL for bromate remains at 0.010 mg/L, measured as an RAA, in the Stage
2 DBPR.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        30                                November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
        Figure 1-2.  Comparison of RAA and LRAA Compliance Calculations1
 Stage 1 DBPR
       First Quarter
         X
                                          / Distribution System
                                          "Sampling Location
   Second Quarter
  Third Quarter
     X
                                                  Fourth Quarter

/Vxx>
/ s^f /^.. ^-
x>
^ / j
^r
Average of All Samples
V
x>0CX
/ \
/
V J
^r
Average of All Samples

/C/C^/\ xxXJ/x
/ X,/\/\ / X,/\/x
/ x X \ / x X \
/ Jgf X / ^ \
/ ^^\ / ^^x
/ \ / \
^ J ^ v1
"V" ^
Average of All Samples Average of All Samples

                                                  V
                               Running Annual Average of Quarterly Averages
                                     MUST BE AT OR BELOW MCL

 Stage 2B DBPR
        First Quarter
   Second Quarter
  Third Quarter
                                                  Fourth Quarter
                                                      X:
         First Quarter
         Second Quarter
         Third Quarter
         Fourth Quarter
       LRAA 1
MUST BE BELOW MCL
                         First Quarter
                         Second Quarter •
                         Third Quarter
                         Fourth Quarter •
                          LRAA 3
                   MUST BE BELOW MCL
         First Quarter   A
         Second Quarter A
         Third Quarter  A
         Fourth Quarter A
       LRAA 2
MUST BE BELOW MCL
First Quarter
Second Quarter
Third Quarter
Fourth Quarter
                                                   LRAA 4
                                            MUST BE BELOW MCL
'Stage 2 DBPR sampling locations will be selected based on the results of an IDSE study and may occur at locations
different from Stage 1 DBPR sampling sites.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
                     31
                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
1.2.3.1     What are the Stage 2A MCLs? [proposed §141.136]

For Stage 2A, systems will not be required to conduct any new monitoring.  Systems must continue to
monitor for TTHM and HAAS at the locations required under the Stage 1 DBPR (see 40 CFR 141.132).
Using these monitoring results, systems must continue to demonstrate compliance with Stage 1 DBPR
MCLs of 0.080 mg/L for TTHM and 0.060 mg/L for HAAS, based on a RAA (see 40 CFR 141.133).

In addition, systems must comply with the Stage 2A MCLs of 0.120 mg/L for TTHM and 0.100 mg/L for
HAAS, based on an LRAA calculated from data at each Stage 1 DBPR monitoring location. Stage  1
DBPR provisions for systems to  reduce the frequency of TTHM and HAAS will still apply.

Stage 2A will primarily affect surface water systems serving at least 10,000 people or systems with
multiple plants because these systems are required to monitor at more than one location in the
distribution system. Most other systems take compliance samples at only one location under the Stage 1
DBPR and in these cases, the calculated LRAA will equal the RAA.

1.2.3.2     What are the Stage 2B MCLs? [proposed §141.620]

For Stage 2B, systems must comply with MCLs of 0.080 mg/L and 0.060 mg/L as LRAAs for TTHM and
HAAS, respectively, based at monitoring at locations identified in their monitoring plans (see section
1.2.4 for a discussion of Stage 2B monitoring plans and routine monitoring requirements).

1.2.3.3     What are the compliance deadlines for Stage 2A and Stage 2B?

Table 1-5 summarizes the compliance deadlines for Stage 2A  and Stage 2B.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance       32                                November 2003

-------
                      Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
             Table 1-5.  Compliance Schedule for Stage 2A and Stage 2B
IF YOU ARE THIS TYPE
OF SYSTEM
Subpart H serving >10,000
Subpart H serving <10,000
Groundwater serving
>10,000
Groundwater serving
<10,000
Consecutive system
YOU MUST COMPLY WITH
STAGE 2A BY:
[date 36 months following
publication of final rule]
[date 36 months following
publication of final rule]
[date 36 months following
publication of final rule]
[date 36 months following
publication of final rule]
[date 36 months following
publication of final rule]
YOU MUST COMPLY WITH STAGE 2B
BY1:
[insert date 72 mos following publication]
[insert date 90 mos following publication] if
no Cryptosporidium monitoring is required
under proposed §141.706(c) OR
[insert date 102 mos following publication] if
Cryptosporidium monitoring is required under
proposed § 14 1.706(c)
[insert date 72 mos following publication]
[insert date 90 mos following publication]
At the same time as the system with the
earliest compliance date in the combined
distribution system
 The state may grant up to an additional 24 months for compliance for systems that require capital improvements.

1.2.3.4    What are the new MCLGs? [proposed §141.53]

The Stage 2 DBPR includes new MCLGs for chloroform, monochloroacetic acid (MCAA), and
trichloroacetic acid (TCAA), but these new MCLGs do not affect the MCLs for TTHM or HAAS.  Table
1-6 summarizes the new MCLGs.

                    Table 1-6. Summary of Stage 2 DBPR MCLGs
Contaminant
Chloroform
MCAA
TCAA
MCLG (mg/L)
0.07
0.03
0.02
1.2.4      Stage 2B Compliance Monitoring [proposed §141.621]

As noted previously, systems will continue to monitor at their Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring
locations for the Stage 2A DBPR; however, monitoring location requirements for Stage 2B may change.
This section summarizes the requirements for Stage 2B long-term compliance monitoring, required
contents of the Stage 2B monitoring plan, reduced monitoring, and special issues for consecutive
systems.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
33
November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
1.2.4.1     What are Stage 2B compliance monitoring requirements?

As with the IDSE monitoring, EPA has developed two monitoring schemes based on whether or not a
system treats water:

       •      A plant-based approach for producing systems that is dependent on population served,
              source water, AND the number of plants in a system, as with Stage 1 DBPR compliance
              monitoring, and applies to systems that produce some or all of their own finished water.
              For the purpose of the Stage 2 DBPR, a plant can be either a treatment plant (that
              provides, at a minimum, disinfection using a disinfectant other than UV) or a consecutive
              system entry point that operates for at least 60 consecutive days per year.

       •      A population-based approach for 100 percent purchasing systems that is dependent on
              population served and source water and applies to only those systems that purchase 100
              percent of their finished water from other systems.

Tables 1-7 and 1-8 show the Stage 2B compliance monitoring requirements for producing and 100
percent purchasing systems, respectively. For 100 percent purchasing systems, monitoring requirements
are no longer based on the number of plants, as was the case under the Stage 1 DBPR; therefore, the
number of sampling sites may increase or decrease from Stage 1 to Stage 2 DBPR.   Stage 2B compliance
monitoring requirements will be similar to the Stage 1  DBPR requirements for most producing systems.

If a system is required to conduct quarterly monitoring, it must begin monitoring in the first full calendar
quarter that follows the compliance date in Table 1-5.  If the system is required to conduct monitoring at
a frequency that is less than quarterly, it must begin monitoring in the calendar month recommended in
the IDSE report no later than 12 months after the compliance date in Table 1-5.  If the system is not
required to submit an IDSE report, it must begin monitoring during the calendar month identified in the
monitoring plan no later than 12 months after the compliance date.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        34                                November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Table 1-7.  Stage 2B Compliance Monitoring Requirements for Producing Systems
                                                                                                  1,2
System Size
(Population Served3)
Subpart H Systems6
<500
500 - 9,999
> 10,000
Number of Distribution System Sites
(by location type) per Plant4
Stage 1 Average
Residence Time
Site

-
-
1
Highest
TTHM

1
1
2
Highest
HAAS

1
1
1
Total
Number of
Sites per
Plant

27
2
4
Monitoring
Frequency5

Every 365 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Ground Water Systems
<500
500 - 9,999
> 10,000
-
-
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
27
2
2
Every 365 days
Every 365 days
Every 90 days
  Proposed §141.605(a)
  For the purpose of this guidance manual, producing systems are those that do not buy 100 percent of their water
  year-round (i.e., they produce some or all of their own finished water).
  Population served is typically a system's retail population. It should not include populations served by
  consecutive systems that purchase water from that system.
  For the purposes of the Stage 2 DBPR compliance monitoring, a consecutive system entry point that operates for
  at least 60 consecutive days per year must be considered a plant (proposed £141.601(d)).
  Monitoring frequency is the approximate number of days between monitoring events. A dual sample set must be
  collected at each location, unless otherwise noted. A dual sample set is one TTHM and one HAA5 sample that is
  taken at the same time and location.
  Subpart H systems are those that use surface water or GWUDI as a source and, for the purpose of this guidance,
  also includes consecutive systems that deliver such water.
  Dual sample sets are not required at both the high TTHM and the high HAA5 site—if the highest TTHM and
  HAAS levels occur at a different location, then only one sample is collected at each location. If they occur at the
  same location, then a dual sample set is collected at that location.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
35
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
  Table 1-8. Stage 2B Population-based Compliance Monitoring Requirements for
                              100 Percent Purchasing Systems1'2
System Size
(Population Served3)
Subpart H Systems5
<500
500 - 4,999
5,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 24,999
25,000 - 49,999
50,000 - 99,999
100,000 - 499,999
500,000 - 1,499,999
1.5 million - < 5 million
> 5 million
Number of Distribution System Sites
(by location type) per System
Stage 1 Average
Residence Time
Site

-
-
-
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Highest
TTHM

1
1
1
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
Highest
HAAS

1
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
Total Number
of Sites per
System

26
26
2
4
6
8
12
16
20
24
Monitoring
Frequency4

Every 365 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Ground Water Systems
<500
500 - 9,999
10,000 - 99,999
100,000 - 499,999
> 500,000
-
-
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
26
2
4
6
8
Every 365 days
Every 365 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
1  Proposed §141.605(e)
2  For the purpose of this guidance manual, 100 percent purchasing systems are those systems that buy or otherwise
  receive all of their finished water from one or more wholesale systems year-round.
3  Population served is typically a system's retail population. It should not include populations served by
  consecutive systems that purchase water from that system.
4  Monitoring frequency is the approximate number of days between monitoring events.  A dual sample set must be
  collected at each location, unless otherwise noted. A dual sample set is one TTHM and one HAAS sample that is
  taken at the same time and location.
5  Subpart H systems are those that use surface water or GWUDI as a source and, for the purpose of this guidance,
  also includes consecutive systems that deliver such water.
6  Dual sample sets are not required at both the high TTHM and the high HAAS site—if the highest TTHM and
  HAAS levels occur at a different location, then only one sample is collected at each location.  If they occur at the
  same location, then a dual sample set is collected at that location.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
36
November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
1.2.4.2 What are the requirements for developing a Stage 2B monitoring plan? [proposed
       §141.622]

All systems must develop compliance monitoring plans for the Stage 2B DBPR. The plans must contain
the following information on systems:

       •      Monitoring locations;

       •      Monitoring dates;

       •      Compliance calculation procedures;

       •      Monitoring plans for other systems in the combined distribution system if monitoring
              requirements have been modified based on data from other systems; and

       •      Permits, contracts, or agreements with third parties (e.g., other PWSs, laboratories, and
              state agencies).

Monitoring plans should be developed based on the IDSE report along with any modifications mandated
by the state. Systems are required to submit copies of their monitoring plans to the state prior to the date
they have to begin complying with the Stage 2B DBPR (as shown in Table 1-4).

1.2.4.3 How do systems qualify for reduced Stage 2B monitoring? [proposed §141.623]

Producing systems

Subpart H systems serving at least 10,000 people can qualify for reduced monitoring by meeting the
following criteria:

              Complete 1 year of routine monitoring.

              Maintain TTHM and HAAS LRAAs of no more than 0.040 mg/L and 0.030 mg/L,
              respectively.

       •      Maintain TOC levels of 4.0 mg/L or less in source water, measured as an RAA.

Subpart H systems serving 500 to 9,999 people and all ground water systems can quality for reduced
monitoring by meeting the first two provisions listed above (the  requirement for maintaining TOC levels
of 4.0 mg/L or less only applies to subpart H systems serving at  least 10,000 people). Reduced
monitoring is not available for Subpart H systems serving fewer than 500 people since monitoring for
these systems may not be reduced to fewer than one TTHM and one HAA5 sample per year.

100 percent purchasing systems

Consecutive systems that buy or receive all of their finished water can quality for reduced monitoring if
they complete one year of Stage 2B monitoring and show that the LRAA is less than 0.040 mg/L for
TTHM and less than 0.030 mg/L for HAA5 at all monitoring locations.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        37                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
1.2.4.4 How are monitoring requirements determined for consecutive systems?

The TTHM and HAAS sampling requirements for consecutive systems will be influenced by the number
of treatment plants operated by the system, the number of consecutive system entry points, the population
served, and the source water type.

       •       For consecutive systems that buy all of their water (i.e., 100 percent purchasing systems),
               monitoring requirements will be based on population served and source water type but
               not the number of plants in the system. Therefore, the number of sampling sites for
               routine monitoring could either increase or decrease from the Stage  1 DBPR to the Stage
               2 DBPR.

       •       For consecutive systems that both buy finished water and treat source water to produce
               finished water for at least part of the year, monitoring requirements will be based on the
               number of treatment plants in the system (similar to the approach for non-consecutive
               systems). In these cases, consecutive system entry points (defined as locations at which
               finished water is delivered at least 60 days per year) are considered "plants" for the
               purposes of monitoring. Note that under the IDSE, a system may have consecutive
               system entry points that are NOT considered plants because they do not deliver finished
               water for 60 consecutive days (proposed §141.601(d)(2) and §141.602(a)). While the
               Stage 2B monitoring requirements do not explicitly state that these 60 days must be
               consecutive, EPA expects that the Stage 2B monitoring would follow the  same
               interpretation since monitoring locations are based on those derived under the IDSE.
               EPA is looking into this discrepancy in proposed regulatory language since an
               interpretation that a consecutive system entry point is a location at which  finished water
               is delivered for 60 consecutive days would be less stringent than the proposed definition
               at §141.2 which simply states "at least 60 days per year."

States may specify alternative monitoring requirements for more complex multiple consecutive systems
in combined distribution systems. EPA is preparing a draft guidance manual for consecutive systems to
address these and other issues.  See section 1.2.6 for chlorine and chloramine monitoring requirements
for consecutive  systems.

1.2.5  Significant Excursion Evaluations [proposed §141.626]

Because Stage 2 DBPR TTHM and HAAS MCL compliance is based on an annual average of DBP
measurements at each location, a system may have DBP levels significantly higher than the MCL from
time to time (referred to as a significant excursion) while still being in compliance. This situation is a
result of high concentrations being averaged with lower concentrations at a given location. Each state
will determine its own procedure for systems to identify significant excursions, (see section 4.4.5)

If a significant excursion occurs, a system (including a consecutive system) must conduct a significant
excursion evaluation and discuss the evaluation with the state no  later than the next sanitary survey. This
evaluation involves examining distribution operational practices and identifying opportunities to reduce
DBP concentrations in the distribution system. For more detailed information  on significant excursion
evaluations, refer to EPA's Draft Significant Excursions Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-004, July
2003)
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        38                                  November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
1.2.6  Chlorine and Chloramine requirements [proposed §141.624]

Consecutive systems that do not add a disinfectant but deliver water that has been treated with a
disinfectant other than UV, must comply with the Stage 1 DBPR monitoring, compliance, and reporting
requirements for chlorine and chloramines (40 CFR 141.132(c)(l), 141.133(c)(l), and 141.134(c)
respectively) beginning [date 3 years after publication of final rule], unless required earlier by the state.

1.2.7  Analytical Requirements [proposed §141.131]

New analytical methods for chlorine dioxide, chlorite, HAAS, bromate, bromide, TOC, DOC, SUVA,
chlorine (free, combined, and total), and UV254 will be added. Many of these new methods can also be
used to determine additional parameters such as dalapon, fluoride, nitrate, nitrite, chloride, sulfate, and
orthosulfate.

In addition, appropriate methods to demonstrate compliance with the Stage 1 DBPR alternative
compliance criteria of magnesium hardness removal (40 CFR 141.135(a)(3)(ii)) are clarified.

1.2.8  Bromate Requirements [proposed §141.132]

Systems that must monitor for bromate under the Stage 1 DBPR because they use ozone will have a new
criterion to meet in order to qualify for reduced bromate monitoring. Instead of low source water
bromide levels, systems must have an RAA finished water bromate level that does not exceed 0.0025
mg/L.

1.2.9  Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements [proposed §141.33, §141.630]

Systems must keep copies of Stage 2B monitoring plans for the same period of time as the records of
analyses are required to be kept (i.e., for at least 5 years) or for 3 years after modifying them, whichever
is longer. In addition, the Stage 2 DBPR revises the system recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR
141.33, clarifying the requirement that systems must maintain records of monitoring plans submitted
until superceded by a new system monitoring plan. Systems must report the following information for
each monitoring location to the state within 10 days of the end of any quarter in which monitoring is
required:

           Number of samples taken during the last quarter.

           Date and results of each sample taken during the last quarter.

           Arithmetic averages of quarterly results for the last four quarters (RAAs for TOCs and
           LRAAs for DBFs).

           Whether an MCL was violated.

Subpart H systems seeking to qualify for or remain on reduced TTHM/HAA5 monitoring must report the
following source water TOC information for each treatment plant that treats surface water or GWUDI to
the state within 10 days of the end of any quarter in which monitoring is required:
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        39                                November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
               The number of source water TOC samples taken each month during the last quarter.

               The location, date, and result of each sample taken during the last quarter.

               The quarterly average of monthly samples taken during the last quarter.

               The RAA of quarterly averages from the past four quarters.

        •      Whether the RAA exceeded 4.0 mg/L.

1.2.9.1 What reporting and recordkeeping requirements apply to consecutive systems?

Consecutive systems have the same reporting and recordkeeping requirements as other systems affected
by the Stage 2 DBPR.  In addition, they are required to conduct appropriate public notification after a
violation (whether in the wholesale system or the consecutive system). In their CCR, consecutive
systems must include results of testing conducted by the wholesale system unless the consecutive system
conducted equivalent testing that indicated it was in compliance. In this case, the consecutive system
reports its own compliance monitoring results. EPA is preparing a draft guidance manual for consecutive
systems to address these and other issues.

1.2.10 Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations [proposed  §141 Subpart Q,
       Appendix A]

Under the Stage 2 DBPR, violations require either a Tier 2 or Tier 3 notification.  Tier 2 public
notification is required for violations of TTHM or HAAS RAA or LRAAs MCLs. Tier 3 public
notification of monitoring violations is required for failure to:

               Monitor for or report TTHM and HAAS  RAAs and LRAAs.

        •      Prepare an IDSE monitoring plan.

        •      Maintain copies of the monitoring plan.

        •      Return from reduced to routine monthly bromate monitoring if:

                       The RAA of bromide concentration is 0.05 mg/L or greater (until 3 years after
                       rule publication).

                       The RAA of bromate exceeds 0.0025 mg/L or if samples were not  analyzed
                       using an acceptable method (beginning 3 years after rule publication).

1.2.11 CCR Requirements

The CCR Rule requires that all detected regulated contaminants be reported in the annual reports. Since
detection is not defined for DBP contaminants, the  Stage 2 DBPR requires reporting limits for the
regulated DBFs.  EPA is proposing to incorporate minimum reporting level (MRL) requirements into the
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        40                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
laboratory certification program for DBFs and to use regulatory MRLs as the minimum concentrations
that must be reported as part of the CCRs (proposed §141.151(d)).

When compliance with the MCL is determined by calculating an RAA of all samples taken at a sampling
point, the highest average of any of the sampling points and the range of all sampling points are
expressed in the same units as the MCL.  When compliance with the MCL is determined by calculating
an LRAA, systems must include the highest LRAA for TTHM and HAAS and the range of individual
sample results for all sampling points expressed in the same units as the MCL.  If more than one site
exceeds the MCL, the system must include the LRAA for all  sites that exceed the MCL.

When compliance with the MCL is determined on a system-wide basis by calculating an RAA of all
samples at all sample points, system must include the average and range of detection expressed in the
same units as  the MCL. The system is not required to include the range of individual sample results for
the IDSE conducted.

