Response to Public Comments on EPA's Proposed Public Notification Rule (64 FR 25964), May 1999 Reflects March 3, 2000 FAR Draft Final


Response to Public Comments on

EPA's Proposed Public Notification Rule
(64 FR 25964, May 13,1999)

Reflects March 3, 2000 FAR Draft

Final — March 3, 2000

-------
Contents

Introduction 	iii

Commenters on EPA's Proposed Public Notification Rule	iii

Topic 1: General Comments	1

Topic 2: 141.201 (a) Who must give public notice? 	14

Topic 3: 141.201 (b) What type of public notice is required for each violation or situation? . . 18

Topic 4: 141.201(c) Who must be notified?	23

Topic 5: 141.202 (a) Which violations or situations require a Tier 1 public notice? 	31

Topic 6: 141.202 (b) When is the Tier 1 public notice to be provided? What additional steps

are required?	65

Topic 7: 141.202 (c) What is the form and manner of the public notice?	83

Topic 8: 141.203 (a) Which violations or situations require a Tier 2 public notice? 	93

Topic 9: 141.203 (b) When is the Tier 2 public notice to be provided? 	95

Topic 10: 141.203 (c) What is the form and manner of the Tier 2 public notice?	104

Topic 11: 141.204 (a) Which violations or situations require a Tier 3 public notice? 	116

Topic 12: 141.204 (b) When is the Tier 3 public notice to be provided? 	125

Topic 13: 141.204 (c) What is the form and manner of the Tier 3 public notice?	131

Topic 14: 141.204 (d) In what situations may the Consumer Confidence Report be used to meet
the Tier 3 public notice requirements?	134

Topic 15: 141.205 (a) What elements must be included in the public notice for violations of
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), including the monitoring and
testing procedure requirements? 	147

Topic 16: 141.205 (b) What elements must be included in the public notice for public water

systems operating under a variance or exemption?	155

Topic 17: 141.205 (c) How is the public notice to be presented? 	156

i

-------
Topic 18: 141.205 (d) What standard language must public water systems include in their

public notice?	162

Topic 19: 141.206 Notice to new billing units or new customers	191

Topic 20: 141.207 Special notice of the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring

results	195

Topic 21:	141.208 Special notice for exceedance of the SMCL for fluoride 	200

Topic 22:	141.209 Notice by the primacy agency on behalf of the public water system .... 208

Topic 23:	Part 141, Subpart D - Reporting and record keeping	211

Topic 24:	Part 142, Subpart B - Primacy requirements 	221

li

-------
Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed changes to its drinking water public
notification (PN) regulations. The PN regulations apply to owners and operators of public water
systems that fail to comply with the drinking water standards and related regulations under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. EPA published its proposed PN regulation in t\\Q Federal Register on May 13,
1999 (64 FR 25964), and invited comment.

EPA received a total of 53 written comments on the proposed rule: 47 comments were submitted by
the close of the public comment period on July 12, 1999, and another six comments were submitted
after that date. The commenters represented a variety of interests. Most represented State agencies
or associations (22 commenters), followed by water systems and associations (20 commenters).
Other commenters included environmental/citizens groups (3 commenters), trade organizations (3
commenters), counties (1 commenter), individuals (2 commenters), and other organizations (2
commenters). The public commenters are listed below.

During the public comment period, EPA held four public meetings to take comment on the PN rule
in May and June 1999, in Madison, WI, Washington, DC, Allentown, PA, and Phoenix, AZ. A total
of 168 people attended these meetings; some provided comment on the proposed rule. In
conjunction with each public meeting, EPA held meetings to obtain input on sample public notices
of drinking water violations developed using the draft Public Notification Handbook. Some
comments from these meetings relate to the proposed rule.