Responsibility for the CCR rests with the individual system.  Under the CCR Rule, the wholesale system
is responsible for notifying the consecutive system of analytical results and violations related to
monitoring conducted by the wholesale system. Consecutive systems must include analytical results of
the wholesale system in their CCR, unless the consecutive system conducted equivalent testing
demonstrating that it was in compliance.  In the latter case, the consecutive system must report its own
compliance monitoring results.

1.3    Requirements of the Rule: States or Other Primacy Agencies

1.3.1   Special Primacy Requirements [proposed §142.16]

To receive primacy for the Stage 2 DBPR, states must adopt regulations no less stringent than this rule.
States must submit revisions to their programs, regulations, or authorities no later than [insert date 2
years after rule publication], although states can request an extension of up to 2 years.

Some provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR allow state discretion in establishing decision-making criteria.
The five main provisions for which states must make a timely decision on what they will require of
systems are (proposed §142.16):

               States that intend to use the authority to grant blanket waivers for IDSE requirements to
               very small systems (serving less than 500 people) must comply with special primacy
               provisions for granting such waivers.

               States must develop  a procedure for evaluating system-specific studies if
               system-specific studies  are conducted in the state.

               States must establish a procedure for determining that multiple consecutive system entry
               points from a single wholesale system to a single consecutive  system should be treated
               as a single treatment plant for monitoring purposes.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        41                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
               States that intends to use the authority to specify alternative monitoring requirements
               for consecutive systems in a combined distribution system must include a description of
               how they intend to implement that authority.

               States must establish criteria for determining when a significant excursion has occurred.

The special primacy requirements for the Stage 2 DBPR address these discretionary items  and are
discussed in section 4.4 of this guidance.

1.3.2   Records Kept by States [proposed §142.14]
The current regulations in 40 CFR 142.14 require states with primacy to keep various records, including
system inventories, state approvals, enforcement actions, the issuance of exemptions, and analytical
results, to determine compliance with MCLs, MRDLs, and treatment technique requirements.

The Stage 2 DBPR requires that the state keep records related to any decisions made pursuant to the
IDSE (proposed §141.600-§141.605) and Stage 2B DBP requirements (proposed §141.620-§141.630). In
addition, states must keep records of:

        •       Very small system waivers for those systems for which the state has determined that the
               Stage 1 DBPR (40 CFR §141.130-§141.135) approved monitoring  site is representative
               of the highest TTHM and HAAS sites.

        •       System IDSE reports (reports must be kept until reversed or revised in their entirety).

        •       Documentation of any modifications made.

        •       Monitoring plans submitted by PWSs until superceded by a new system monitoring
               plan.

1.3.3   State Reporting Requirements

EPA currently requires states to report information such as violations, variance and exemption status, and
enforcement actions to EPA under 40 CFR 142.15.  The Stage 2 DBPR will not add any additional
reporting requirements for states.

1.4     Summary of Action Dates

1.4.1   Applicability and Compliance Dates

Table 1-9 summarizes key compliance dates required (bold) by the  Stage 2 DBPR as well as suggested
action dates (shaded). The compliance dates are designed to allow for systems to simultaneously comply
with the LT2ESWTR in order to balance risks in the control of DBFs versus risks associated microbial
pathogens.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        42                                 November 2003

-------
                     Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
             Table 1-9. Summary of Action Dates for the Stage 2 DBPR
Date
[Insert date of rule
publication]
3 months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
6 months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
21 months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
24 months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
No later than 24
months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
30 months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
No later than 36
months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
45 months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
Stage 2 DBPR Action
Final rule is published in Federal Register.
States are encouraged to begin identifying affected systems
States are encouraged to begin updating their data management system.
States are encouraged to begin determining how they will address special primacy
conditions of the rule related to (l)IDSE waiver for systems serving fewer than 500
people, (2) System-specific studies for the IDSE, (3)Multiple consecutive system entry
points from the same wholesale system, (4) Consecutive system monitoring, and (5)
significant excursions.
States are encourages to begin coordinating with EPA and communicating with systems
regarding the IDSE requirements.
States are encouraged to communicate with affected systems regarding Stage 2 DBPR
requirements.
Systems serving >10,000 and wholesale systems with a system in the combined
distribution system that serves at least 10,000 people are encouraged to begin
conducting their IDSE.
States are encouraged to submit final primacy applications or extension requests to
EPA.
States should begin reviewing and approving IDSE reports for Subpart H and
groundwater systems serving 10,000 or more people and wholesale and/or consecutive
systems if part of a combined system of 10,000 or more people.
Final primacy applications must be submitted to EPA, unless granted an
extension, [proposed §142.12(b)(l)]
Subpart H and groundwater systems serving 10,000 or more people and smaller
wholesale and/or consecutive systems if part of a combined system of 10,000 or
more people must submit IDSE reports to the state, [proposed §141.604]
Systems serving <10,000 are encouraged to begin conducting their IDSE.
All systems must comply with Stage 2A transitional LRAA MCLs for TTHM and
HAAS, [proposed §141.136]
All 100 percent purchasing systems must monitor for chlorine and chloramines as
specified under the Stagel DBPR [proposed §141.624]
States with approved extension agreements are encouraged to submit final primacy
applications to EPA.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
43
November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Date
48 months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
No later than 48
months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
60 months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
72 months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
No later than 72
months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
90 months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
No later than 90
months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
102 months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
No later than 102
months after rule
promulgation [Insert
Date].
Stage 2 DBPR Action
States should begin reviewing and approving IDSE reports for Subpart H and
groundwater systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.
Final primacy applications must be submitted to EPA for systems with a full 2
year extension, [proposed §142.12(b)(l)]
Subpart H and groundwater systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must
submit IDSE reports to the state, [proposed §141.604]
States should begin determining whether to grant up to a 2-year extension for systems
requiring capital improvements to meet Stage 2B
States should begin reviewing and approving monitoring plans for Subpart H and
groundwater systems serving 10,000 or more people and wholesale and/or consecutive
systems if part of a combined system of 10,000 or more people.
Subpart H and groundwater systems serving 10,000 or more people and smaller
wholesale and/or consecutive systems if part of a combined system of 10,000 or
more people must submit a monitoring plan and comply with Stage 2B LRAA
MCLs for TTHM and HAAS, [proposed §141.620]
States should begin reviewing and approving monitoring plans for Subpart H and
groundwater systems serving fewer than 10,000 people that do not have to perform
Cryptosporidium monitoring under LT2ESWTR.
Subpart H and groundwater systems serving fewer than 10,000 people that do not
have to perform Cryptosporidium monitoring under LT2ESWTR must submit a
monitoring plan and comply with Stage 2B LRAA MCLs for TTHM and HAAS.
[proposed §141.620]
States should begin reviewing and approving monitoring plans for Subpart H and
groundwater systems serving fewer than 10,000 people that have to perform
Cryptosporidium monitoring under LT2ESWTR.
Subpart H and groundwater systems serving fewer than 10,000 people that have
to perform Cryptosporidium monitoring under LT2ESWTR must submit a
monitoring plan and comply with Stage 2B LRAA MCLs for TTHM and HAAS.
[proposed §141.620]
1.4.2   Timeline for the Stage 2 DBPR




Figure 1-3 depicts the Stage 2 DBPR requirements and implementation timeline for states and systems.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
44
November 2003

-------
                                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
<
State Process
Large Systen
Small System
Small Systen
Syste
Unde


U

Figure 1-3. Implementation Timeline for the Stage 2 DBPR
Year 1
.Final Stage /

Year 2
DBPR

Primacy
Review I
s (Serving
s (Serving


BSE Report
> 10,000
< 10,000
YearS


Year 4


2 Year Extension


Large & Me
Systems
People) a
'eople) w
IDSE | 0 Submit ID

s (Serving
ns Not
Condi]
•the LT2ES\^
stems Condu<
iderthe LT2I
Year 1


< 10,000
cting Crypto
TR
'ting Crypto
;SWTR
Year 2

People)
dium
id
ith a Larg
SE report to t
^^^^^^^^^^n

I IDSE | (,


Year 5


Year 6


1
Small System
e System i
ie State
^^^^^^|
? Submit IDSE
s
n their C<
^^
report to the
Year?


unbilled ]
»
Year 8


Mstributii
•J^- 2 Year Extension -^
' —
/
Stage 2B 80/60 LRAA
V»^^^^ Compliance^^^.^

State

>
Year 9


m System
V
>

Year 10



»
Mnnitnrino ^NRR1.IL(&iy \i,m,\t,l.Mt*.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^=- 7. Vpar Fvtpnsinn —=T'|>=».





* ^v^ ^ v
( Stage 2B 80/60 LRAA ^
^•^.^ Compliance ^^S
4 T^ 	
Year 11






rlonitorin? ^^KVijTTiiiEmtl El (•xafuav7^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^P^=»-2 Year Extension ^^5*-^s-
^—****rm
Year 3 Year 4

Year5

Year 6

Year?

Year 8
V
Year 9

Year 10
V
Year 11






Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
45
November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
References
Barwick, R.S., D.A. Levy, G.F. Craun, M.J. Beach, and R.L. Calderon.  2000.  Surveillance for
waterborne-disease outbreaks - United States, 1997-1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
49(SS04):l-35.

Craun, F. and R. Calderon.  1996. Microbial risks in groundwater systems: Epidemiology of waterborne
outbreaks. Under the Microscope: Examining microbes in groundwater. Proceedings of the
Groundwater Foundation's  12th Annual Fall Symposium, Boston.  September.

Levy, D.A., M.S. Bens, G.F. Craun, R.L. Calderon, and B.L. Herwaldt.  1998.  Surveillance for
Waterborne Disease Outbreaks - United States, 1995-1996. MMWR 47(55-5): 1-34.

Mac Kenzie, W.R., N.J. Hoxie, M.E. Proctor, M.S. Gradus, K.A. Blair, D.E. Peterson, J.J. Kazmierczak,
D.A. Addiss, K.R. Fox, J.B. Rose, and J.P. Davis. 1994. A massive outbreak of Cryptosporidium
infection transmitted through the public water supply. New England Journal of Medicine 331(3): 161-
167.

USEPA.  2003.  Economic Analysis for the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR. Washington, DC. Prepared by The
Cadmus Group.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        46                                November 2003

-------
Section 2	
Resources and Guidance

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
In addition to this draft Implementation Guidance, a variety of resource materials and technical guidance
documents have been prepared by EPA to facilitate understanding and implementing the Stage 2 DBPR.
This section is an overview of each of these resources and includes instructions on how to obtain the
documents.

2.1     Technical Guidance Manuals

The following five technical guidance manuals are being developed to support the Stage 2 DBPR.  These
draft manuals will aid EPA, state agencies, and affected PWSs in implementing this rule and will help
ensure that the implementation among these groups is consistent.

        •      The Draft Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) Guidance Manual (EPA XXX-
               X-XX-XXX, Date) further explains IDSE requirements and the implementation of
               IDSE  sampling required by the Stage 2 DBPR. The manual discusses the selection of
               monitoring sites, alternatives to monitoring, waivers, development of monitoring
               schedules, and preparation of the IDSE report.

               The Draft Significant Excursions Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-004, July 2003)
               provides guidance on possible approaches to identifying significant excursions,
               conducting a significant excursion evaluation, and operational changes that systems
               may make to prevent recurrence of significant excursions.

               The Draft Small System Compliance Document (EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date)
               identifies compliance and operational issues that may arise as small systems comply
               with the Stage 2 DBPR.

               The Draft Consecutive System Guidance Manual (EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date)
               provides guidance on complying with Stage 2 DBPR monitoring requirements and
               MCLs to systems that purchase finished water.

               The Draft Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual (EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date)
               provides guidance on how to avoid and resolve various  potential conflicts that may arise
               as systems comply with the Stage 2 DBPR and the LT2ESWTR.
 For more information, contact EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline, (800) 426-4791 or see the Office
 of Ground Water and Drinking Water Web page.  The rule and draft guidance documents are located
 at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/stage2/index.html.
2.2     Rule Presentation
Presentations that can be used for workshops for the Stage 2 DBPR will be available in PowerPoint
format on EPA's Web site: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/XXX.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        49                                November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
2.3     Fact Sheet and Draft Quick Reference Guide
A Fact Sheet and Draft Quick Reference Guide for the Stage 2 DBPR may be useful for conveying basic
information about the rule to water systems, new personnel, and stakeholders.  These are stand-alone
documents and are included in Appendix C of this draft guidance.  They are:

        -      Fact Sheet:  Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
               Proposed Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule: A Draft Quick
               Reference Guide

2.4     Q&As	

Questions and Answers (Q&As) on the Stage 2 DBPR will be provided in this section. These questions
have been asked of EPA through the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, implementation training, or other
means.

[To be inserted]
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        50                                 November 2003

-------
Section 3	
State Implementation

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
                EPA will undertake necessary rule implementation activities during
               the period of early implementation. During the early implementation
                    period, the state may elect to undertake some, or all of the
                   implementation activities, in cooperation with EPA.  This will
               facilitate continuity of implementation and ensure that system-specific
               advice and decisions are made with the best available information and
                     are consistent with existing state program requirements.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
52
November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
3.1     Overview of Implementation
The Stage 2 DBPR requires systems to take specific actions to comply with the rule. Monitoring,
reporting, performance, and follow-up requirements should be clearly defined to assist systems'
understanding of how the rule will affect them and what they must do to comply. To meet this goal, the
main implementation activities expected to face all primacy agencies include the following:

               Identify affected systems.

               Communicate Stage 2 DBPR requirements to affected systems.

               Update data management systems.

               Address special primacy conditions of the Stage 2 DBPR.

               Consult with systems regarding IDSEs.

               Evaluate waivers to IDSE requirements for systems serving fewer than 500 people.

               Review/approve system requests to consider multiple consecutive system entry points
               from a single wholesale system as one plant for the purposes of IDSE and Stage 2B
               DBPR compliance monitoring.

               Review/approve IDSE reports and Stage 2 DBPR monitoring plans.

               Evaluate system requests for compliance schedule extensions.

This section discusses each of these items. To help the states' implementation efforts, the guidance in
this section and in section 4 makes suggestions and offers alternatives that go beyond the minimum
primacy agency requirements specified in the subsections of § 142.16. Such suggestions are prefaced by
"may" or "should" and are to be considered advisory.  They are  not required elements of states'
applications for program revision.

Figure 3-1 shows a timeline with system activities on the top and primacy agency activities on the
bottom.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        53                                 November 2003

-------
                                              Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
                                  Figure 3-1.  Timeline of System and Primacy Agency Activities
                                                                                 All systems - comply with Stage 2A
                                                                                 transitional LRAA MCLs for TTHM
                                                                                 & HAAS
                                                                                          \
     LU

     (/)
          100% purchasing systems must
          monitor chlorine or chloramine
          residuals as specified under Stage 1
                         Large systems and small systems with a large system in
                         the combined distribution system
      Small non-consecutive systems and small consecutive
      without a large system in the combined distribution system
Rule
Promulg
t
o
z
LU
0
Begin
conducting
IDSE
ation X
I I
6 months 12 months
^ 1
Communicate Stage 2 DBPR
requirements to affected
systems

S_ • Identify affected systems
o
^ • Update data management systems
J3 • Coordinate with EPA & communicate IDSE
j^ requirements to systems


-N ^
Finish Begin
conducting Submit IDSE conducting
IDSE monitoring reports to state IDSE
1 I 1
1
18 months 24 me
i
^~\
Finish
conducting Submit IDSE
IDSE reports to state
* 1 *
1 1
>nths 30 months 36 months 42 months 48 m
k A
Review/approve IDSE reports for
large systems and small systems
with a large system in their
combined distribution system
l\


jnths 54 months
k
Review/approve IDSE
reports for small systems


Applying for primacy - address special primacy ^^^
conditions - unless granted an extension ^^
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
54
November 2003

-------
                                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
                           Figure 3-1.  Timeline of System and Primacy Agency Activities (cont.)
          ill
Small ground water systems and
small Subpart H systems that do not
have to perform Crypto monitoring
under LT2ESWTR must submit a
monitoring plan and begin
complying with Stage 2B LRAA
MCLs for TTHM and HAAS
                                        Large systems and small systems
                                        with a large system in their
                                        combined distribution system must
                                        develop a monitoring plan and
                                        begin complying with Stage 2B
                                        LRAA MCLs for TTHM and HAAS
                          Small Subpart H systems that have
                          to perform Crypto monitoring under
                          LT2ESWTR must submit a
                          monitoring plan and begin
                          complying with Stage 2B LRAA
                          MCLs for TTHM and HAAS
          o
          LLI
          O
          E
          Q_
ant
1 1
is 60 months 72 months
t t
Determine whether to
grant up to 2-yr.
extension for systems
requiring capital
improvements to meet
Stage 2B
requirements

1
84 months
Review/approve
monitoring plans for large
systems and the small
systems in their combined
distribution system


i
1
96 months
k


Review/approve monitoring
plans for Subpart H and
small groundwater systems
that do not have to perform
Crypto monitoring under the
LT2ESWTR
108 months 120 months
t
Review/approve monitoring
olans for small systems that
nave to perform Crypto
monitoring under the
LT2ESWTR


Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
55
November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
3.2     Identify Affected Systems
3.2.1   General Provisions

The Stage 2 DBPR applies to all CWSs and NTNCWSs that add a primary or residual disinfectant other
than UV or deliver water that has been treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other than UV
(proposed §141.620 (b)). Unlike previous rules, the Stage 2 DBPR explicitly includes consecutive
systems that deliver disinfected  water among the CWSs and NTCWSs that are subject to the regulatory
requirements.

States may wish to query or sort their database or other inventory information to list all CWSs and
NTNCWSs that add a primary or residual disinfectant other than UV or deliver water that has been
treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other than UV.

3.2.2   Initial Distribution  System Evaluation (IDSE)

IDSE's are studies, used in conjunction with Stage  1 DBPR monitoring, to identify and select Stage 2B
compliance monitoring sites that represent high TTHM and HAAS levels throughout the distribution
system (See section 1.2.2). States may wish to further  sort their list from 3.2.1 into sub-categories, as not
all systems will need to receive the same information during the same timeframe.  The following
sub-categories are suggested:

        •      CWS and NTNCWS serving at least 10,000 people (early schedule IDSE notification).

        •      CWS serving 500-9999 people (late schedule IDSE notification).

        •      CWS serving fewer than 500 people (late schedule IDSE notification with very small
               system waiver information).

        •      NTNCWS serving fewer than  10,000 people (not required to perform an IDSE).

Very small system waivers are discussed in more detail in sections 3.5 and 3.7.

3.2.3   Wholesale and Consecutive Systems

The Stage 2 DBPR provides special clarification on the sharing of responsibilities between consecutive
systems and the wholesale systems that supply them. States may wish to further sort their list from 3.2.1
to denote which systems are wholesale and consecutive systems. These systems will have to  submit their
IDSE report at the same time as the largest system in their combined distribution system, regardless of
the compliance timeframe associated with their own population served.  In addition, systems that are 100
percent purchasing systems may not have had to comply with the Stage 1 DBPR and may need more
communication regarding their responsibilities for complying with the Stage 2 DBPR.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        56                                November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
3.3 Communicate Stage 2 DBPR Requirements to Affected Systems
3.3.1   Requirements and Target Notification Time Frames

Initial Distribution System Evaluation

As noted previously, IDSEs are studies conducted by water systems to identify compliance monitoring
sites that represent high DBF levels in distribution systems (proposed §141.600).  Systems may perform
an IDSE either by completing a 1-year SMP or an SSS (see section 1.2.2.2). States may wish to provide
information to systems on how to conduct the SMP or SSS, or they may simply refer their systems to
EPA's Draft Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual (EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date)
for more information.

Systems may not need to perform an SMP or SSS if they qualify for the 40/30 certification or the very
small system waiver (see section 1.2.2.2). States may wish to provide information to systems on how to
qualify for these alternatives, or they may simply refer their systems to  EPA's Draft Initial Distribution
System Evaluation Guidance Manual (EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date) for more information.

States may wish to remind systems that all systems affected by the Stage 2 DBPR (except NTNCWSs
serving fewer than 10,000 people and those receiving a very small system waiver) must submit an IDSE
report to the state. While a "start date" was not specified by regulatory language, Table 3-1 includes a
suggested start date that  allows  enough time between the end of the monitoring period and preparation of
the report.  Systems should be notified of their requirements before the  suggested start date. Note that
states will generally not have primacy during implementation of the IDSE for systems on the early
schedule and will need to coordinate with EPA if they wish to be  involved in this process.

                   Table 3-1.  IDSE Reporting Schedule for Systems
Schedule Type
Early Schedule
Late Schedule
Applicable Systems
Subpart H and ground water
systems serving at least 10,000
people
Subpart H and ground water
systems serving less than 10,000
people that are part of a combined
distribution system with at least one
system serving 10,000 or more
people
Subpart and H and ground water
systems serving less than 10,000
people that are not part of a
combined distribution system with
at least one system serving 10,000
or more people
Suggested start date
[date 6 months
following publication
of final rule]
[date 30 months
following publication
of final rule]
IDSE Report Due
Date
\1 years after rule
promulgation]
[4 years after rule
promulgation]
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
57
November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Each system counts only its own population for the purpose of determining compliance with IDSE
requirements (i.e., a system that is part of a combined distribution system counts only the population
served within the service area under its direct control).  A wholesaler does not include the population
served by consecutive connections.  Likewise, a consecutive system counts only the population served
within its service area.  However, all systems that are part of a combined system must adhere to the
schedule of the largest wholesaler or consecutive system within the combined distribution system. Only
systems that buy water for at least 60 days per year should be included in a combined distribution system
EPA's Draft Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual (EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date)
provides additional detail and examples for how to determine which systems are part of combined
distribution systems and systems' IDSE report due date.

Stage 2A and Stage 2B Compliance

For Stage 2A, systems must continue to monitor for TTHM and HAAS at the locations required under the
Stage 1 DBPR (see 40 CFR 141.132). Using these monitoring results, systems must continue to
demonstrate  compliance with Stage 1 DBPR MCLs of 0.080 mg/L for TTHM and 0.060 mg/L for HAAS
based on aRAA (see 40 CFR 141.133). In addition, systems must comply with the Stage 2A MCLs of
0.120 mg/L for TTHM and 0.100 mg/L for HAAS  based on LRAA at each Stage  1 DBPR monitoring
location (proposed §141.64(b)(2)).  Systems  may require additional clarification that they are not
required to conduct any new monitoring for Stage  2A compliance. Rather, systems are using their Stage
1 data for two different compliance  calculations: Stage  1 DBPR RAA compliance, and  Stage 2A LRAA
compliance.

For Stage 2B, systems must begin complying with MCLs of 0.080 mg/L and 0.060 mg/L as LRAAs for
TTHM and HAAS, respectively, based on sampling sites identified through the IDSE provisions of the
rule (proposed §141.620(d)).  All systems must develop a Stage 2B monitoring plan (see sections 1.2.4.2
and 3.9) prior to the Stage 2B compliance date  shown in Table 3-2 (proposed §141.622 (a)). SubpartH
systems serving more than 3,300 people must submit their plan to the state prior to these compliance
dates. States may wish to include information on the specific content of the monitoring plan and
consider developing and providing forms or templates for the system's use.

Table 3-2 summarizes the compliance deadlines for Stage 2A and Stage 2B.  States should communicate
compliance requirements with systems in advance  of these deadlines. States may wish to stagger the
notification of the Stage 2A and Stage 2B requirements since these occur at different times. One
suggestion would be a Stage 2A notification  with a brief overview of upcoming Stage 2B requirements,
followed by a more detailed Stage 2B notification  as Stage 2B compliance dates approach.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        58                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
              Table 3-2.  Compliance Schedule for Stage 2A and Stage 2B
System Type
Subpart H2 and ground water
systems serving >10,000 people
Systems serving <10,000 people
not required to do LT2ESWTR
Cryptosporidium monitoring
Systems serving <10,000 people
required to do LT2ESWTR
Cryptosporidium monitoring
Compliance Date for Stage 2A MCLs
[date 36 months following publication of
final rule]
[date 36 months following publication of
final rule]
[date 36 months following publication of
final rule]
Compliance Date for Stage 2B
MCLs1
[date 72 months following
publication of final rule]
[date 90 months following
publication of final rule]
[date 102 months following
publication of final rule]
1 States can grant systems an additional 2-year extension if capital improvements
MCLs.
2 Subpart H systems are those that use surface water or GWUDI as a source and,
also includes consecutive systems that deliver such water.
                   are necessary to comply with the

                   for the purpose of this guidance,
3.3.2   Methods of Communication

Written Notification

Providing written notice of a final rule to PWSs serves two purposes: 1) the receiving system obtains a
formal notice of upcoming regulatory requirements and a timeline for compliance (in addition to EPA's
publication of the rule in the Federal Register); and 2) the primacy agency has a hard-copy document
that it may file and use in subsequent compliance tracking efforts.

Written notification can be in the form of a letter from the state to affected systems. The letter should
include a summary of rule requirements and timeframes and direct the reader to an appropriate contact if
questions arise. States should consider including fact sheets or other summary materials with the letter.
Appendix C of this guidance includes additional draft publications that are intended to be distributed to
water systems through mailings, training sessions, or other educational forums. These publications will
be available at www.epa.gov/safewater/stage2/index.html. They provide overviews of the Stage 2 DBPR
to help systems understand the provisions of the rule and determine which provisions apply to their
system. They also describe the benefits and general implications of the rule. Although valuable, these
resources do not substitute for official rule language.  States should consider mailing official rule
language with the letter or including in the letter the website address where the regulatory language can
be accessed.

A sample letter is provided as Example 3-1. In this example, the letter is tailored to systems based on
their compliance deadlines.  Systems may wish to further tailor the letter to accommodate those systems
for which the provisions are either limited or unique.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
59
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Slide Presentation

For some, written communication alone will not result in full comprehension of the Stage 2 DBPR
requirements.  Slide presentations can be used by state staff and other training providers to present the
background of the rule, its benefits, and rule requirements.

The EPA Drinking Water Academy will develop a training session on the Stage 2 DBPR (available in
MS PowerPoint format). Copies of the presentation may be used to train other state personnel, technical
assistance providers, water system personnel, and the public. EPA's Drinking Water Academy slides
will be available electronically by accessing the EPA Web Site at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwa.html.

Guidance Documents and Seminars

Draft technical guidance documents developed for the Stage 2 DBPR are useful for explaining rule
requirements and specific aspects of rule implementation, to system operators.  These aspects include
conducting IDSEs and calculating LRAA MCL compliance. The draft guidance documents can be used
as stand-alone references or as supporting materials in Stage 2 DBPR-related training events. See section
2 of this manual for more information on these references.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        60                                 November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
                     Example 3-1. Example System Notification Letter
 State Letterhead

 John Smith, Supt.
 Town Water System, PWSID XXXXXXX
 Town, ST 12345

 RE: Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

 Dear Mr. Smith:

 This letter is to notify you that your public water system will be affected by the Stage 2 Disinfectants and
 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR).  The Stage 2 DBPR applies to all community water systems
 (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) that treat their water with a primary or
 secondary disinfectant (other than ultraviolet light) or deliver water that has been treated with such a disinfectant.
 You are receiving this letter because our data shows your system is a CWS or NTNCWS that applies a disinfectant
 or delivers disinfected water.

 The Stage 2 DBPR maintains the same MCLs requirements as established under the Stage 1 DBPR for TTHM and
 HAA5—levels in the distribution system as a system-wide running annual average (RAA)—but also requires
 systems to calculate compliance based on locational running annual averages (LRAA). This means that your
 system will have to comply with MCLs at each sampling location in the distribution system.

 To identify optimal monitoring locations, your system must conduct an initial distribution system evaluation
 (IDSE) [OR: because your systems is an NTNCWS and serves less than 10,000 people, you do not have to comply
 with the initial distribution system evaluation requirements of the rule - end this paragraph here for  these systems].
 Because your system serves at least 10,000 people [OR: because your system is part of a combined distribution
 system with one or more systems serving at least 10,000 people], you must complete an IDSE and submit a report
 no later than [insert date 2 years after rule promulgation]. [OR: Because your system serves fewer than 10,000
 people, you must complete an IDSE and submit a report no later than [insert date 4 years after rule promulgation].]

 The Stage 2 DBPR will be implemented in two phases: Stage 2A and Stage 2B.  Systems must begin to comply
 with the transitional (Stage 2A) monitoring requirements and LRAA MCLs beginning [insert date 3  years after rule
 promulgation]. Permanent new (Stage 2B) monitoring requirements and MCLs will go into effect [insert date 6
 years after rule promulgation] for large systems serving at least 10,000 people [OR: [insert date 7.5 years after rule
 promulgation] for small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, OR: [insert date 2 years  after rule
 promulgation] for small systems that are required to monitor for Cryptosporidium under the Long Term 2
 Enhanced Surface  Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)]. Systems that are undergoing capital improvements to
 meet new requirements may be eligible for compliance extensions of up to 2 years. If your system is making
 capital improvements that will affect compliance with these requirements, notify the state as soon as possible to
 discuss obtaining an extension.

 A Draft Quick Reference Guide and Fact Sheet for the Stage 2 DBPR are enclosed. The Guide provides more
 information on this regulation and the Fact Sheet explains the IDSE, monitoring, and MCL requirements in more
 detail. In addition to these materials, please refer to the final rule language on EPA's webiste [website address].

 Please contact this office at XXX-XXXX if you have any questions about this letter or the Stage 2 DBPR and its
 effect on your system. We appreciate your attention to this request.

 Sincerely,
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         61                                     November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
3.4     Update Data Management Systems
Although state data management systems vary to suit state-specific requirements and needs, EPA
recommends that all states ensure that their data management systems are capable of efficiently tracking
affected water systems, compliance status, and other information needed to implement this rule. States
using SDWIS/State should see the module incorporated in version [X].

The Stage 2 DBPR revises the system recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 141.33, clarifying the
requirement that systems must maintain records of monitoring plans submitted until superceded by a new
system monitoring plan.  The current regulations in 40 CFR 142.14 require states with primacy to keep
various records, including: analytical results to determine compliance with MCLs, MRDLs, and
treatment technique requirements; system inventories; state approvals; enforcement actions; and the
issuance of variances and exemptions.  The Stage 2 DBPR requires that the state keep records related to
any decisions made pursuant to IDSE requirements and Stage 2B DBP requirements, plus copies of IDSE
reports submitted by systems until those reports are reversed or revised in their entirety.

3.5     Address Special Primacy Conditions of the Stage 2  DBPR

Some provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR allow state discretion in establishing decision-making criteria.
The five main provisions for which states must make a timely decision on what they will require of
systems are (proposed §142.16):

               States that intend to use the authority to grant blanket waivers for IDSE requirements to
               very small systems (serving less than 500 people) must comply with special primacy
               provisions for granting such waivers.

               States must develop a procedure for evaluating system-specific studies under, if
               system-specific studies are conducted in the state.

               States must establish a procedure for determining that multiple consecutive system entry
               points from a single wholesale system to a single consecutive system should be treated
               as a single treatment plant for monitoring purposes.

               States that intend to use the authority to specify alternative monitoring requirements for
               consecutive systems in a combined distribution system must include a description of
               how they intend to implement that authority.

               States must establish criteria for determining when a significant excursion has occurred.

The special primacy requirements for the Stage 2 DBPR address these discretionary items and are
discussed in section 4.4 of this guidance.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        62                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
3.6     Consult with Systems Regarding IDSE
With the exception of NTNCWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people and CWSs serving fewer than 500
people that receive a very small system waiver, all systems (including consecutive systems) must perform
an IDSE. There are three possible ways to satisfy the IDSE requirement: 1) monitor for TTHM and
HAAS for 1 year at a number of sample points throughout the distribution system, 2) perform a system-
specific study, or 3) provide 40/30 certification. States may need to consult with systems that have
questions about which alternative they will use to comply with this requirement. These options are
explained in more  detail below.

3.6.1    Standard Monitoring Program Alternative

The SMP option for the IDSE is the default—if a system does not get a waiver, cannot use the 40/30
certification option, and does not have enough data or studies to complete an SSS, they must conduct
monitoring under the SMP. EPA has developed a draft guidance document on selecting IDSE monitoring
sites and conducting IDSE monitoring (Draft Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual
(EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date)).

The SMP entails 1 year of distribution system monitoring on a set schedule.  EPA has developed two
monitoring schemes for the SMP based on whether or not a system treats water:

              A  plant-based approach for producing systems that is dependent on population served,
              source water, AND the number of plants in a system (as with Stage 1 DBPR compliance
              monitoring) and applies to systems that produce some or all of their own finished water.
              For the purpose of the Stage 2 DBPR, a plant can be either a treatment plant (that
              provides, at a minimum, disinfection using a disinfectant other than UV) or a consecutive
              system entry point that operates for at least 60 consecutive days per year.

              A  population-based approach for 100 percent purchasing systems that is dependent on
              population served and source water and applies to only those systems that purchase 100
              percent of their finished water from other systems.

Tables 3-3 and 3-4 present the IDSE SMP requirements for 100 percent purchasing systems and
producing systems, respectively.

Systems conducting the SMP must monitor during the peak historical month for DBP levels (or warmest
water temperature  when quarterly TTHM data is not available). All IDSE samples must be taken as dual
sample sets (i.e., a TTHM and a HAAS sample will be taken at each site). The IDSE monitoring results
will not be used for determining compliance with MCLs and are not required to be reported in the CCR.

When notifying consecutive systems of these requirements, states may wish to send copies of the
correspondence to  the associated wholesale systems to minimize confusion about sampling
responsibilities.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        63                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
          Table 3-3.  IDSE Monitoring Requirements for Producing Systems
                                                                                       1,2
System Size
(Population
Served3)
Residual
Disinfectant
Number of Distribution System Sites (by
location type) per Plant
Near
Entry
Point
Average
Residence
Time
High
TTHM
High
HAAS
Total Number
of Sites per
Plant
Monitoring
Frequency4
Subpart H Systems5
<500
500 - 9,999
>10,000
Chlorine or
Chloramines
Chlorine or
Chloramines
Chlorine
Chloramines
-
-
1
2
-
-
2
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
8
8
Every 180
days
Every 90
days
Every 60
days
Ground Water Systems
<10,000
>10,000
Chlorine or
Chloramines
Chlorine or
Chloramines
-
-
-
-
1
1
1
1
2
2
Every 180
days
Every 90
days
  Proposed § 141.602(a)
  For the purpose of this guidance manual, producing systems are those that do not buy 100 percent of their water
  year-round (i.e., they produce some or all of their own finished water).
  Population served is usually a system's residential population. It does not include populations served by
  consecutive systems that purchase water from that system.
  Monitoring frequency is the approximate number of days between monitoring events. A dual sample set must be
  collected at each location.  A dual sample set is one TTHM and one HAA5 sample that is taken at the same time
  and location.
  Subpart H systems are those that use surface water or GWUDI as a source and, for the purpose of this guidance,
  also includes consecutive systems that deliver such water.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
64
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
      Table 3-4.  IDSE SMP Requirements for 100 Percent Purchasing Systems
                                                                                            1,2
System Size
(Population Served3)
Number of Distribution System
Sites (by location type) per System
Near
Entry
Point4
Average
Residence
Time
High
TTHM
High
HAAS
Total Number
of Sites per
System
Monitoring
Frequency for
the 1-year IDSE
Period5
Subpart H Systems6
<500
500 - 4,999
5,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 24,999
25,000 - 49,999
50,000 - 99,999
100,000 - 499,999
500,000 -< 1.5 million
1.5 million - < 5 million
> 5 million
-
-
-
1
2
3
4
6
8
10
-
-
1
2
o
3
4
6
8
10
12
1
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
12
14
1
1
1
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
2
2
4
8
12
16
24
32
40
48
Every 180 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 60 days
Every 60 days
Every 60 days
Every 60 days
Every 60 days
Every 60 days
Every 60 days
Ground Water Systems
<500
500 - 9,999
10,000 - 99,999
100,000 - 499,999
> 500,000
-
-
1
1
2
-
-
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
3
4
2
2
6
8
12
Every 180 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
Every 90 days
1  Proposed § 141.602(b)
2  For the purposes of this manual, 100 percent purchasing systems are those systems that buy or otherwise receive
  all of their finished water from one or more wholesale systems year-round.
3  Population served is usually a system's residential population. It does not include populations served by
  consecutive systems that purchase water from that system.
4  See section 8.2 for requirements when the number of entry points in a system is different from the number of
  required near-entry point sites in this table.
5  Monitoring frequency is the approximate number of days between monitoring events. A dual sample set must be
  collected at each location. A dual sample set is one TTHM and one HAA5 sample that is taken at the same time
  and location.
6  Subpart H systems are those that use surface water or GWUDI as a source and, for the purpose of this guidance,
  also includes  consecutive systems that deliver such water.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
65
November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
3.6.2  SSS Alternative

To comply with the IDSE requirement, systems may choose to perform a SSS based on other monitoring
studies or data.  These studies must identify equivalent or superior monitoring sites representing high
TTHM and HAAS levels as would be identified by IDSE monitoring (proposed §141.603 (a)). Examples
of alternative studies include recent site-specific monitoring data that encompass a wide range of sample
sites, including those judged to target high TTHM and HAAS concentrations, and hydraulic modeling
studies that simulate water movement in the distribution system. Historical TTHM and HAAS results
submitted by systems must come from certified laboratories and must include the system's most recent
data. Treatment plant and distribution system characteristics at the time of historical data collection must
reflect the current plant operations and distribution system. The state must submit criteria for evaluating
SSSs as part of their primacy application (see section 4.4 for guidance on developing this criteria). The
Draft Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual (EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date) provides
additional information on conducting system-specific studies and determining whether system-specific
data could be sufficient to meet the IDSE requirements.

3.6.3  40/30 Certification Alternative

Systems demonstrating low historic TTHM and HAAS distribution system concentrations in accordance
with the Stage 2 DBPR requirements may qualify for the 40/30 certification.  Systems must meet the
following criteria to qualify (proposed §141.603(b)):

               All individual TTHM compliance data must be less than or equal to 0.040 mg/L, and
               all individual HAAS compliance data must be less than or equal to 0.030 mg/L during
               the periods specified in  Table 3-5.

       •       No TTHM or HAAS monitoring violations during the period specified in Table 3-5.

       •       All monitoring data must have been analyzed by a certified laboratory (per Stage 1
               DBPR compliance monitoring requirements).

Consecutive  systems that did not take the number of samples required  of its size and source water type
under the Stage  1 DBPR are not eligible for the 40/30 certification (proposed §141.601 (a)).  The Stage 1
DBPR allowed the state to allocate sample sites across a combined distribution  system at their discretion.
As a result, some systems may have few or no sample sites and thus insufficient data to support a 40/30
certification.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        66                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
 Table 3-5.  Compliance Monitoring Data Requirements for the 40/30 Certification1
Source Water
Type
Subpart H
Ground water
Population Served2
>10,000 people
<10,000 people that have a system
serving >10,000 people in their combined
distribution system4
<10,000 people that do not have a system
serving >10,000 people in their combined
distribution system4
>10,000 people
<10,000 people that have a system
serving >10,000 people in their combined
distribution system4
<10,000 people that do not have a system
serving >10,000 people in their combined
distribution system4
Regulation and Monitoring Period3
Stage 1 DBPR compliance data from January 2002
to December 2003
Stage 1 DBPR compliance data collected in 2004
Stage 1 DBPR compliance data from January 2004
to December 2005
TTHM Rule compliance data from 2003 and Stage
1 DBPR compliance collected in 2004
Stage 1 DBPR compliance data collected in 2004
Stage 1 DBPR compliance data from January 2004
to December 2005
1  Proposed § 141.603(b)
2  Population served is usually a system's retail population. It should not include populations served by consecutive
  systems that purchase water from that system.
3  All data must have been analyzed by a certified laboratory and done by approved methods (as required by the
  Stage 1 DBPR).  In addition, systems must not have had any TTHM or HAA5 monitoring violations during the
  period specified.
4  A combined distribution system is the totality of the distribution system of all wholesale systems and the
  consecutive systems that receive finished water from the wholesale systems.