Commenters on EPA's Proposed Public Notification Rule

1.01	Mike Mecke

1.02	Oklahoma DEQ

1.03	Dave Van Fleet

1.04	Indiana DEM

1.05	City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department

1.06	Washington State Department of Health, Division of Drinking Water

1.07	Des Moines Water Works

1.08	Massachusetts DEP

1.09	Coalition for Health, Environment and Economic Rights, et al.

1.10	Commission of Public Works, City of Spartanburg, SC

1.11	Consumer Federation of America

1.12	Bridgeport (CT) Hydraulic Company

1.13	Missouri Department of Natural Resources

1.14	American Water Works Association

1.15	City of Glendale (AZ), Department of Public Works

1.16	Association of California Water Agencies

1.17	Chemical Manufacturers Association

1.18	City of Phoenix, Water Services Department

1.19	Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

in

-------
1.20	Oregon Health Division

1.21	Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc.

1.22	San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

1.23	Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

1.24	Natural Resources Defense Council

1.25	Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management

1.26	Metro Water District (Tucson, AZ)

1.27	Carroll County (MD) Health Department Bureau of Environmental Health

1.28	New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

1.29	Virginia Department of Health

1.30	Iowa Department of Natural Resources

1.31	Utah DEQ, Division of Drinking Water

1.32	New Jersey DEP, Interagency Work Group on Infectious Disease and Drinking Water

1.33	Illinois EPA, Division of Public Water Supplies

1.34	Maryland Department of the Environment

1.35	Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

1.36	New York Department of Health

1.37	Boston Water and Sewer Commission

1.38	Lehigh County (PA) Authority

1.39	City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water

1.40	Minnesota Department of Health

1.41	City of Chandler (AZ), Office of the City Attorney

1.42	American Dental Association

1.43	City of Madison

1.44	Des Moines Water Works

1.45	Illinois EPA

1.46	American Water Works Service Co., Inc.

1.47	Gilbert (AZ) Water Treatment Plant

2.1	University of Florida, Soil and Water Science Department

2.2	New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services

2.3	Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

2.4	Akron (OH) Public Utilities Bureau

2.5	Alabama Department of Environmental Management

2.6	United States Postal Service

E. 1	Public Meeting on Proposed PN Rule and Handbook, Madison, WI, May 26, 1999

E.2	Public Meeting on Proposed PN Rule and Handbook, Washington, DC, June 3, 1999

E.3	Public Meeting on Proposed PN Rule and Handbook, Allentown, PA, June 8-9, 1999

E.4	Public Meeting on Proposed PN Rule and Handbook, Phoenix, AZ, June 23-24, 1999

E.5	Meetings to Test and Review of Sample Public Notices

iv

-------
Topic 1: General Comments

Mike Mecke (1.01): Follow-up testing and research results must also be made following
violations and clearly explained to public within a short time period (30days [sic]).

Response: The PN rule does not address follow-up testing and research; EPA
believes this comment is beyond the scope of PN as provided in SDWA section
1414. However, states may require systems to distribute additional public
information.

Mike Mecke (1.01): Research, testing and public notification should be expanded to eventually
include other water-borne pathogens (crypto, giardia, etc.), plus viruses and medications carried
thru effluent. Recent European research has shown that significant amounts and types of human
(animal too?) medications can be put back into our waterways through the release of sewage
effluent. This then is picked up by aquatic biota and its end results are fairly vague now, but
probably not beneficial. This all ends up in our bays and oceans as well in the end - our major
food basket.

Response: EPA believes this comment is beyond the scope of the PN rulemaking.
The PN rule requirements are triggered by violations of existing National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations and other situations related to risk associated with
drinking water.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): It is important system operators not be pulled
away from fixing the problem to distribute notices because a significant number of people do not
heed the warning. A survey was done following a very serious boil water order. Thirty-two
percent of households reported that someone consumed unboiled water. Reasons given included
forgetting, not believing there was a problem and not understanding that the order included ice
and water used in drinks. The next enclosure is an article from DNR's Water and Wastewater
Digest encouraging systems to think ahead of time: If they ever had an acute violation, what
methods would most be most efficient for them to perform and most effective at reaching
customers.

Response: EPA agrees that public notification should not interfere too much with
solving the violation. Two of EPA's objectives in revising the rule were to
simplify the rule and reduce the burden on water systems. EPA intends that the
revised rule will allow systems to focus on resolving their problems. EPA
encourages systems to "think ahead" and work with their primacy agency prior to
any emergency to determine the best way to inform affected consumers.