3.7        Evaluate Waivers to IDSE Requirements for Systems Serving Fewer than
           500  People

The IDSE requirement for systems  serving fewer than 500 people may be waived if the state determines
that the monitoring  site approved for Stage 1 DBPR compliance is sufficient to represent both high
HAAS and high TTHM concentrations.  States may decide to waive the IDSE requirement for all systems
serving fewer than 500 people or some subset of all systems serving fewer than 500 people.  To issue
blanket waivers, states must develop a very small system waiver procedure and submit it as part of their
primacy package (see section 4.4 for guidance on how to develop a very small system waiver procedure).
In cases where states have not granted blanket waivers, states must make system-by-system
determinations.

States can evaluate small system configuration and operating data to make system-by-system waiver
determinations. For many systems  with compact or small distribution systems, the high TTHM and
HAA5 concentrations will likely occur at the same location. This is because both TTHM and HAA5
tend to continue to form in drinking water as long as disinfectant residuals and DBF precursors are
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
67
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
present. Unlike TTHM, however, HAAS is known to biodegrade when disinfectant residuals are low.
EPA's Draft Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual (EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date)
lists system conditions that indicate that the highest TTHM and HAAS concentrations may not occur at
the same location:

           Inability to maintain a disinfectant residual in all parts of the system.  Areas with very low or
           no disinfectant residual can have long residence times and may have some biological
           activity. These areas may have high TTHM concentrations due to long residence time but
           less-than-maximum HAAS concentrations due to biodegradation in the distribution system.

           High levels of heterotrophic bacteria (if data are available). Elevated levels of heterotrophic
           bacteria in the distribution system (especially if these high levels occur repeatedly) may
           reflect environmental  conditions that promote biofilm growth and, thus, have the potential
           for HAAS biodegradation.

           TTHM concentration much greater than HAAS concentration at the Stage 1 DBPR
           monitoring site (possibly indicating degradation of HAAS in the sample location area).  As a
           rule of thumb, EPA recommends that systems consider selecting a different monitoring site
           to represent high HAAS if their Stage 1 DBPR TTHM data are, on average, more than 4
           times greater than Stage 1 DBPR HAAS data.

These guidelines are not all-inclusive—TTHM and HAAS formation depends on many system-specific
factors.  States should determine if there are other factors that affect small systems in their state. If the
highest TTHM and HAAS concentrations do not occur at the same location and the state does not grant
the waiver, systems must perform  an IDSE.

States with a high number of small systems may wish to conduct special technical assistance or training
efforts, depending upon the specific state approach used for small system waivers.

3.8        Review/Approve System  Requests to Consider Multiple Consecutive
           System Entry Points from a Single Wholesale System as One Plant

States can allow multiple consecutive system entry points from a single wholesale system to a single
consecutive system to be considered as one treatment plant for IDSE requirements and Stage 2B DBPR
compliance monitoring. System requests must demonstrate that factors such as relative locations of entry
points, detention times, sources, and the presence of treatment (such as corrosion  control or booster
disinfection) will have a minimal differential effect on TTHM and HAAS formation associated with
individual entry points. States must submit criteria for evaluating these requests as part of their primacy
application (see section 4.4).

States should consider notifying systems that requests must be received sufficiently in advance of the
dates for IDSE reporting (proposed §141.600(c)) and for Stage 2B compliance (proposed §141.620(c)) to
allow for state review.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        68                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
3.9        Review/Approve IDSE Reports and Stage 2 DBPR Monitoring Plans

All systems affected by the Stage 2 DBPR (except NTNCWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people and
those receiving a very small system waiver) must submit an IDSE report to the state. The IDSE report
must include:

  •        The original IDSE monitoring plan and an explanation of any deviations from that plan.

  •        Information regarding the population served; system type (Subpart H or ground water);
           consecutive or wholesale system; and the number of treatment plants and consecutive system
           entry points (for plant-based monitoring).

  •        A schematic of the distribution system (with results, location, and date of all samples noted).

  •        All SSS analytical results or modeling in a tabular or spreadsheet format and any additional
           data used to justify monitoring site selection.

  •        Studies, reports, data, analytical results, and/or modeling demonstrating that the
           recommended monitoring sites representing high TTHM and HAAS levels are comparable or
           superior to those that would otherwise have  been identified by IDSE monitoring (for systems
           that conduct the SSS alternative).

  •        All IDSE TTHM and HAAS analytical results in a tabular or spreadsheet format (for systems
           that conduct IDSE monitoring).

  •        Data demonstrating that  all samples are less than or equal to 0.040 mg/L TTHM and 0.030
           mg/L HAAS (for systems that qualify for the 40/30 waiver).

  •        Recommendations for TTHM and HAAS Stage 2B DBPR compliance monitoring sites.

Generally, systems that conduct monitoring must recommend locations with the highest LRAAs to be
Stage 2B compliance locations, unless they provide a rationale for selecting other locations (see proposed
§141.605).  Systems must consider both their Stage 1 compliance data and the IDSE monitoring data in
making this determination. EPA has developed guidance (Draft Initial Distribution System Evaluation
Guidance Manual (EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date)) for selecting new monitoring sites including
examples of when it may be appropriate to select sites that are not the highest and how to prepare the
IDSE report.

All systems must develop a Stage 2 DBPR monitoring plan that includes the following information:
monitoring locations, monitoring dates, compliance calculation procedures, and copies of any permits,
contracts, or other agreements with third parties to sample, analyze, report, or perform any other system
requirement (proposed §141.622 (a)). Subpart H system serving more than 3,300 people must submit
their monitoring plan to the state prior to the date they are required to comply with the plan. Systems in a
combined distribution system must include the above information as well as monitoring plans for other
systems in the combined distribution system if their monitoring requirements have been modified based
on data from other sytems. The monitoring plan must reflect recommendations of the IDSE report and
any state-mandated changes to the report.  Systems serving fewer than 500 people that receive a waiver to
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        69                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
the IDSE must comply by updating their Stage 1 DBPR monitoring plan (see 40 CFR 141.132(f)). The
system must sample according to the monitoring plan as modified by any changes required by the state.

It is important to note that systems previously on reduced monitoring for the Stage 2 DBPR may not
begin Stage 2B on reduced monitoring.  Systems can qualify for reduced monitoring only after
completing 1 year of routine monitoring under Stage 2B.

While the rule does not explicitly require states to approve the IDSE reports or monitoring plans, EPA
strongly recommends that states undertake this activity. This is to ensure that the monitoring locations
are selected appropriately and in a manner to provide data to best protect public health.

3.10      Evaluate System Requests for Compliance Schedule Extensions

Under section  1412(b)(10) of the SDWA, the state may grant up to a 2-year extension on a system-by-
system basis for systems requiring capital improvements to meet Stage 2A. Systems must comply with
the Stage 2A transitional LRAA MCLs for TTHM and HAAS by [insert 3 years after rule promulgation]
but, with a 2-year extension, could have up to [insert 5 years after rule promulgation] to comply.

Proposed §141.620(c) allows states to grant up to an additional 24 months from the dates listed for
compliance with Stage 2B if a system requires capital improvements.

In either case, the state should have the system enter into an extension agreement, with construction
milestones and interim activities that the system will undertake to protect public health during this
extension period.  States may wish to develop information and procedures on the specific content of the
extension request and consider developing and providing forms or templates for the system's use.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        70                                November 2003

-------
Section 4	
State Primacy Revision
Application

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
40 CFR 142 sets out requirements for states to obtain and/or retain primary enforcement responsibility
(primacy) for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program as authorized by section 1413 of
the SDWA. The 1996 SDWA Amendments update the process for states to obtain and/or retain primacy.
On April 28, 1998, EPA promulgated the Primacy Rule to reflect these statutory changes (63 FR 23361).
4.1
State Primacy Program Revision
Pursuant to 40 CFR 142.12 (Revision of State Programs), complete and final requests for approval of
program revisions to adopt new or revised EPA regulations must be submitted to the EPA Administrator
no later than 2 years after promulgation of the new or revised federal regulations (see Table 4-1).  Until
those applications are approved, EPA regions have responsibility for directly implementing the Stage 2
DBPR.  The state and EPA can agree to implement the rule together during this period.  However, if a
state is eligible for interim primacy, it will have full implementation and enforcement authority once it
submits a complete and final revision package. A state may be granted an extension of time, up to 2
years, to submit its application package. During any extension period, an extension agreement outlining
the state's and EPA's responsibilities is required.

Table 4-1.  State Rule Implementation and Revision Timetable for the Stage 2 DBPR
EPA/State Action
Rule published by EPA
State and region establish a process and agree upon a schedule for
application review and approval (optional)
State, at its option, submits draft program revision package to region
including: Preliminary Approval Request, Draft State Regulations and/or
Statutes, Regulation Crosswalk
Regional (and Headquarters if necessary) review of draft
State submits final program revision package to region including:
Adopted State Regulations
Regulation Crosswalk
40 CFR 142.10 Primacy Update Checklist
40 CFR 142. 14 and 142. 15 Reporting and Recordkeeping
40 CFR 142.16 Special Primacy Requirements
Attorney General' sEnforceability Certification
EPA final review and determination:
Regional Review (program and ORC)
Headquarters Concurrence and Waivers (OGWDW and OECA)
Public Notice
Opportunity for Hearing
EPA's Determination
Rule Compliance Date
Time Frame
[insert date]
2 months after rule publication
[insert date]
6 months after rule publication
[insert date]
Completed within 90 days of state
submittal of draft (Suggested)
2 years after rule publication
[insert date]*
Completed within 90 days of state
submittal of final
45 days region
45 days Headquarters**
[insert date]
* EPA suggests submitting an application by [insert date] to ensure timely approval.  EPA regulations allow states
until [insert date] for this submittal. An extension of up to 2 additional years may be requested by the state.
** At least one state per region.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
                                   73
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
4.1.1  The Revision Process

The approval of state program revisions should be a two-step process comprised of submission of a draft
request (optional) and submission of a complete and final request for program approval.  Figure 4-1
diagrams these processes and their timing.

Draft Request—The state may submit a draft request for EPA review and tentative determination. The
request should contain drafts of all required primacy application materials (with the exception of a draft
Attorney General's Statement). A draft request should be submitted within 9 months after rule
promulgation. EPA will make a tentative determination as to whether the state program meets the
applicable requirements. The tentative determination should be made within 90 days.

Complete and Final Request—This submission must be in accordance with 40 CFR 142.12(c)(l) and
(2) and include the Attorney General's statement. The state must also include its response to any
comments and/or program deficiencies identified in the tentative determination  (if applicable). Regions
should make states aware that submission of only a final request may make it more difficult for the states
to address any necessary changes within the allowable time for state rule adoption.

EPA recommends that states submit their complete and final revision package within 21 months  of rule
promulgation. This will ensure that states will have interim primacy as soon as  possible and will prevent
states from becoming backlogged with revision applications to adopt future federal requirements.

The state and region should agree to a plan and timetable for submitting the state primacy revision
application as soon as possible after rule promulgation—ideally within 5 months of promulgation.

4.1.2  The Final Review Process

Once a state application is complete and final, EPA has a regulatory (and statutory) deadline of 90 days
to review and approve or disapprove the revised program.  The Offices of Ground Water and Drinking
Water (OGWDW) and Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) will conduct detailed reviews
of the first state  package from each region. The regional office should submit its comments with the
state's package for review by Headquarters (HQ). When the region has identified all significant issues,
OGWDW and OECA will waive concurrence on all other state programs in that region, although HQ will
retain the option to review additional state programs as appropriate. The Office of General Counsel
(OGC) has delegated its review and approval to the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC).

In order to meet the 90-day deadline for packages undergoing review by HQ, the review period will be
equally split, giving the region and Headquarters each 45 days to conduct their respective reviews. For
the first package in each region, regions should forward copies of the primacy revision applications and
their evaluations, no later than 45  days after state submittal, to the Drinking Water Protection Division
Director in OGWDW, who will take the lead on the HQ review process.  OGWDW will provide  OECA
with a copy for their concurrent review.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        74                                  November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
   Example 4-1. Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of
                                     Program Revisions
          State Request for
        Extension §142.12(b)
                                EPA Promulgates the Stage 2
                                         DBPR
                               Establish Process and Tentative
                                   Schedule for State Rule
                                        Approval
                                          I
                                 State Submits Draft Primacy
                                Revision Application to EPA
                                 (optional) §142.12(d)(l)(i)
                                          I
  EPA Review and Tentative
Determination (suggested within
   90days)§142.12(d)(l)(ii)
                                 State Submits Complete and
                                  Final Primacy Revision
                                    Application to EPA
                                       §142.12(d)(2)
                               EPA Review and Determination
                                (within 90 days) §142.12(d)(3)
                                                                      Timeline
                                                                        Start
                               [insert date]
[insert date]
                               [insert date]
                                               2 Months
                6 Months
                               [insert date]  -^1   By 24 Months '
     1 Start date may be extended if state grants system additional time
4.2     State Primacy Program Revision Extensions
4.2.1   The Extension Process

Under 40 CFR 142.12(b), states may request that the 2-year deadline for submitting the complete and
final packages for EPA approval of program revisions be extended for up to 2 additional years in certain
circumstances.  The extension request must be submitted to EPA within 2 years of the date that EPA
published the regulation. The Regional Administrator has been delegated authority to approve extension
applications.  Concurrence by HQ on extensions is not required.

Therefore, the state must either adopt regulations pertaining to the Stage 2 DBPR and submit a complete
and final primacy revision application or request an extension of up to 2 years by [insert date: 2 years
after Stage 2 DBPR promulgation].
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
                75
                     November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
4.2.2  Criteria that an Extension Request Must Meet

For an extension to be granted under 40 CFR 142.12(b), the state must demonstrate that it is requesting
the extension because it cannot meet the original deadline for reasons beyond its control, despite a good
faith effort to do so. A critical part of the extension application is the state's proposed schedule for
submission of its complete and final request for approval. The application must also demonstrate at least
one of the following:

       (i)     That the state currently lacks the legislative or regulatory authority to enforce the new or
               revised requirements;

       (ii)     That the state currently lacks the program capability adequate to implement the new or
               revised requirements; or,

       (iii)    That the state is requesting the extension to group two or more program revisions in a
               single legislative or regulatory action.

In addition, the state must implement EPA requirements in its program revision within the scope of its
current authority and capabilities.

4.2.3  Conditions of the Extension

Until the State Primacy Revision Application has been submitted, the state and appropriate EPA regional
office will share responsibility for implementing the primary program elements as indicated in the
extension agreement.  The state and the EPA regional office should discuss these elements and address
terms of responsibility in the agreement.

These conditions will be determined during the extension approval process and are decided on a case-by-
case basis. The conditions must be included in an extension agreement between the state and the EPA
regional office.

Conditions of an extension agreement may include:

       •       Informing PWSs of the new EPA  (and upcoming state) requirements and the fact that the
               region will be overseeing implementation of the requirements until they approve the state
               program revisions or until the state submits a complete and final revision package if the
               state qualifies for interim primacy.

       •       Collecting, storing, and managing laboratory results, public notices, and other
               compliance and operation data required by the EPA regulations.

       •       Assisting the region in the development of the technical aspects of enforcement actions
               and conducting informal follow-up on violations (telephone calls, letters, etc.).

       •       Providing technical assistance to PWSs.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         76                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
               For states whose request for an extension is based on a current lack of program
               capability adequate to implement the new requirements, taking steps agreed to by the
               region and the state during the extension period to remedy the deficiency.

       •       Providing the region with all the information required under 40 CFR 142.15 for state
               reporting.

Figure 4-2 provides a checklist the states and EPA regions can use to review state extensions or to create
an extension agreement.

Until states have primacy, EPA is the primacy enforcement authority. However,  historically states have
played a role in implementation for various reasons—most importantly, since states have local
knowledge, expertise, and established relationships with their systems.

The state and EPA should be viewed as partners in this effort, working toward two very specific public
health-related goals. The first goal is to achieve a high level of compliance with the regulation. The
second goal is to facilitate successful implementation of the regulation during the transition period before
the state has primacy, including interim primacy, for the rule. In order to accomplish these goals,
education, training, and technical assistance will need to be provided to water suppliers on their
responsibilities under the Stage 2 DBPR.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        77                                  November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
                  Example 4-2.  Example Extension Request Checklist

   ate}
{Regional Administrator}
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region {Region}
{Street Address}
{City. State. Zip}

RE: Request/approval for an Extension Agreement
Dear {Regional Administrator}:

       The State of {State} is requesting an extension to the date that final primacy revisions are due to
EPA for the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR) until {insert date -
no later than 4 years after the final rule is published in the Federal Register}, as allowed by 40 CFR
142.12, and would appreciate your approval.  Staff of the {State Department/Agency} have conferred
with your staff and  have agreed to the requirements listed below for this extension.  This extension is
being requested because the  State  of {State}:

Q     Is planning to group two or more program revisions into a single legislative or regulatory action.

Q     Currently lacks the legislative or regulatory authority to enforce the new or revised requirements.

Q     Currently lacks adequate program capability to implement the new or revised requirements.

       {State Department/Agency} will be working with EPA to implement the Stage 2 DBPR within
the  scope of its current authority and capability, as outlined in the six areas identified in 142.12(b)(3)(i-
vi):

i) Informing PWSs of the new EPA (and upcoming state) requirements and the fact that EPA will
be overseeing implementation of the requirements until EPA approves the state revision.

State   EPA
	   	    Provide copies of regulation and guidance to other state agencies, public water systems
               (PWSs), technical assistance providers, associations, or other interested parties.
	   	    Educate and coordinate with state staff, PWSs, the public, and other water associations
               about the requirements of this regulation.
	   	    Notify affected systems of their requirements under the Stage 2 DBPR.
	   	    Other:

ii) Collecting, storing, and managing laboratory results, public notices, and other compliance and
operation data required by the EPA regulations.

State   EPA
	   	    Devise a tracking  system for PWS reporting pursuant to the Stage 2 DBPR.

Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        78                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
               Keep PWSs informed of reporting requirements during development and
               implementation.
               Report Stage 2 DBPR violation and enforcement information to SDWIS as required.
               Other:
iii) Assisting EPA in the development of the technical aspects of the enforcement actions and
conducting informal follow-up and violations (telephones calls, letters, etc.).

State   EPA
	   	   Issue notices of violation (NOVs) for treatment technique, MCL, and monitoring/
               reporting violations of the  Stage 2 DBPR.
	   	   Provide immediate technical assistance to PWSs with MCL and/or monitoring/reporting
               violations to try to bring them into compliance.
	   	   Refer all violations to EPA for enforcement if they have not been resolved within 60
               days. Provide information as requested to conduct and complete any enforcement action
               referred to EPA.
	   	   Other:

iv) Providing technical assistance to PWSs.

State   EPA
	   	   Conduct training within the state for PWSs on Stage 2 DBPR rule requirements.
	   	   Provide technical assistance through written and/or verbal correspondence with PWSs.
	   	   Provide on-site technical assistance to PWSs as requested and needed to ensure
               compliance  with this regulation.
	   	   Coordinate with other technical assistance providers and organization to provide accurate
               information and aid in a timely manner.
               Other:
v) Providing EPA with all information prescribed by the state reporting requirements in 142.15.

State   EPA
	   	   Report any violations of this regulation by PWSs each quarter.
	   	   Report any enforcement actions taken against PWSs for this regulation each quarter.
	   	   Report any variances or exemptions granted for PWSs for this regulation each quarter.
               Other:
vi)  For states whose request for an extension is based on a current lack of program capability to
implement the new or revised requirements, taking the following steps to remedy the capability
deficiency.

State   EPA
	   	  Acquire additional resources to implement these regulations (list of specific steps being
              taken attached as {List A}).
	   	  Provide quarterly updates describing the status of acquiring additional resources.
              Other:
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        79                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
I affirm that the {State Department/Agency} will implement provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR as outlined
above.
{Agency Director or Secretary}                                                 Date
{Name of State Agency}
I have consulted with my staff and approve your extension for the aforementioned regulation. I affirm
that EPA Region {Region} will implement provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR as outlined above.
Regional Administrator                                                  Date
EPA Region {Region}
This Extension Agreement will take effect upon the date of the last signature.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        80                                November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
4.3    State Primacy Package
The Primacy Revision Application package should consist of the following sections:
       U      State Primacy Revision Checklist
       U     Text of the State's Regulation
       U     Primacy Revision Crosswalk
       U     State Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist
       U     Special Primacy Requirements
       U     Attorney General's Statement of Enforceability

4.3.1  The State Primacy Revision Checklist [40 CFR 142.12(c)(l)]

This section is a checklist of general primacy requirements, taken from 40 CFR 142.10, as shown in
Table 4.2. In completing this checklist, the state must identify the program elements that it has revised in
response to new federal requirements. If an element has been revised, the state should indicate a "Yes"
answer in the "Revision to State Program" column and should  submit appropriate documentation.  For
elements that did not require revision, the state need only list the citation and date of adoption in the
"Revision to State Program" column. During the application review process, EPA will insert findings
and comments in the final column.

States must have primacy or interim primacy for all existing regulations before they can receive primacy
for this regulation.

States may bundle the primacy revision packages for multiple rules. If states choose to bundle
requirements, the Attorney General's Statement should reference  all of the rules included.

4.3.2  Text of the State's Regulation

Each primacy application package should include the text of the state regulation.

4.3.3  Primacy Revision Crosswalk

The Primacy Revision Crosswalk, found in Appendix A, should be completed by states in order to
identify state  statutory or regulatory provisions that correspond to each federal requirement. If the state's
provisions differ from federal requirements, the state should explain how its requirements are  "no less
stringent."
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        81                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
                      Table 4-2. State Primacy Revision Checklist
Required Program Elements
40CFR
142.10(b)(6)(iii)
40CFR
142.10(b)(6)(iv)
40CFR
142.10(b)(6)(v)
40CFR
142.10(b)(6)(vi)
40CFR
142.10(b)(6)(vii)
40CFR142.10(c)
40CFR142.10(d)
40CFR142.10(e)
40CFR142.10(f)
Right of entry
Authority to require records
Authority to require public notification
Authority to assess civil and criminal
penalties
Authority to require CCRs
Maintenance of records
Variance/exemption conditions (if
applicable)
Emergency plans
Administrative Penalty Authority
Revision to State
Program









EPA
Findings/Comments









4.3.4  State Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist [40 CFR 142.14 and 142.15]

The Stage 2 DBPR does not add any state reporting requirements, but does include two state
recordkeeping requirements.

The state should use the Primacy Revision Crosswalk in Appendix A to demonstrate that state
recordkeeping requirements are consistent with federal requirements. If state requirements are not the
same as federal requirements, the state must explain how its requirements are "no less stringent" as per
40 CFR §142.10.

The Primacy Revision Crosswalk includes state recordkeeping requirements indicating that the state
must:
              Keep a copy of the decision for systems receiving a very small system waiver until it is
              reversed or revised.  The state must also provide a copy of the decision to the system.
              [proposed § 142.14(a)(8)(i)]

              Keep system IDSE reports, plus any modifications required by the state until reversed or
              revised in their entirety, [proposed § 142.14(a)(8)(ii)]
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
82
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
4.3.5  Special Primacy Requirements [Proposed §142.16]

The Special Primacy Conditions section of the crosswalk is where the state has the opportunity to
describe how it will satisfy these provisions. Special primacy conditions pertain to specific regulations
where implementation of the rule involves activities beyond general primacy provisions.  States must
include these rule-distinct provisions in a application for approval or revision of their program. Section
4.4 provides guidance on how states may choose to meet the special primacy requirements of the Stage 2
DBPR.

4.3.6  Attorney General's Statement of Enforceability [40 CFR 142.12(c)(2)]

The complete and final primacy revision application must include an Attorney General's Statement
certifying that the state regulations were duly adopted and are enforceable (unless EPA has waived this
requirement by letter to the state).  The Attorney General's  Statement should also certify that the state
does not have any audit privilege or immunity laws or, if it has such laws, that these laws do not prevent
the state from meeting the requirements  of the SDWA. If a state has submitted this certification with a
previous revision package, then the state should indicate the date of submittal and the Attorney General
need only certify that the status of the audit laws has not changed since the prior submittal.  An example
of an Attorney General's Statement is presented in Figure 4.3.

4.3.6.1 Guidance For States on Audit  Privilege and/or Immunity Laws

In order for EPA to properly evaluate the state's request for approval, the State Attorney General or
independent legal counsel should certify that the state's environmental audit immunity and/or privilege
and immunity law does not affect its ability to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements
under the SDWA.  This certification should be reasonably consistent with the wording of the state audit
laws and should demonstrate how state program approval criteria are satisfied.

EPA will apply the criteria outlined in its "Statement of Principles" memo issued on February 14,  1997,
(http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/planning/state/authorities .html) when determining whether states with
audit laws have retained adequate enforcement authority for any authorized federal programs. The
principles articulated in the guidance are based on the requirements  of federal law, specifically
enforcement, compliance, and state program approval provisions of environmental statutes and their
corresponding regulations. The principles provide that if provisions of state law are ambiguous, it will be
important to obtain opinions from the State Attorney General or independent legal counsel interpreting
the law as meeting specific federal requirements. If the law cannot be so interpreted, changes to state
laws may be necessary to obtain federal  program approval.  Before submitting a package for approval,
states with audit privilege and/or immunity laws should initiate communications with appropriate EPA
regional offices to identify and discuss the issues raised by the state's audit privilege and/or immunity
law.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         83                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
                 Example 4-3.  Example of Attorney General's Statement
 Model Language

 I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as (1) and in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended,
 and (2). that in my opinion the laws of the [State/Commonwealth of (3)1 [or tribal ordinances of (4)1 to carry out
 the program set forth in the "Program Description" submitted by the (5) have been duly adopted and are
 enforceable. The specific authorities provided are contained in statutes or regulations that are lawfully adopted at
 the time this Statement is approved and signed and will be fully effective by the time the program is approved.
 Model Language

 I.      For States with No Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws

 Furthermore, I certify that [State/Commonwealth of £3}] has not enacted any environmental audit privilege and/or
 immunity laws.

 II.      For States with Audit Laws that do Not Apply to the State Agency Administering the Safe
         Drinking Water Act

 Furthermore, I certify that the environmental [audit privilege and/or immunity law] of the [State/Commonwealth
 of (3)1 does not affect the ability of £3} to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements under the
 Safe Drinking Water Act because the [audit privilege and/or immunity law] does not apply to the program set
 forth in the "Program Description." The Safe Drinking Water Act program set forth in the "Program Description"
 is administered by (5}; the [audit privilege and/or immunity law] does not affect programs implemented by (5).
 thus the program set forth in the "Program Description" is unaffected by the provisions of [State/Commonwealth
 of (3)1 [audit privilege and/or immunity law].
 III.     For States with Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws that Worked with EPA to Satisfy
         Requirements for Federally Authorized, Delegated, or Approved Environmental Programs

 Furthermore, I certify that the environmental [audit privilege and/or immunity law] of the [State/Commonwealth
 of (3)1 does not affect the ability of £3} to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements under the
 Safe Drinking Water Act because [State/Commonwealth of £3}] has enacted statutory revisions and/or issued a
 clarifying Attorney General's Statement to satisfy requirements for federally authorized, delegated, or approved
 environmental programs.	
 Seal of Office
                         Signature
                         Name and Title
                         Date

 (1) State Attorney General or attorney for the primacy agency if it has independent legal counsel.
 (2) 40 CFR 142.1 l(a)(6)(i) for initial primacy applications or 40 CFR 142.12(c)(l)(iii) for primacy program
     revision applications.
 (3) Name of state or commonwealth.
 (4) Name of tribe.
 (5) Name of primacy agency.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         84                                   November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
4.4    Guidance for the Special Primacy Requirements of the Stage 2 DBPR

In addition to adopting basic primacy requirements specified in 40 CFR 142, states are required to adopt
primacy provisions pertaining to specific regulations where implementation of the rule involves activities
beyond general primacy provisions. The purpose of these provisions is to allow state flexibility in
implementing a regulation that (1) applies to specific system configurations within the particular state
and (2) can be integrated with a state's existing PWSS Program. States must include these rule-distinct
provisions in an application for approval or revision of their program.  This section contains information
and guidance that states can use when addressing the special primacy requirements of the Stage 2 DBPR.
The guidance addresses special primacy conditions in the same order that they occur in the rule. In the
state primacy revision application packages, the state must explain how they intend to accomplish the
requirements from proposed §142.16.

4.4.1  Special Primacy Requirements Regarding Very Small System Waivers

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements, (m) Requirements for states to adopt proposed §141,
subparts  U and V. In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the
requirements that state regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for
approval of a state program revision that adopts proposed §141, subparts  U and V, must contain a
description of how the state will accomplish the following: (1) For PWSs serving fewer than 500 people,
a very small  system waiver procedure for subpart UIDSE requirements that will apply to all systems that
serve fewer than 500 people without the state making a system-by-system waiver determination, if the
state elects to use such an authority.

Guidance

States have the authority to waive IDSE requirement for systems serving fewer than 500 people if they
determine that the monitoring site approved for Stage 1 DBPR compliance is sufficient to represent both
the highest HAAS and the highest TTHM concentrations (proposed §141.603(c)). States also have the
option of issuing blanket IDSE waivers to all systems serving fewer than 500 people or groups of systems
without making system-by-system waiver determinations.  To  issue blanket waivers, states must develop
a very small  system waiver procedure and submit it as part of their primacy package.

One approach is to consider blanket waivers for systems with small, compact distribution systems that
are likely to have short residence times (TTHM and HAAS levels are less likely to fluctuate in these
types of systems). States can use categorization of systems in  their state inventory to identify these types
of systems for blanket waivers.  For example, states  may want to consider granting blanket waivers to
systems serving mobile home parks with less than 500 residents. Please note, however, that such an
approach may not be appropriate for extended rural systems and Subpart H systems.

States can satisfy this special primacy condition by including a copy of the procedure and the rationale
they will use to determine that all systems serving fewer than 500 people or groups of systems serving
fewer than 500 people can receive a blanket waiver from the IDSE.  Alternatively, the state can simply
attest that they will not issue any blanket waivers (i.e., all waiver determinations will be made on a
system-by-system basis).
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        85                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Reference for more detailed guidance

Draft Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual. EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date.
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdwOOO/stage2/guides.html

4.4.2  Special Primacy Requirements Regarding System-Specific Studies

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements, (m) Requirements for states to adopt proposed §141,
subparts U and V. In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the
requirements that state regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for
approval of a state program revision that adopts proposed §141, subparts U and V, must contain a
description of how the state will accomplish the following: (2) A procedure for evaluating system-
specific studies under proposed §141.603(a) of this chapter, if system-specific studies are conducted in
the state.

Guidance

System-specific studies use historical data, distribution system models, or other analyses as the basis for
selecting Stage 2B compliance monitoring sites.  The Stage 2 DBPR allows systems to perform a system-
specific study in lieu of the IDSE SMP as long as the study provides equivalent or superior data for
selection of Stage 2B sites compared to selection of sites resulting from an SMP (proposed 141.603(a)).

States must develop a procedure for evaluating system-specific studies. This procedure should be based
on criteria provided in EPA's Draft Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual.  This
manual also provides a detailed description of two study approaches:

       (1)     The use of historical TTHM and HAAS data that are equivalent or superior to data that
               would be obtained under the IDSE SMP.

       (2)     The use of a calibrated water distribution system hydraulic model  and at least one round
               of new sampling conducted during the month of peak historical TTHM levels (or the
               month of peak distribution system water temperature if peak TTHM data are not
               available).

For the first approach, the manual specifies that historical data should be  representative of the entire
distribution system and meet the overall SMP requirements with respect to number of sites, location of
sites, and total number of samples. Historical  data should also reflect source water(s) and treatment
configuration in place at the time the IDSE report is due. TTHM and HAAS data should have been
analyzed by a certified laboratory.  For the second approach, the manual includes minimum model
requirements and guidelines for running the model to determine areas of high residence time. The model
should be used to select preliminary sites, then systems should perform one round  of monitoring  at those
sites to select final Stage 2B sites.  States should review EPA guidance and specify in their procedures if
they will use EPA criteria to evaluate these two system-specific study approaches.

EPA recognizes that, in addition to the two approaches described above, there are other combinations of
data and analyses that may provide equivalent or superior selection  of Stage 2B compliance sites. For
instance, tracer studies can be used in combination with historical data to select Stage 2B sites. EPA
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        86                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
draft guidance contains a list of questions that states should ask when evaluating alternative system-
specific studies:

              Does the study adequately evaluate the extremities?  Does the study target other potential
              areas with long water residence times?

              If historical data are used, were TTHM and HAAS samples analyzed by a certified
              laboratory? Were they collected within the 10 years prior to the IDSE report due date?
              Do historical data represent distribution system conditions at the time the IDSE report is
              submitted?

              Does the study cover at least 1 continuous year?

              Are there data representing the month of peak TTHM or highest temperature?  Systems
              must conduct one monitoring period during the peak historical month for TTHM levels
              or TTHM levels  or the month of warmest temperature (proposed §141.602 (a))

States should consider including  these questions in their system-specific study evaluation procedures.
States can satisfy the  special primacy condition regarding system-specific studies by including a copy of
this procedure in lieu of IDSE monitoring.

Reference for more detailed guidance

Draft Initial Distribution System  Evaluation Guidance Manual.  EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date.
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdwOOO/stage2/guides.html

4.4.3   Special Primacy Requirements Regarding Multiple Consecutive System Entry
        Points

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements, (m)  Requirements for states to adopt proposed §141,
subparts U and V. In addition to the general primacy  requirements elsewhere in this part, including the
requirements that state regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for
approval of a state program revision that adopts proposed §141, subparts U and V, must contain a
description of how the state will accomplish the following: (3) A procedure for determining that multiple
consecutive system entry points from a single wholesale system to a single consecutive system should be
treated as a single treatment plant for monitoring purposes.

Guidance

Monitoring requirements of the Stage 2 DBPR depend on the number of "plants" in a system for those
systems that produce  some or all of their own water. The rule specifies that consecutive system entry
points delivering finished water treated by a disinfectant other than UV, for at least 60 days a year, must
be considered as a plant (proposed §141.601(d) and §141.620 (f)).  Note that under the IDSE (proposed
§141.601(d)), not all consecutive system entry points are considered plants for the purposes of
determining monitoring requirements. A consecutive  system entry point is a site at which finished water
is delivered from a wholesale system to a consecutive  system that buys some or all of its water at least 60
days per year (proposed §141.2). To be considered a "planf'under the IDSE, water must be delivered for
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        87                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
60 consecutive days per year.  States should be aware of attempts by systems to shut off connections
periodically to make the claim that it is not a plant.

To reduce the sampling burden for systems that treat water and have many consecutive system entry
points, the Stage 2 DBPR allows systems to consider multiple consecutive system entry points from the
same wholesale system as one plant with state approval. In these cases, the system must demonstrate that
factors such as relative locations of entry points, residence times, sources, and the presence of treatment
(such as corrosion control or booster disinfection) are similar and will not have a significant effect on
TTHM and HAAS formation between the entry points (proposed §141.601(d)).

States must develop procedures for evaluating multiple consecutive system entry points. Conditions
where states should  consider allowing multiple consecutive system entry points from the same wholesale
systems to be one plant include the following:

               Quality of water at the consecutive system entry points is similar (in particular, the same
               residence time, TTHM/HAA5  levels, and delivered from the same treatment plant).

               TTHM and HAAS concentrations are low. For example, if a system treats surface water
               and purchases treated ground water from the same wholesale system at multiple entry
               points, states should consider the multiple ground water entry points as one plant
               provided that DBFs and DBF precursor levels (e.g., TOC) are low.

               Consecutive system entry points that feed into the same trunk main, particularly if all
               entry points are prior to piping connections to other parts of the distribution system.

States should consider including these and other conditions where they will allow multiple consecutive
system entry points to be counted as one plant in their primacy package.

States can satisfy the special primacy condition regarding multiple consecutive system entry points
studies by including a copy of the procedure  and rationale they will use to determine that multiple
consecutive system entry points from a single wholesale system to a single consecutive system should be
treated as a single treatment plant for monitoring purposes.

Reference for more detailed guidance

Draft Initial Distribution System Evaluation  Guidance Manual.  EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date.
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdwOOO/stage2/guides.html

4.4.4   Special Primacy Requirements Regarding Consecutive System Monitoring

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements, (m) Requirements for states to adopt proposed §141,
subparts U and V. In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the
requirements that state regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for
approval of a state program revision that adopts proposed §141, subparts U and V,  must contain a
description of how the state will accomplish the following: (4) A procedure for addressing consecutive
systems outside the provisions of proposed §141.29 of this chapter or proposed §141 subparts U and V of
this chapter, if the state elects to use such an authority.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         88                                  November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Guidance

40 CFR 141.29 allows states to modify monitoring requirements of consecutive systems to the extent that
the interconnection of the systems justifies treating them as a single system for monitoring purposes.

The Stage 2 DBPR gives states the opportunity to specify alternative monitoring requirements for
multiple consecutive systems in a combined distribution system. These modifications must not
undermine public health protection and all systems, including consecutive systems, must comply with the
TTHM and HAAS MCLs based on the LRAA. However, such a program would allow the state to
establish monitoring requirements that account for complicated distribution system relationships, such as
where neighboring  systems buy from and sell to each other regularly throughout the year, water passes
through multiple consecutive systems before it reaches a user, or a large group of interconnected systems
have a complicated combined distribution system.

If states choose to address this issue and develop procedures for addressing consecutive  systems outside
the provisions of the proposed Stage 2 DBPR, they should consider the following:

              As a minimum, each consecutive system must collect at least one sample among the total
              number of samples required for the combined distribution system. Each consecutive
              system must base compliance on samples collected within its distribution system.  (See
              68 FR 49583, August 18, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 159.)

              The consecutive system is responsible for ensuring that required monitoring is completed
              and the system is in compliance.

              The consecutive system may conduct the monitoring itself or arrange for the monitoring
              to be done by the wholesale system or another outside party. Whatever  approach it
              chooses, the consecutive system must document its monitoring strategy  as part of its
              DBP monitoring plan.

States can satisfy the special primacy condition regarding consecutive  system monitoring by including a
copy of the procedure they will use for addressing consecutive systems outside the provisions of §141.29.
Alternatively, states can simply attest that they will not use an authority to address consecutive system
monitoring outside of §141.29.

Reference for more detailed guidance

4.4.5  Special Primacy Requirements Regarding Significant Excursions

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements, (m) Requirements for states to adopt proposed §141,
subparts U and V. In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the
requirements that state regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for
approval of a state program revision that adopts proposed §141, subparts  U and V, must contain a
description of how the state will accomplish the following: (5) A procedure for systems  to identify
significant excursions.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        89                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Guidance

The Stage 2 DBPR, under Stage 2B, requires systems to meet an LRAA of 0.080 mg/L for TTHM and
0.060 mg/L for HAAS at each monitoring location in the distribution system (proposed §141.64(b)(3)).
Because the individual samples are averaged over 1 year to determine compliance with the Stage 2
DBPR, the DBP levels at a given location can fluctuate throughout the year. This is normal and
generally the result of seasonal changes in water temperature and/or organic content. However, there
may be individual sample occurrence levels that exceed the MCL even when the system is in compliance
with an LRAA MCL. There is concern about exposures to peak levels of DBFs and the possible risk they
might pose.

States must define the criteria for determining that a significant DBP excursion has occurred as a special
primacy condition of the Stage 2 DBPR. One approach a state might use in identifying a significant
excursion is to define a maximum concentration that, if exceeded, would require an evaluation. For
example, a state may define a significant DBP excursion as any compliance sample that exceeds the
following:

       •   TTHM concentration of 0.100 mg/L.

       •   HAAS concentration of 0.075 mg/L.

Another approach a state may take to defining a significant DBP excursion is to compare results from
individual quarterly measurement from compliance monitoring with the LRAAs computed for that
period. Using 0.040 mg/L for TTHM and 0.030 mg/L for HAAS as a benchmark, a significant excursion
may occur under the following conditions:

              For TTHM, if the difference between a quarterly location measurement and the quarterly
              LRAA is >0.030 mg/L and the LRAA is > 0.040 mg/L for TTHM, a significant excursion
              has occurred.