American Water Works Association (1.14): [I]t is unclear as to how the new format for this rule
will be incorporated into the ongoing effort to reformat Sections 141 and 142 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. This new format is quite a bit different than previous rules, and some

1

-------
thought will need to be given as to how and where to fit this regulation into the reformatted
regulations.

Response: The PN rule follows the "plain language" guidelines from President
Clinton's executive order of March, 1998, as all new requirements are required to
do. EPA intends, at a future date, to issue a re-codification of Part 141.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): It is unclear whether there is a process to
resolve disputes when a water system disagrees with the primacy agency decision on a public
notification. We recommend that there be a process to resolve such disputes.

Response: EPA does not believe that a formalized dispute resolution process is
needed or even appropriate. Any dispute resolution processes over PN
requirements will be established, if at all, by the primacy agency.

Metro Water District (Tucson, AZ) (1.26): Is it appropriate to include potential fines to public
water supplies as part of the notification language. This would appear helpful in letting the public
know the significance, not only on heath effects wise, but financially the potential end
capabilities of a given water supply not able to meet water quality criteria because of the lack of
funding.

Response: EPA does not agree that enforcement information should be included
in the content of a public notice, which is focused on the safety of drinking water.
EPA does not believe that these public notices should be the vehicle for providing
other information that is available as part of the public communication
surrounding state and federal enforcement actions.

American Water Works Service Co., Inc. (1.46): Public notification requirements have always
been a nuisance, because by the time a notification is issued, the problem has usually long
passed. Therefore PN has generally been a source of confusion to the public, because the notice
is received and generally no action on the part of consumers is recommended. Congress believed
that requiring such notice anyway, would enlist the support of rate payers to improve the water
system. In actuality, the notice probably instills a lack of confidence in addition to the confusion
mentioned earlier. Consequently, we are pleased with this proposed rule in that it eliminates
most of the problems we have encountered.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

Bob McElmurry, Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene (at Madison meeting) (E. 1): Units used for
radiological contaminants should be consistent. The MCL for beta radiation is in millirems/year
rather than pCi/1, as is used for gross alpha and radium 226/228.

2

-------
Response: EPA does not believe that the units used for presenting standard
monitoring results should be specified in the PN rule. These units are specified as
part of the regulations for each standard.

Richard Kolish, City of Baltimore Water Department (at DC meeting) (E.2): The requirements
pose a large burden on systems who do not have adequate money and staff.

Response: Congress requires public notification and EPA believes that the cost of
complying with the PN rule is justified in terms of the benefits of providing such
information to persons served in order to protect their health. The revised PN rule
significantly reduces the costs from those in the current PN rule.

Pete Mandeville, Pine Valley Water (at Phoenix meeting) (E.4): The proposed rule is an
unfunded mandate. This is a big cost for a small system such as ours serving 120 people with
lots of absentee landlords. Where should systems get the money to comply with the new
requirements? The corporation commission will not allow a rate increase of even $.25-$.30 to
cover the additional cost. When EPA makes a rule, it should go to the corporation commission
and ask it for a 1 percent rate increase to cover the cost.

Response: Congress requires public notification and EPA believes that the cost
of complying with the PN rule is justified in terms of the benefits of providing
such information to persons served in order to protect their health. The revised
PN rule significantly reduces the costs from those in the current PN rule.

Comments on EPA's Approach to the PN Rule

Dave Van Fleet (1.03): . . . [T]his seems to be a good common sense approach in revising the
public notification rule.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

Washington State Department of Health, Division of Drinking Water (1.06): Overall, we believe
the Public Notification Rule revisions are an improvement over the current requirement and
should lead to increased compliance as intended. The "plain language" question-and-answer
format makes the regulation easier to read and follow. The flexibility afforded the primacy
agencies, particularly with regard to the option of elevating lower tiers, allows the process to be
tailored to fit local and individual PWS situations.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support and has retained this
approach in the final rule.

Massachusetts DEP (1.08): EPA has done an admirable job in writing the proposed Public
Notification rule in a format that is friendlier to the regulated community. The question and

3

-------
answer format, in addition to the use of more plain language, will allow water systems to
determine the violation type and fulfill the public notice requirements efficiently.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support and has retained this

approach in the final rule.