              For HAAS, if the difference between a quarterly location measurement and the quarterly
              LRAA is >0.025 mg/L and the LRAA is > 0.030 mg/L for HAAS, a significant excursion
              has occurred.

In addition to the approaches briefly described above, there are other approaches that may be appropriate.
 EPA's Draft Significant Excursion Guidance Manual provides examples for defining significant
excursions and evaluating system data to determine when a significant excursion has occurred.

States can satisfy the special primacy condition  regarding significant excursions by including a copy of
the procedure they will use for identifying when a system has a significant excursion.

Reference for more detailed guidance

Draft Significant Excursions Guidance Manual. EPA 815-D-03-004, July 2003.
(http://www.epa.gov/ogwdwOOO/stage2/guides.html')
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        90                                November 2003

-------
Section 5	
SDWIS Reporting and SNC
Definitions

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
5.1    Safe Drinking Water Information System Reporting Under the Stage 2 DBPR

Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal version (SDWIS/FED) is EPA's national database of
routine information about the nation's drinking water. Designed to replace the system known as Federal
Reporting Data System(FRDS), SDWIS/FED stores the information EPA needs to monitor
approximately 175,000 PWSs.

States supervise drinking water systems within their jurisdictions to ensure that each PWS meets state
and EPA standards for safe drinking water. The SDWA requires states to report drinking water
information periodically to EPA. This information is maintained in SDWIS/FED.

States report the following information to EPA:

       •      Basic information on each water system, including: name, ID number, number of people
              served, type of system (year-round or seasonal), and source of water (ground water or
              surface water).

       •      Violation information for each water system, including whether it has followed
              established monitoring and reporting schedules, complied with mandated treatment
              techniques, or violated any MCLs.

       •      Enforcement information like what actions states have taken to ensure that drinking
              water systems return to compliance if they are in violation of a drinking water regulation.

       •      Sampling results for unregulated contaminants and for regulated contaminants when the
              monitoring results exceed the MCL.

EPA uses this information to determine if and when it needs to take action against non-compliant
systems, oversee state drinking water programs, track contaminant levels, respond to public inquiries, and
prepare national reports. EPA also uses this information to evaluate the effectiveness of its programs and
regulations and to  determine whether new regulations are needed to further protect public health.

5.1.1  Federally Reported Violations

Under SDWIS/FED reporting, states only report when violations occur.  In the interest of reducing the
reporting burden on states, EPA has limited the number and type of violations to be reported to
SDWIS/FED. However, PWSs must still keep records and report all required information to the state.
Any violation, whether included in the accompanying table or not, is a basis for a state or federal
enforcement action.

Table 5-1 summarizes the violation and contaminant codes that will be used to report violations of the
Stage 2 DBPR to SDWIS/FED.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        93                                 November 2003

-------
                      Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
   Table 5-1. SDWIS/FED Codes for Federal Reporting Under the Stage 2 DBPR
Violation
Code
02
02
02
02

03
39
39
03

09
09
Contaminant
Code
2950
2456
2950
2456

2950
2456
DBP2
DBP2
1011

DBP2
DBP2
MCL Violations
Exceedance of TTHM MCL of 0. 120 mg/L measured as an LRAA.
Exceedance of HAA5 MCL of 0.100 mg/L measured as an LRAA.
Exceedance of TTHM MCL of 0.080 mg/L measured as an LRAA.
Exceedance of HAA5 MCL of 0.060 mg/L measured as an LRAA.
Monitoring and Reporting (M&R) Violations
Failure to collect or report LRAAs and compliance calculations for TTHM and
HAAS samples.
Failure to conduct an IDSE and submit an IDSE report, or to use an IDSE
alternative.
Failure to develop or implement a monitoring plan for TTHM and HAA5
sampling.
Failure to return to routine from reduced monitoring of bromate.
Recordkeeping Violations
Failure to maintain records of microbiological and turbidity analyses.
Failure to maintain copies of monitoring plans.
Table 5.2 contains the federally reportable violations for the Stage 2 DBPR in more detail.  These
violations are listed by contaminant or requirement and violation type.  The table includes the
SDWIS/FED reporting codes, the regulatory citation, system type affected, a detailed description of the
violation, and the initial compliance date. This table will allow a user to better understand violations
listed in SDWIS.  For more information on how to report Stage 2 DBPR violations to SDWIS, please
refer to Appendix D.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
94
November 2003

-------
                                      Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
                                 Table 5-2. Federal Reporting for the Stage 2 DBPR
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Citation
3
Violation
Type
4
System Size and Type
Affected
5
Violation
6
Initial Compliance Date
7
MCL Violation
02/2950
02/2456
02/2950
02/2456
TTHM MCL
HAAS MCL
TTHM MCL
HAA5 MCL
proposed §141.136
proposed §141.136
proposed §14 1.620
proposed §141.620
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
Applies to NTNCWSs and
CWSs adding primary or
residual disinfectant other
than UV or delivering such
water.
Applies to NTNCWSs and
CWSs adding primary or
residual disinfectant other
than UV or delivering such
water.
Applies to NTNCWSs and
CWSs adding primary or
residual disinfectant other
than UV or delivering such
water.
Applies to NTNCWSs and
CWSs adding primary or
residual disinfectant other
than UV or delivering such
water.
Exceedance of
TTHM MCL of
0.120mg/L
measured as an
LRAA.
Exceedance of
HAA5 MCL of
O.lOOmg/L
measured as an
LRAA.
Exceedance of
TTHM MCL of
0.080 mg/L
measured as an
LRAA.
Exceedance of
HAAS MCL of
0.060 mg/L
measured as an
LRAA.
Quarterly violations of
quarterly duration beginning 3
years after rule promulgation.
Quarterly violations of
quarterly duration beginning 3
years after rule promulgation.
Quarterly violations of
quarterly duration beginning 6
years after rule promulgation.
Quarterly violations of
quarterly duration beginning 6
years after rule promulgation.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
95
November 2003

-------
                                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Citation
3
Violation
Type
4
System Size and Type
Affected
5
Violation
6
Initial Compliance Date
7
M&R Violation
03/2950,
03/2456







39/DBP2






39/DBP2





Monitoring &
Reporting for
TTHM and
HAA5





IDSE, IDSE
Report, and
IDSE
Alternative



Developing
Monitoring Plan




proposed §141.64(b)
proposed §141.136
proposed § 14 1.620(d)
proposed §141.605
proposed §141.621




proposed §141.600
proposed §141.601
proposed §141.602
proposed §141.603
proposed §141.604


proposed §141.136
proposed §141.622




M&R








M&R






M&R





Applies to NTNCWSs and
CWSs adding primary or
residual disinfectant other
than UV or delivering such
water. For systems on
annual and triennial
periods, use the begin date
and end date of those
periods.
Applies to NTNCWSs
serving at least 10,000
people and CWSs that add
primary or residual
disinfectant other than UV
or deliver such water.

Applies to NTNCWSs and
CWSs adding primary or
residual disinfectant other
than UV or delivering such
water.

Failure to collect
or report
LRAAs and
compliance
calculations for
TTHM and
HAAS samples.


Failure to
conduct an
IDSE and
submit an IDSE
report or to use
an IDSE
alternative.
Failure to
develop or
implement a
monitoring plan
for TTHM and
HAAS sampling.
First day of the quarter (or
annual or triennial period
begin date) in which one or
more samples are missed.





Either when the IDSE report is
due or when the state becomes
aware of the failure to conduct
the IDSE (beginning 2 years
after rule promulgation).


Either when the monitoring
plan is due or when the state
becomes aware of the failure
to implement the monitoring
plan (beginning 6 years after
rule promulgation).
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
96
November 2003

-------
                                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
03/1011








Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Bromate
Monitoring







Citation
3
proposed
§141.132(b)(3)(ii)







Violation
Type
4
M&R








System Size and Type
Affected
5
Applies to CWSs and
NTNCWSs that use ozone
as a disinfectant or oxidant
and are on reduced
(quarterly) monitoring.
Systems must analyze
samples using Method
317.0 Revision 2.0, 326.0,
or 321.8.
Violation
6
Failure to return
to routine from
reduced
monitoring of
bromate.




Initial Compliance Date
7
First day of the quarter when
system fails to return to
routine monthly monitoring if
RAA of bromate is >0.0025
mg/L for reduced quarterly
monitoring or if samples were
not analyzed using an
approved method (beginning 3
years after rule promulgation).
Recordkeeping Violations
09/DBP2







09/DBP2




Maintaining
Microbiological
and Turbidity
Analyses




Maintaining
Monitoring
Plans


proposed §141.33(a)







proposed §141.33(1)




Record-
keeping






Record-
keeping



Applies to NTNCWSs and
CWSs adding primary or
residual disinfectant other
than UV or delivering such
water. Changes wording of
existing recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR
141.33(a).
Applies to NTNCWSs and
CWSs adding primary or
residual disinfectant other
than UV or delivering such
water.
Failure to
maintain records
of
microbiological
and turbidity
analyses.


Failure to
maintain copies
of monitoring
plans.

When system discards records
or state becomes aware the
records have been discarded.





When system discards
monitoring plans or state
becomes aware the plans have
been discarded.

Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
97
November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
5.2    Stage 2 DBPR - SNC Definition
Draft SNC Definitions for the Stage 2 DBPR

Significant non-compliers (SNCs) are CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs that have serious, frequent, or
persistent violations. The criteria that designate a system as an SNC vary by contaminant.  Once a
system is designated as an SNC, it is subject to EPA's "timely and appropriate policy." SNCs that have
not returned to compliance or are not addressed timely and appropriately are called Exceptions.
Timeliness for SNCs is 8 months after the system became an SNC.  (The state has 2 months to determine
and become aware of the system's SNC status and 6 months in which to complete the follow-
up/enforcement action.) The types of actions considered appropriate include the issuance of a formal
state or federal administrative or compliance order, a civil or criminal referral to the state's Attorney
General or Department of Justice, or a state bilateral compliance agreement signed by both the state and
the violator.  The following are SNC definitions for the Stage 2 DBPR.

[SNC definitions under development by OECA.]

5.3     Stage 2 DBPR Data Entry Instructions

EPA is developing a draft Data Entry Instructions for the Stage 2 DBPR.  This manual will include
examples and instruction on determining proper violations and violation codes for the requirements of
the Stage 2 DBPR (see Appendix D).
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        98                                 November 2003

-------
Section 6	
Public Notification and
Consumer Confidence Report
Examples

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
This section provides examples of violations that systems may incur under the Stage 2 DBPR. These
examples address the public notification and CCR requirements for systems that incur these kinds of
violations. Public notification and notification in the CCR are required follow-up activities for violations
of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.  Also included in the examples are sample public
notices and sample excerpts from CCR reports that would meet these public notification and CCR
requirements. In the public notification samples, the language in italics is required in Appendix B to
Subpart Q of 40 CFR 141.  The examples in this section are adapted from examples in the Draft Primacy
Agency Data Entry Instructions, with Examples, for the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (see Appendix D). For more information on SDWIS reporting, refer to this draft
manual and the examples contained therein.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        101                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Example 1: TTHM MCL Violation

System Description - System A

System A is a small Subpart H system that uses two large ground water wells determined to be under the
direct influence of surface water. The system treats the water from each well by filtration through
cartridge and bag filters and by disinfection with chlorine gas on a full-time basis.  The system utilizes
two filtration/disinfection treatment plants known as TP 1 and TP 2.

 Population Served:       8,200
 Source #1:             Well 1
 Treatment:             Filtration, chlorine
 Source #2:             Well 2
 Treatment:             Filtration, chlorine

This system is required to comply with the TTHM and HAAS RAA requirement under the Stage 1
DBPR, LRAA requirement under the Stage 2A, and the LRAA requirement under the Stage 2B. This
system is also required to submit an IDSE report to their state by [insert 48 months after rule
promulgation] and to submit a new monitoring plan under Stage 2B prior to the date they are required to
comply with the Stage 2B requirements (either 90 or 102 months after rule promulgation).  System A is
not required to conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring under the LT2ESWTR, so it must comply with
Stage 2B by [insert 90 months after rule promulgation].  For compliance with Stage 2A, System A's
qualified operator collects and has a certified laboratory analyze one sample per plant for TTHM (and
HAAS) during the first month of each quarter in a location within the distribution system that represents
maximum residence time. Note that for compliance with Stage 2B, System A will be required to collect
two dual sample sets per quarter per treatment plant at representative high TTHM and HAAS sites, as
determined by the IDSE.

In an effort to enhance operational control and better protect public health, the operator also collects and
analyzes one sample per treatment plant at the points of maximum residence time during the second and
third months of each quarter. These additional compliance samples are described in the system
monitoring  plan submitted to the primacy agency under the Stage 1 DBPR.

The operator takes the TTHM samples during times when the disinfection systems are operating under
normal conditions and collects the samples at the locations (i.e., points of maximum residence time) and
according to the schedule specified in the provisions of the system's processes monitoring plan.

Situation

Table 6-1 summarizes the Stage 2A TTHM monitoring results for 200X [insert 36 months  after rule
promulgation]. In December 200X, System A's operator collects the fourth scheduled set of two TTHM
samples (one per plant at the point of maximum residence time) for the fourth quarter of 200X. The
operator enters the values on the TTHM monitoring forms. Since the operator has  collected two sets of
samples during the fourth quarter, the operator calculates a quarterly arithmetic average concentration for
each treatment plant. The quarterly averages of all TTHM samples collected for the fourth quarter are
0.300 mg/L for treatment plant 1 and 0.078 mg/L for treatment plant 2. Then the operator  uses the third
quarter's averages of 0.200 mg/L and 0.072 mg/L for treatment plants  1 and 2, respectively, and the
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance       102                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
second quarter's averages of 0.063 mg/L and 0.059 mg/L, respectively. In addition the system also uses
0.030 mg/L and 0.020 mg/L, respectively from the first quarter.

                 Table 6-1. System A 200X TTHM Monitoring Results
Quarter
200X Ql
200X Q2
200X Q3
200X Q4
Compliance Calculation
Sum
-4
4th Quarter
LRAA
4th Quarter
RAA
Distribution System Results (mg/L)
TP1
0.030
0.063
0.200
0.300
0.593
0.148
0.148 > 0.120

TP2
0.020
0.059
0.072
0.078
0.229
0.057
0.057 < 0.120

" .f^MMMMMMMMMMM:-,-

Average of TP1 & TP2
for RAA
0.025
0.061
0.136
0.189
0.411
0.103
!:•••; 	 i 	 i 	 i 	 i 	 mm

0. 103 > 0.080
Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System A has completed a full year of monitoring under Stage 2A and must use this data to compute
LRAAs for quarters in the current year. The operator sums quarterly results from the four quarters of
200X and divides by 4 to determine LRAA compliance with the Stage 2A MCL of 0.120 mg/L.  The
result for treatment plant 1 is 0.148 mg/L; therefore, the operator must report an MCL violation since the
sum of the available quarterly results for treatment plant 1 divided by 4 is greater than the MCL of
0.120 mg/L. The LRAA for the other plants below the MCL.  In addition, the system must calculate the
RAA of the two treatment plants as required by the Stage 1 DBPR. The system must also report an MCL
violation of the Stage 1 DBPR since the sum of the averaged quarterly results for both treatment plant
divided by 4 is greater than the MCL of 0.080 mg/L.

This is a MCL violation and requires Tier 2 public notification. The system must provide public
notification within 30 days of learning of the violation.  Notification must be provided by mail or other
direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected
individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. The
system was aware of the violation on January 5, 200X+1.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for these violations is
shown in Example 6.1.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
103
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
All MCL violations must also be included in the CCR. An explanation of how the system returned to
compliance could also be included.  An example of a report of these violations that could be used in the
system's CCR is shown in Example 6.2.

     Example 6-1.  Example Tier 2 Public Notification for TTHM MCL Violation
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                                 TTHM MCL Violation at System A

 Our water system recently violated a drinking water standard. Although this incident was not an emergency, as
 our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.

 We routinely monitor for the presence of drinking water contaminants. Testing results from December 200X
 show that our system exceeds the standard, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), for total trihalomethanes
 (TTHMs). We became aware of this situation on January 5, 200X+1. The standards for TTHMs are 0.080 mg/L
 averaged over the entire system for a year and 0.120 mg/L at any individual monitoring location averaged over
 the year.  The level of TTHMs averaged over the entire system for a year was 0.103 mg/L and the average for
 treatment plant 1 over the last year was 0.148 mg/L.

 What should I do?
 There is nothing you need to do unless you have a severely compromised immune system, have an infant, or are
 elderly. These people may be at increased risk and should seek advice about drinking water from their health care
 providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available from EPA's Safe
 Drinking Water Hotline at 1 (800) 426-4791. If you have specific health concerns, consult your doctor.

 You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. If a situation arises where the water is no
 longer safe to drink, you will be notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or
 Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

 What does this mean?
 This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified within 24 hours.
 Some people who drink water containing trihalomethanes in excess of the MCL over many years may experience
 problems with their liver, kidneys, or central nervous system, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

 What is being done?

 TTHMs are four volatile organic chemicals which form when disinfectants react with natural organic matter in the
 water.  We are working to minimize the formation of TTHMs while ensuring an adequate level of disinfection to
 protect customers from exposure to bacteria. We have since taken samples at this location and throughout the
 system and had them tested. They show that we meet the standards.
 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System A, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd, Townsville, SA 12345.

 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

 This notice is being sent to you by System A.

                                            State Water System ID# SA1234582.  Sent: January 10, 200X+1
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         104                                   November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
      Example 6-2. Example of a Notice in the CCR for TTHM MCL Violation
                                      Water Quality Data
Contaminant
TTHMs [Total
trihalomethanes]
(ppb) (RAA)
TTHMs [Total
trihalomethanes]
(ppb) (LRAA)
MCL
80
120
MCLG
0
0
Detected
Avg=103
Range: 25-189
Avg=148
Range: 30 - 300
Date
September
200X
September
200X
Violation
Yes*
Yes*
Source
By-product of
drinking water
chlorination
By-product of
drinking water
chlorination
 *System A exceeded the MCL for TTHMs at the end of December. The system's running annual average (RAA)
 for the entire system was 103 ppb and the locational running annual average for treatment plant 1 was 148 ppb.
 More information about this violation is provided in the violation section.


                                            Violation

         Testing results from December 200X show that our system exceeds the standard, or maximum
         contaminant level (MCL), for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs).  The standards for TTHMs are 0.080
         mg/L averaged over the entire system for a year and 0.120 mg/L at any individual monitoring location
         averaged over the year.  The level of TTHMs averaged over the entire system for a year was 0.103 mg/L
         and the average at treatment plant 1 over the last year was 0.148 mg/L. TTHM are four volatile organic
         chemicals which form when disinfectants react with natural organic matter in the water.  We are working
         to minimize the formation of TTHMs while ensuring an adequate level of disinfection to protect
         customers from exposure to bacteria.

         We have since taken samples at this location and throughout the system and had them tested.
         They show that we meet the standards.
System Description - System B

System B is a large Subpart H CWS that uses a lake as its source and meets the Subpart H filtration
avoidance criteria. The system supplies water disinfected with UV light and treated with chlorine to
meet the disinfection requirements of the SWTR.  The system utilizes only one source and one treatment
plant. The MCL established in the Stage 1 DBPR for HAAS is 0.060 mg/L and compliance is based
upon an RAA computed quarterly of quarterly averages. System B is also required to calculate the
LRAA at the end of the 4th calendar quarter [insert 36 months after rule promulgation] and to ensure that
each location complies with the Stage 2A MCL for HAAS of 0.100 mg/L. Beginning [insert 72 months
after rule promulgation], System B will need to calculate LRAA to comply with the Stage 2B MCL for
HAAS of 0.060 mg/L at each sampling location.
 Population Served:
 Source # 1:
 Treatment:
58,000
Surface water
Successfully avoiding filtration, UV, chlorine
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
                       105
November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Each quarter (i.e., approximately every 90 days), System B's qualified operator collects four distribution
samples and has them analyzed by a certified laboratory for HAAS. RAAs are calculated based on
samples taken. System B will calculate RAAs which must comply with the MCLs set forth in the Stage 1
DBPR and beginning [insert date 48 months after rule promulgation] will calculate LRAAs to ensure the
system complies with an HAAS  Stage 2A MCL of 0.100 mg/L.  Seventy-two months after rule
promulgation, the operator will begin collecting samples at the locations specified in the new monitoring
plan (which is based on Stage 1  DBPR, and the monitoring required under the IDSE), which will specify
the 2 locations in the system with the highest TTHM levels, the location in the system with the highest
HAAS levels, and at least one of the compliance monitoring locations identified in the Stage 1 DBPR.

Example 2: HAAS RAA MCL Violation

Situation

Table 6-2 summarizes the HAAS monitoring results for 200Z  [insert date 48 months after rule
publication]. On June 20, 200Z, System B's operator collects the four required HAAS samples in the
distribution system for the second quarterly period of 200Z. The results are 0.071 mg/L for location 1,
0.054 mg/L for location 2, 0.080 mg/L for location 3, and 0.071  mg/L for location 4. The operator
calculates an arithmetic average of the values and records the  result on the HAAS monitoring sheet. The
arithmetic average for all sites for the second quarter of 200Z  is  0.069 mg/L. The quarterly averages for
the previous 3 quarters are:  0.042 mg/L, 0.092 mg/L, and 0.093 mg/L. The RAA for this period is 0.074
mg/L.

        Table  6-2. System B Second Quarter 200Z HAAS Monitoring Results
Quarter
Quarter 3 200Z-1
Quarter 4 200Z-1
Quarter 1 200Z
Quarter 2 200Z
Compliance
Calculation

Sum
-4
2nd Quarter
LRAA
2nd Quarter
RAA
Plant #1 Distribution System Results (mg/L)
Location 1
0.028
0.109
0.089
0.071
0.297
0.074
0.074 <
0.100
Location 2
0.042
0.037
0.062
0.054
0.195
0.049
0.049 <
0.100
Location 3
0.045
0.124
0.091
0.080
0.34
0.085
0.085 <
0.100
Location 4
0.052
0.098
0.129
0.071
0.35
0.088
0.088 <
0.100



Average of 4
locations for RAA
0.04175
0.092
0.09275
0.069
0.2955
0.074

0.074 > 0.060
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
106
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System B is in compliance with the Stage 2A MCL for HAAS at the end of June, 200Z for each sampling
location.  However, System B is not in compliance based on RAA.  Therefore the system must provide
public notice and information in their CCR in order to comply with the Stage  1 DBPR requirements. The
system was aware of the violation on June 30, 200Z.

This is a MCL violation and requires Tier 2 public notification. The system must provide public
notification within 30 days of learning of the violation.  Notification must be provided by mail or other
direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected
individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. For
any unresolved violation following an initial Tier 2 notice, notice must be repeated every 3 months for as
long as the violation persists.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6.3.

All MCL violations must also be included in the CCR. An explanation of how the system returned to
compliance could also be included.  An example of a report of this violation that could be used in the
system's CCR is shown in Example 6.4.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        107                                November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
  Example 6-3. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for HAAS RAA MCL Violation
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                               HAAS RAA MCL Violation at System B

 Our water system recently violated a drinking water standard.  Although this incident was not an emergency, as
 our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.

 We routinely monitor for the presence of drinking water contaminants.  Testing results from June 200X show that
 our system exceeds the standard, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), for haloacetic acids  (HAA5s). The
 standards for HAA5s are 0.060 mg/L averaged over the entire system for a year and 0.100 mg/L at any individual
 monitoring location averaged over the year. The level of HAA5s averaged over the entire system for a year was
 0.074 mg/L.  However the average at each individual monitoring location was below the  standard.

 What should I do?
 There is nothing you need to do unless you have a severely compromised immune system, have an infant, or are
 elderly. These people may be at increased risk and should seek advice about drinking water from their health care
 providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available from EPA's Safe
 Drinking Water Hotline at 1 (800) 426-4791. If you have specific health concerns, consult your doctor.

 You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions.  If a situation arises where the water is no
 longer safe to drink, you will be notified within 24 hours.  We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or
 Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

 What does this mean?
 This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified within 24 hours.
 Some people who drink water containing haloacetic acids in excess of the MCL over many years may have an
 increased risk of getting cancer.

 What is being done?

 HAA5s are a group of chemicals that are formed when chlorine or other disinfectants used to  control microbial
 contaminants in drinking water react with naturally occurring organic and inorganic matter in water. We are
 working to minimize the formation of HAA5s while ensuring an adequate level of disinfection to protect
 customers from exposure to bacteria.  We have since taken samples at this location and through out the system
 and had them tested.  They show that we meet the standards.
 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System B, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd, Townsville, SA 12345.

 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

 This notice is being sent to you by System B.

                                                 State Water System ID# SA1234582.  Sent: July 31, 200X
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        108                                    November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
    Example 6-4. Example of a Notice in the CCR for HAAS RAA MCL Violation
                                       Water Quality Data
Contaminant
Haloacetic Acids
(HAA) (ppb)
(RAA)
Haloacetic Acids
(HAA)
(ppb)(LRAA)
MCL
60
100
MCLG
0
0
Detected
Avg=74
Avg=74
Avg-49
Avg=85
Avg-88
Date
June 200X

Violation
Yes*
No
Source
By-product of drinking
water chlorination
By-product of drinking
water chlorination
 *System B exceeded the MCL for HAA5s. At the end of June the system's running annual average (RAA) for the
 entire system was 74 ppb, however the locational running annual average for all four locations was below the
 MCL. More information about this violation is provided in the violation section.


                                            Violation

         Testing results from June 200X show that our system exceeds the standard, or maximum contaminant
         level (MCL), for haloacetic acids (HAA5s). The standards for HAA5s are 0.060 mg/L averaged over the
         entire system for a year and 0.100 mg/L at any individual monitoring location averaged over the year.
         The level of HAA5s averaged over the entire system for a year was 0.074 mg/L. However the average at
         each individual monitoring location was below the standard.  HAA5s are a group of chemicals that are
         formed when chlorine or other disinfectants used to control microbial contaminants in drinking water
         react with naturally occurring organic and inorganic matter in water.  We are working to minimize the
         formation of HAA5s while ensuring an adequate level of disinfection to protect customers from exposure
         to bacteria.
         We have since taken samples at this location and through out the system and had them tested. They
         show that we meet the standards.
Example 2: HAAS MCL Violation

Situation

On May 20, 200X [insert date 48 months after rule promulgation], System B's operator collects the four
required HAAS samples in the distribution system for the second quarterly period of 200X. The results
are 0.009 mg/L for location 1, 0.010 mg/L for location 2, 0.068 mg/L for location 3, and 0.355 mg/L for
location 4.  The operator calculates an arithmetic average of the values for each sampling location by
using the results from quarters 3 and 4 from the previous year and the results from quarters 1 and 2 from
the current year and records the result on the HAA5 monitoring sheet shown in Table 6-3.  The LRAA is
0.060 mg/L for location 1, 0.0168 mg/L for location 2, 0.053 mg/L for location 3, and 0.109 mg/L for
location 4.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
109
November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
                 Table 6-3.  System B 200X HAAS Monitoring Results
Month/Quarter
August 200(X-l)/Quarter 3
November 200(X-l)/Quarter 4
Feb 200X/Quarter 1
May 200X/Quarter 2
Compliance
Calculation

Sum
-4
2nd Quarter
LRAA
2nd Quarter
RAA
Plant #1 Distribution System Results (mg/L)
Location 1
0.050
0.041
0.038
0.109
0.238
0.060
0.060 <
0.100
Location 2
0.022
0.018
0.012
0.010
0.062
0.016
0.016 <
0.100
Location 3
0.050
0.034
0.060
0.068
0.212
0.053
0.053 <
0.100
Location 4
0.030
0.008
0.041
0.355
0.434
0.109
0.109>
0.100



Average of all
Locations for
RAA
0.038
0.025
0.038
0.136
0.237
0.059


0.059 > 0.060
Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System B is in violation of the HAAS Stage 2A MCL.  At the end of June 200X, the operator must use
the methodology for calculating the LRAA. The first quarter value for location 4 is 0.041 mg/L and the
second quarterly value for location 4 is 0.0.355 mg/L.  The operator then adds the historical data from
quarter 3 and quarter 4 of 200X-1 to the locational results from quarter 1 and quarter 2 of 200X and
calculates the LRAA for location 4 as 0.109 mg/L The LRAA exceeds the HAA5 Stage 2A MCL of
0.100 mg/L.  A violation of the HAA5 MCL at the end of June 200X must be reported for the compliance
period April  1, 200X to June 30, 200X.  The system was aware of the violation in May 200X [insert date
48 months after rule  promulgation]. In addition, the system must calculate the RAA for the system as
required by the Stage 1 DBPR.  However the system is in compliance with the MCL of the Stage 1 DBPR
since the sum of the  averaged quarterly results for both treatment plant divided by 4 is less than the MCL
of 0.080 mg/L.

Beginning January 1, 200Z, System B must comply with the requirements of the LT2ESWTR as well as
the requirements of the Stage 1 DBPR and Stage 2 DBPR. One LT2ESWTR requirement is that water
systems avoiding filtration must comply with the requirements of the Stage 1 DBPR and Stage 2 DBPR
as a condition of their filtration avoidance determination. Since, System B has violated the HAA5 MCL
and is therefore  not in compliance  with the Stage 2 DBPR, it is no longer is eligible for filtration
avoidance and therefore the system is required to install filtration.

This is an MCL violation and requires Tier 2 public notification.  The system must provide public
notification within 30 days of learning of the violation.  Notification must be provided by mail or other
direct delivery method (such as  hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected
individuals that  would not have  received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. For
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
110
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
any unresolved violation following an initial Tier 2 notice, notice must be repeated every 3 months for as
long as the violation persists. An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification
requirements for these violations is  shown in  Example 6.5.

All MCL violations must also be included in the CCR. An explanation of how the system returned to
compliance could also be included.  An example of a report of these violations that could be used in the
system's CCR is shown in Example 6.6.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        111                                 November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
      Example 6-5.  Example Tier 2 Public Notification for HAAS MCL Violation
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                                  HAAS MCL Violation at System B

 Our water system recently violated a drinking water standard.  Although this incident was not an emergency, as
 our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.

 We routinely monitor for the presence of drinking water contaminants.  Testing results from May 200X show that
 our system exceeds the standard, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), for haloacetic acids (HAA5s). We
 became aware of this situation on July 5, 200X. The standards for HAA5s are 0.060 mg/L averaged over the
 entire system for a year and 0.100 mg/L at any individual monitoring location averaged over the year. The level
 of HAA5s averaged over the entire system for a year was 0.093 mg/L and the average at location 4 over the last
 year was 0.172 mg/L.

 What should I do?
 There is nothing you need to do unless you have a severely compromised immune system, have an infant, or are
 elderly. These people may be at increased risk and should seek advice about drinking water from their health care
 providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available from EPA's Safe
 Drinking Water Hotline at 1 (800) 426-4791. If you have specific health concerns, consult your doctor.

 You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions.  If a situation arises where the water is no
 longer safe to drink, you will be notified within 24 hours.  We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or
 Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

 What does this mean?
 This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified within 24 hours.
 Some people who drink water containing haloacetic acids in excess of the MCL over many years may have an
 increased risk of getting cancer.

 What is being done?

 HAA5s are a group of chemicals that are formed when chlorine or other disinfectants used to control microbial
 contaminants in drinking water react with naturally occurring organic and inorganic matter in water.  We are
 working to minimize the formation of HAA5s while ensuring an adequate level of disinfection to protect
 customers from exposure to bacteria. We have since taken samples at this location and throughout the system and
 had them tested. They  show that we meet the standards.
 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System B, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

 This notice is being sent to you by System B.

                                                  State Water System ID# SA1234582. Sent: July 10, 200X
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        112                                    November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
       Example 6-6. Example of a Notice in the CCR for HAAS MCL Violation
                                       Water Quality Data
Contaminant
Haloacetic Acids
(HAA) (ppb)
(RAA)
Haloacetic Acids
(HAA)
(ppb)(LRAA)
MCL
60
100
MCLG
0
0
Detected
Avg=93
Range: 25 - 272
Avg=172
Range: 8 - 610
Date
May
200X
May
200X
Violation
Yes*
Yes*
Source
By-product of drinking
water chlorination
By-product of drinking
water chlorination
 *System B exceeded the MCL for HAA5s.  At the end of June the system's running annual average (RAA) for the
 entire system was 93 ppb and the locational running annual average for location 4 was 172 ppb. More
 information about this violation is provided in the violation section.


                                            Violation

         Testing results from May 200X show that our system exceeds the standard, or maximum contaminant
         level (MCL), for haloacetic acids (HAA5s). The standards for HAA5s are 0.060 mg/L averaged over the
         entire system for a year and 0.100 mg/L at any individual monitoring location averaged over the year.
         The level of HAA5s averaged over the entire system for a year was 0.093 mg/L and the average at
         location 4 over the last year was 0.172 mg/L. HAA5s are a group of chemicals that are formed when
         chlorine or other disinfectants used to control microbial contaminants in drinking water react with
         naturally occurring organic and inorganic matter in water. We are working to minimize the formation of
         HAA5s while ensuring an adequate level of disinfection to protect customers from exposure to bacteria.

         We have since taken samples at this location and throughout the system and had them tested. They show
         that we meet the standards.
Example 4: LRAA and Compliance Calculations for TTHM and HAAS M&R Violations

System Description - System D

System D is a small Subpart H system serving 8,900 people to which the requirements of Stage 2 DBPR
are applicable on or before [insert 90 months following publication] if no Cryptosporidium monitoring is
required and [insert 102 months following publication] if Cryptosporidium monitoring is required under
proposed §141.706(c).

The system uses surface water treated in one conventional filtration plant. The system uses chlorine as a
chemical disinfectant applied at one location and must monitor TTHM and HAAS according to the
requirements of proposed §141.621(a).  Samples must be taken in the distribution system at a frequency
of two dual sample sets every 90 days per treatment plant. One quarterly set must be taken during the
peak historical month for DBF concentrations.  All monitoring must take place at the locations
recommended to the primacy agency in the IDSE report submitted under proposed §141.600-605.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
113
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
 Population Served:
 Source:
 Treatment:

Situation
8,900
Surface water
Conventional filtration, chlorine
Table 6-4 presents a summary of System D's TTHM and HAAS monitoring results for year 200X [insert
date 48 months after rule publication].

      Table 6-4. System D 200X TTHM and HAAS Monitoring Results (mg/L)

Parameter

TTHM
MCL =
0.080
mg/L
HAAS
MCL =
0.060
mg/L
200X-1
JUL









AUG









SEPT

0.068

0.072

0.042

0.040

OCT









NOV









DEC

0.070

0.070

0.055

0.060

200X
JAN









FEE









MAR

0.070

0.068

0.038

0.046

APR









MAY









JUN

NS

NS

NS

NS


LRAA

0.069

0.070

0.045

0.049

NS=No sample taken
LRAA=Locational running annual average

On July 1, 200X, System D's operator reviews the data for the first and second quarters of 200X. System
D did not complete the necessary monitoring of TTHM and HAAS for the second quarter of 200X.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System D's sampling record shows a major monitoring and reporting (M&R) violation in the second
quarter of 200X resulting from a failure to take at least 90% of the required samples. In this case, when
only one sample per quarter is required, the failure to take it is a major M&R violation for the quarter.  In
this case, when the system failed to take both samples required for the second quarter, it is a major M&R
violation for the second quarter of 200X and must be reported to SDWIS for both TTHM and HAAS.

The system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The system must provide public
notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or other
direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected
individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used.
Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water
is delivered.

Since System D is a community water system, it could use the CCRto inform the public of the Tier 3
violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system's learning of the violations.  For this
particular example, the system became aware of the violations on July 1, 200X [insert date 48 months
after rule promulgation]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
                       114
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
for calendar year 200X if the CCR is released prior to July 1, 200X+1 (the CCR for calendar year 200X-
1 is required to be released by July 1, 200X, for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this situation,
additional public notification would not be required.  However, whether public notification is provided
by the CCR for calendar year 200X-1 or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by
the system in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X, since all violations of National Primary
Drinking Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became
aware of the violation. The violation report in the CCR should include similar information contained in
the public notice.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6.7. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6.8.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        115                                November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
     Example 6-7. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for LRAA and Compliance
                   Calculations for TTHM and HAAS M&R Violations
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System D

 Our water system recently failed to collect the correct number of drinking water samples.  Although this incident
 was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this
 situation.

 We routinely monitor for the presence of drinking water contaminants. In June 200X our system failed to collect
 the required number of samples to test for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and haloacetic acids (HAA5s) in our
 drinking water. We became aware of this situation on July 1, 200X.  Using the data we have collected over the
 past year, we are not  in violation of the standards for either TTHM or HAA5s.  The standards for TTHMs are
 0.080 mg/L averaged over the entire system for a year and 0.120 mg/L at any individual monitoring location
 averaged over the year and for HAA5s are 0.060 mg/L averaged over the entire system for a year and 0.100 mg/L
 at any individual monitoring location averaged over the year.

 What should I do?

 There is nothing you  need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions.  You may
 continue to drink the  water.  If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be notified
 within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22  or Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

 What was done?
 TTHMs and HAA5s  are  a group of chemicals that are formed when chlorine or other disinfectants used to control
 microbial contaminants in drinking water react with naturally occurring organic and inorganic matter in water.
 We are working to minimize the formation of TTHMs and HAA5s while ensuring an adequate level of
 disinfection to protect customers from exposure to bacteria.

 We have set-up new procedures at the systems to ensure all samples  are collected and analyzed according to our
 monitoring plan.

 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System D, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd., Townsville, SA  12345.
 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

 This notice is being sent  to you by System D.
                                             State Water System ID# SA1234589. Sent: April 30, 200X+1
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        116                                   November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
      Example 6-8. Example of a Notice in the CCR for LRAA and Compliance
                  Calculations for TTHM and HAAS M&R Violations
                                           Violation

         Our water system recently failed to collect the correct number of drinking water samples. We routinely
         monitor for the presence of drinking water contaminants. In June 200X our system failed to collect the
         required number of samples to test for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and haloacetic acids (HAA5s) in
         our drinking water. Using the data we have collected over the past year, we are not in violation of the
         standards for either TTHM or HAA5s. The standards for TTHMs are 0.080 mg/L averaged over the
         entire system for a year and 0.120 mg/L at any individual monitoring location averaged over the year and
         for HAA5s are 0.060 mg/L averaged over the entire system for a year and 0.100 mg/L at any individual
         monitoring location averaged over the year.

         TTHMs and HAA5s are a group of chemicals  that are formed when chlorine or other disinfectants used
         to control microbial contaminants in drinking water react with naturally occurring organic and inorganic
         matter in water. We are working to minimize the formation of TTHMs and HAA5s while ensuring an
         adequate level of disinfection to protect customers from exposure to bacteria. Since we failed to collect
         the correct number of samples in June 200X any potential health effects related to the use of that water
         are unknown.

         We have set-up new procedures at the systems to ensure all samples are collected and analyzed
         according to our monitoring plan.
Example 5: Conducting an IDSE and Submitting the IDSE Report by Specified Date, or Using
IDSE Alternatives

System Description - System E

System E is a large Subpart H system that serves 14,000 people, purchases finished surface water year
round, and treats its own surface water from a lake.  The surface water is treated at a conventional
filtration plant that uses chlorine as a disinfectant.

 Population Served:     14,000
 Source:               Purchased surface water, surface water (from lake)
 Treatment # 1:         Conventional filtration, chlorine (to treat surface water from lake)

Because System E serves more than 10,000 people, its IDSE report is due on [insert date 24 months after
publication] under the Stage 2 DBPR.  IDSEs are studies used in conjunction with Subpart L compliance
monitoring under the Stage 1 DBPR to identify and select compliance monitoring sites that represent
high TTHM and HAAS levels throughout the distribution  system.  Each study will be based on system-
specific monitoring as proposed §141.602.  All CWSs and any NTNCWSs that serves 10,000 or more
people that add a primary or residual disinfectant other than UV light or deliver such water must comply
with this requirement.

Consecutive systems must  comply with IDSE requirements based on whether they buy some or all of
their water from another PWS. Consecutive systems must comply with the [insert date 24 months after
publication] if any system in the combined distribution system serves more than 10,000 people. If none
of the systems in the combined distribution serve more than 10,000 people consecutive systems must
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        117                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
complete an IDSE by [insert date 48 months after publication]. A consecutive system that buys some but
not all of its finished water during the period identified in this paragraph must treat each entry point from
a wholesale system as a treatment plant for the purpose of determining monitoring requirements of this
subpart if water is delivered from the wholesale system to the consecutive system for at least 60 days
through that entry point. A consecutive system that buys all its finished water during the period
identified in this paragraph must monitor based on population and source water.

IDSE reports must include all TTHM and HAAS analytical results from compliance monitoring
conducted during the period of the IDSE and a schematic of the distribution system (with results,
location, and date of all IDSE monitoring, system-specific study monitoring, and compliance
monitoring). Reports must also include all additional data relied on to justify IDSE monitoring site
selection, the original monitoring plan developed under proposed §141.602, and an explanation of any
deviations from that plan. If a system used the system-specific study alternative, the report must include
the basis by which it was determined that the recommended monitoring  sites represented TTHM and
HAAS levels comparable or superior to those that would have otherwise been identified under proposed
§141.602.

Situation

On [insert date 24 months after publication], System E's qualified operator completes the IDSE plan.
The operator submits the plan to the primacy agency. A copy is placed on file at the treatment plant and
at the system offices for inspection by the public and the primacy agency.  However, System E has not
included all required distribution system samples.  The system is required to collect a total of 16 dual
sample sets because 8 sample sets per plant are required and the system's consecutive entry point is
considered to be a plant. Only 8 of the 16 required dual sample sets for  the monitoring period are
included in the plan.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System E is in violation of the Stage 2 DBPR for failing to submit a complete IDSE report prior to [insert
date 24 months after publication] even though the system submitted a report to the primacy agency
before the compliance deadline.

The system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The system must provide public
notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or other
direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected
individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used.
Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which  water
is delivered.

Since System E is a community water system, it could use the CCRto inform the public of the Tier 3
violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system's learning of the violations. For this
particular example, the system became aware of the violations on X, 200X [insert date 48 months  after
rule promulgation]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for
calendar year 200X-1 if the CCR is released prior to  X, 200X+1 (the CCR for calendar year 200X-1 is
required to be released by July 1, 200X, for compliance with the CCR Rule).  In this situation, additional
public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR
for calendar year 200X-1 or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the system


Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        118                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X, since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water
Rules must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became aware of the
violation. The violation report in the CCR should include similar information contained in the public
notice.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6.9.  An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6.10.

   Example 6-9. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Conducting an IDSE and
      Submitting the IDSE Report by Specified Date, or Using IDSE Alternatives
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System E

 On [insert date 36 months after publication] we were informed by the state that our system recently failed to
 submit the proper information to the state in our initial distribution system evaluation (IDSE). Although this
 incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to
 correct this situation.
 On [insert date 24 months after publication], we completed and submitted to the  state an IDSE plan. However, in
 the plan we did not include all required distribution system samples. Using the requirement for a system having
 one treatment plant we planned to collect information from 8 sample sets sites. However we are required to
 collect a total of 16 sample sets sites (8 samples sets per plant). In addition to our system's treatment plant, our
 system's connection to System Y is considered to be a plant.

 What should I do?
 There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You may
 continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be notified
 within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio  Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

 What was done?
 We have revised and resubmitted the IDSE report to the state identifying the 16 sample sets sites as required.
 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System E, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd, Townsville, SA 12345.
 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes,  schools, and businesses).  You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

 This notice is being sent to you by System E.
                          State Water System ID# SA1234589.  Sent: [insert date 36 months after publication]
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        119                                  November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
    Example 6-10. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Conducting an IDSE and
     Submitting the IDSE Report by Specified Date, or Using IDSE Alternatives
                                           Violation

         Our system recently failed to submit the proper information to the state in our initial distribution system
         evaluation (IDSE). On [insert date 24 months after publication], we completed and submitted to the
         state an IDSE plan. However, in the plan we did not include all required distribution system samples.
         Using the requirement for a system having one treatment plant we planned to collect information from 8
         sample sets sites.  However we are required to collect a total of 16 sample sets sites (8 samples sets per
         plant).  In addition to our system's treatment plant, our system's connection to System Y is considered to
         be a plant.
         We have revised and resubmitted the IDSE report to the state identifying the 16 sample sets sites as
         required.
Example 6: Failure to Submit DBF Monitoring Plan to Primacy Agency

System Description - System F

System F is a large Subpart H community water system serving 100,000 people that has a surface water
source and a GWUDI source.  The surface water source is treated with a conventional filtration plant,
and the GWUDI source is membrane filtered.  All sources are disinfected with chlorine.  The system is
required to monitor according to proposed §141.620(d). The system utilizes two plants known as TP 1
and TP 2.

 Population Served:     100,000
 Source # 1:            Surface water
 Treatment # 1:          Conventional filtration, chlorine
 Source #2:            GWUDI
 Treatment:            Membrane filtration, chlorine

Any system required to monitor under the provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR is required to  develop and
implement a monitoring plan.  System F's qualified operator must prepare a plan that includes (at a
minimum) the elements listed in proposed §141.622(a). Because System F serves more than 3,300
people, the operator must also submit a copy of the monitoring plan to the primacy agency prior to the
date that the system has to begin complying with the plan, as described in proposed §141.622(c).
According to  proposed §141.620(c), the effective date of the rule for System F is [insert date 72 months
following  publication].

Situation

On [insert date prior to compliance deadline],  System F's operator completes the monitoring plan and
includes all of the elements described in proposed §141.622(a). A copy is placed on file  at the treatment
plant and at the system offices and is available for inspection by the public and the primacy agency.  On
[insert date 72 months following publication], the operator begins to monitor in accordance with the plan.
On [insert date at end of first quarter of monitoring], the records show that the operator has collected,
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        120                                November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
analyzed, and recorded the appropriate data for all samples required under the terms of the monitoring
plan.  The operator calculates compliance based upon the requirements of the monitoring plan and
submits the appropriate compliance information to the primacy agency within 10 days after the end of the
quarter [insert date 10 days after the end of the first quarter of monitoring]. Although System F
completed its monitoring plan, System F did not submit its plan to the primacy agency prior to the date
that the system has to begin complying with the plan.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System F is in violation of the Stage 2 DBPR for failing to submit its monitoring plan to the primacy
agency by [insert date prior to 72 months following rule promulgation], even though the plan was
prepared and implemented properly.  Subsequently, the primacy agency received the monitoring plan on
[insert date following the violation].

The system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The  system must provide public
notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or other
direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected
individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used.
Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water
is delivered.

Since System F is a community water system, it could use the CCRto inform the public of the Tier 3
violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system's learning of the violations.  For this
particular example, the system became aware of the violations on April 5, 200X [insert date 72  months
after rule promulgation]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced
for calendar year 200X-1 if the CCR is released prior to April 5, 200X+1 (the CCR for calendar year
200X-1 is required to be released by July 1, 200X, for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this situation,
additional public notification would not be required.  However, whether public notification is provided
by the CCR for calendar year 200X-1 or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by
the system in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X, since all violations of National Primary
Drinking Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became
aware of the violation. The violation report in the CCR should include similar information contained in
the public notice.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6.11.  An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6.12.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        121                                November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
    Example 6-11. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Submit DBF
                            Monitoring Plan to Primacy Agency
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System F

 On April 5, 200X+1 we became aware that our system failed to submit our monitoring plan to the state that
 identifies how the system will monitor for contaminants. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our
 customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.
 On [insert date prior to compliance deadline], we complete the monitoring plan and included all of the elements
 required. A copy was placed on file at the treatment plant and at the system's offices and is available for
 inspection by the public and the primacy agency. On [insert date 72 months following publication], the we began
 to monitor in accordance with the plan and have collected, analyzed, and recorded the appropriate data for all
 samples required under the terms of the monitoring plan. However, we are in violation for failing to submit the
 monitoring plan to the state by [insert date prior to 72 months following rule promulgation], even though the plan
 was prepared and implemented properly.
 What should I do?
 There is nothing you need to do.  You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You may
 continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be notified
 within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).
 What was done?
 We submitted the monitoring plan to the state on [insert date following the violation].  This situation is now
 resolved.
 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System F, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.
 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water,  especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
 This notice is being sent to you by System F.
            State Water System ID# SA1234589.  Sent: April 6,  [insert date 72 months after rule promulgation]
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        122                                   November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
      Example 6-12. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Submit DBF
                           Monitoring Plan to Primacy Agency
                                           Violation

         Our system failed to submit our monitoring plan to the state that identifies how the system will monitor
         for contaminants. On [insert date prior to compliance deadline], we complete the monitoring plan and
         included all of the elements required.  A copy was placed on file at the treatment plant and at the
         system's offices and is available for inspection by the public and the primacy agency.  On [insert date 72
         months following publication], the we began to monitor in accordance with the plan and have collected,
         analyzed, and recorded the appropriate data for all samples required under the terms of the monitoring
         plan.  However, we are in violation for failing to submit the monitoring plan to the state by [insert date
         prior to 72 months following rule promulgation], even though the plan was prepared and implemented
         properly.
         We submitted the monitoring plan to the state on [insert date following the violation].  This situation is
         now resolved.
Example 7: Bromate M&R Violation

System Description - System G

System G is a small Subpart H CWS that serves 4,700 people, uses surface water, and treats with a
softening plant. Both ozone and chlorine are used as disinfectants. System G utilizes one plant and one
source. System G wishes to qualify for a reduced bromate monitoring schedule, reducing monitoring
from once monthly at the entry point to the distribution system to once quarterly at the entry point to the
distribution system.

 Population Served:      4,700
 Source:                Surface water
 Treatment:             Softening plant, ozone, chlorine

The Stage 1  DBPR includes a requirement for all systems using ozone to monitor for bromate at the
entrance to the distribution system from each ozone plant. In order to qualify for reduced bromate
monitoring under the Stage 1 DBPR and for the first 36 months after promulgating the Stage 2 DBPR,
System G must conduct monthly bromide monitoring  in the source water. Since System G would like to
qualify for reduced monitoring, the qualified operator collects one sample for bromate from the entrance
to the distribution system on a monthly frequency and one sample for bromide from the source water on a
monthly frequency. To qualify for reduced bromate monitoring under the Stage 1 DBPR and for the first
36 months after promulgating the Stage 2 DBPR, the RAA for bromide in source water must be less than
0.05 mg/L. After [insert date 36 months after rule publication], the RAA for bromate must be less than
0.0025 mg/L and samples must be analyzed using Method 317.0 Revision 2.0, 326.0, or 321.8 to  qualify
for reduced monitoring.  If the samples are not analyzed using one of these analytical methods, the
system must resume or continue monthly bromate monitoring, using one of the above analytical methods,
until the system qualifies for reduced monitoring.

If a PWS has qualified for reduced monitoring  before [insert date 36 months  after rule publication], the
system may  remain on reduced monitoring as long as the bromate RAA of quarterly samples is 0.0025


Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        123                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
mg/L or less, using Method 317.0 Revision 2.0, 326.0, or 321.8. If the RAA of bromate is greater than
0.0025 mg/L, the system no longer qualifies for reduced bromate monitoring and is required to resume
routine monitoring for bromate.

At the beginning of 200X-1, 24 months after promulgating the Stage 2 DBPR, System G's qualified
operator reviews bromide source water monitoring for the previous year to determine whether the system
qualifies for a reduced bromate monitoring frequency. Based on the sample results System G is qualified
to go on to for reduced bromate monitoring since the RAA for bromide source water monitoring
collected in 200X-2 is less than 0.05 mg/L.  System G conducts quarterly bromate monitoring for the
yearof200X-l.

At the beginning of 200X (36 months after promulgating the Stage 2 DBPR), System G calculates the
RAA for bromate based on data collected the previous year and compares it to 0.0025 mg/L. If the
annual average bromate concentration is less than 0.0025 mg/L, then the operator may continue to
conduct quarterly bromate monitoring.  Although the RAA for bromate is less than 0.0025 mg/L, the
operator realizes that the bromate samples collected in 200X-1 were not analyzed using Method 317.0
Revision 2.0, 326.0, or 321.8. Therefore, the operator returns to routine monitoring for bromate in 200X
and collects and analyzes one bromate sample using Method 326.0 from the entry point to the
distribution system once a month, according to the requirements of the system's monitoring plan. The
operator records the results on the bromate monitoring form and, after 1 year of monthly monitoring for
bromate, determines that the RAA for bromate is less than 0.0025 mg/L. Since System G qualifies for
reduced monitoring, the system collects quarterly bromate samples during the year 200X+1.

Situation

Table 6-5 summarizes the  System G source water bromide and treated water bromate monitoring results.

           Table 6-5.  System G Bromide and Bromate Monitoring Results

JAN

FEE

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Bromide Source Water Monitoring Results (mg/L)
200X-2
0.020
0.010
0.040
0.080
0.060
0.100
0.080
0.050
0.020
0.010
0.040
0.020
Bromate Monitoring Results (mg/L)
200X-2
200X-1
200X
200X+1
0.006

0.002

0.004

0.001

0.005
0.001
0.003
0.002
0.002

0.001

0.003

0.001

0.004
0.002
0.001
0.008
0.002

0.002
NS
0.001

0.001
NS
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.005
0.002

0.002
NS
0.004

0.003
NS
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.003
RAA


0.044

0.003
0.002
0.002
0.005
RAA = Running Annual Arithmetic Average
NS = No samples taken after system should have returned to routine monthly monitoring

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements
System G is not eligible for a reduction in monitoring frequency after the month of June 200X+1 because
the RAA of bromate is greater than 0.0025 mg/L for the four most recent quarters. After June 200X+1,
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance
124
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
the RAA of samples collected from third quarter 200X to second quarter 200X+1 equals 0.0026 mg/L.
Therefore, after the second quarterly sample in 200X+1, System G no longer qualifies for reduced
quarterly bromate monitoring. Beginning in July, System G is required to begin monitoring monthly for
bromate. Since System G did not collect another bromate sample until September 200X+1, System G is
in violation of the requirement to return to routine monitoring once the RAA of bromate samples are
greater than 0.0025 mg/L.

The system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The system must provide public
notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or other
direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected
individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used.
Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water
is delivered.

Since System G is a community water system, it could use the CCRto inform the public of the Tier 3
violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system's learning of the violations. For this
particular example, the system became aware of the violations on December 15, 200X +1.  The public
could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X if the CCR is
released prior to December 15, 200X+2 (the CCR for calendar year 200X is required to be released by
July 1, 200X+1, for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this  situation, additional public notification
would not be required. However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR for calendar year
200X+1 or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the system in the CCR
produced for calendar year 200X+1, since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water Rules must
be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became aware of the violation. The
violation report in the CCR should include similar information contained in the public notice.

An example of a  public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6.13. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6.14.
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        125                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
   Example 6-13.  Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Bromate M&R Violation
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System G

 On December 15, 200X +1 we became aware that our system recently failed to collect the correct number of
 drinking water samples. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know
 what happened and what we did to correct this situation.

 Our system qualified to reduce the number of samples required to monitor for bromate in 200X-1. Bromate is a
 chemical that is formed when a system uses ozone to disinfect drinking water and it reacts with naturally
 occurring bromide in source water.  We were allowed to take 1 sample per quarter rather than 1 sample per
 month. In June 200X+1 because the running annual average exceeded 0.0025 mg/L and we no longer qualify for
 reduced quarterly bromate monitoring. Beginning in July, we failed to begin monitoring monthly for bromate.

 What should  I do?
 There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You may
 continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be notified
 within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies  on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

 What was done?
 We began monitoring monthly for bromate in December 200X+1 and will continue to monitoring on this
 schedule.
 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System G, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.
 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

 This notice is being sent to you by System G.
                                           State Water System ID# SA1234589.  Sent: January 10, 200X+2
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        126                                  November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
     Example 6-14. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Bromate M&R Violation
                                           Violation

         Our system recently failed to collect the correct number of drinking water samples. Our system qualified
         to reduce the number of samples required to monitor for bromate in 200X-1.  Bromate is a chemical that
         is formed when a system uses ozone to disinfect drinking water and it reacts with naturally occurring
         bromide in source water. We were allowed to take 1 sample per quarter rather than 1 sample per month.
         In June 200X+1 because the running annual average exceeded 0.0025 mg/L and we no longer qualify for
         reduced quarterly bromate monitoring. Beginning in July, we failed to begin monitoring monthly for
         bromate.  Since we failed to collect the correct number of samples in July 200X+1 any potential health
         effects related to the use of that water are unknown.
         We began monitoring monthly for bromate in December 200X+1 and will continue to monitoring on this
         schedule.
Example 8: Failure to Maintain Copies of Monitoring Plan Recordkeeping Violation

System Description - System H

System H is a small water system serving 5,200 people that uses surface water and treats with a softening
plant.  Chlorine is used as a disinfectant.

 Population Served:      5,200
 Source:                Surface water
 Treatment:             Softening plant, chlorine

Situation

System H, which is not required to monitor for Cryptosporidium under the LT2ESWTR, revises its
monitoring plan developed under the Stage 1 DBPR on January 1, 200X [insert date 90 months after
publication]. The system keeps a copy of its monitoring plan until January 1, 200Y [insert date 126
months after publication] and then discards it.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System H has committed a recordkeeping violation. Systems are required to keep a copy of their revised
monitoring plans for 36 months after modifying them, or for the amount of time that analyses are
required to be kept under proposed §141.33(a), whichever is longer.  Since proposed §141.33(a) requires
systems to keep chemical analyses for 10 years, which is longer than 3 years, System H must keep a copy
of its revised monitoring plan until January 1, 200Z [insert date 210 months after publication].

The system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The system must provide public
notification within 1 year of learning of the violation.  Notification must be provided by mail or other
direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected
individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used.
Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water
is delivered.


Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance         127                                November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
Since System H is a community water system, it could use the CCRto inform the public of the Tier 3
violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system's learning of the violations. For this
particular example, the system became aware of the violations on April 1, 200Y. The public could
therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar year 200Y if the CCR is
released prior to April 1, 200Y+1.  In this situation, additional public notification would not be required.
However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR for calendar year 200Y or by other means,
this violation would still have to be reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year 200Y,
since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the
calendar year in which the system became aware of the violation. The violation report in the CCR should
include similar information contained in the public notice.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6.15.  An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6.16.

Example 6-15. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Maintain Copies of
                        Monitoring Plan Recordkeeping Violation
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                         Recordkeeping Requirements Not Met for System H

 On April 1, 200Y we became aware that our water system recently failed to keep records on file for the specified
 time period. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what
 happened and what we did to correct this situation.
 We were required to revises our monitoring plan by January 1, 200X [insert date 90 months after publication].
 We kept of a copy of it until January 1, 200Y [insert date 126 months after publication] and then discarded it.
 However, we were required to keep a copy of the plan for 10 years, we should have kept a copy of its revised
 monitoring plan until January 1, 200Z [insert date 210 months after publication].

 What should I do?
 There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You may
 continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be notified
 within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).
 What was done?
 Because of the nature of this violation no further actions is required.
 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System H, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd, Townsville, SA 12345.
 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
 This notice is being sent to you by System H.
             State Water System ID# SA1234571. Sent: June 1, 200Y [insert date 126 months after publication]
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        128                                  November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR
  Example 6-16.  Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Maintain Copies of
                        Monitoring Plan Recordkeeping Violation)
                                            Violation

         Our water system recently failed to keep records on file for the specified time period. We were required
         to revises our monitoring plan by January 1, 200X [insert date 90 months after publication]. We kept of
         a copy of it until January 1, 200 Y [insert date 126 months after publication] and then discarded it.
         However, we were required to keep a copy of the plan for 10 years, we should have kept a copy of its
         revised monitoring plan until January 1, 200Z [insert date 210 months after publication].
Draft Stage 2 DBPR Implementation Guidance        129                                 November 2003

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------