Consumer Federation of America (1.11): CFA strongly supports the provisions in the 1996 Safe
Drinking Water Act that strengthened consumers' ability to determine what is in their drinking
water. It is a central principle of the consumer movement that consumers are entitled to receive
product information, and to receive it in time to make informed decisions to protect their health
and pocket book. Although the Consumer Confidence Report mandated by the 1996 law gives
consumers valuable year-end drinking water information, it was not intended to provide timely
warnings of potential health threats. The Public Notification Rule has been, and continues to be,
necessary to warn consumers as soon as possible when a potential serious adverse health threat is
posed by an excess of a contaminant in the drinking water or a loss of treatment effectiveness.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

Bridgeport (CT) Hydraulic Company (1.12): We support the major provisions of the proposed
rule and believe that it presents a reasonable and feasible approach to accomplishing notification
of the public regarding water quality issues.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): Missouri DNR concurs entirely with the
principle that consumers have a right to know what's in their drinking water and that with
effective public notice, ". . consumers will be better able to make health decisions for themselves
and their families" (from p. 25965 of the proposed rule). To some extent the proposed rule
achieves this goal in reducing the time required for public notice to 24 hours for Tier I violations
and requires immediate consultation with the primacy agency regarding how public notice will
be done.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support and has retained this

approach in the final rule.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA would like to commend EPA for the
stakeholder effort that was used in the development of this proposed regulation and the
associated handbook. The EPA should be commended for the herculean task of pulling together
the widely varied views of the full spectrum of stakeholders within the framework of the
proposed rule, by balancing flexibility with consistency and accountability.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

4

-------
Association of California Water Agencies (1.16): ACWA . . . appreciates EPA's effort to
conduct the extensive stakeholder process for the development of this revised regulation.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (1.19): MWRA supports the proposed revisions and
commends EPA for its efforts to address the objectives of the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA
in these regulations, particularly EPA's efforts to streamline the requirements for public
notification and coordinate this rule with the requirements of the Consumer Confidence Rule.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (1.22): Overall, the proposed Public Notification
Rule presents an improved approach to quickly and clearly communicates potential health risks
to the public when serious violations or water quality conditions occur. The rule also gives the
PWS an avenue for communicating less serious water quality conditions or treatment problems
in a way as to not create unnecessary panic or anxiety.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): In general, ASDWA is supportive of
the approach taken to develop revisions to this important rule. ASDWA believes that the "plain
language" format will make the Federal regulatory requirements more easily understood by both
states and water systems. ASDWA also supports development of the Public Notification
Handbook to provide tools, tips, and templates for systems to use as they implement the rule.
ASDWA congratulates the Agency on eliminating or streamlining some of the more cumbersome
and onerous requirements found in the current requirements for public notification while
continuing to focus on the best methods for notification of public health threats.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): We are pleased with the agency's prompt action on
this integral part of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Public Notification rule serves the unique
purpose of warning all water consumers as soon as possible when a potential serious adverse
health threat exists. Prompt, concise, and accurate information is essential to adequately protect
public health.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (1.28): We have reviewed the Proposed
Public Notification Rule and in general are in agreement with many of the provisions and the
overall format.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

5

-------
Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Maryland strongly supports the revisions to
the existing public notification requirements for public drinking water systems. In coordination
with the Consumer Confidence Report Rule, the proposed rule will provide the public with
clearer information on their drinking water, and any possible risks related to contaminations,
water quality standards, and treatment techniques.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): AMWA would like to express appreciation
and commend all those who worked on the proposed rule. It is evident that a great deal of
thought and effort has gone into incorporating stakeholder input, and developing a rule that
clearly focuses on the more serious violations.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

Boston Water and Sewer Commission (1.37): The Boston Water and Sewer Commission has
reviewed the proposed revisions to the Public Notification Rule. The Commission commends
and supports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to ensure public safety when a
drinking water violation occurs.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

City of Chandler (AZ), Office of the City Attorney (1.41): The City of Chandler, Arizona
(Chandler) supports the goal of providing accurate and timely information to consumers on
issues relating to drinking water quality. Chandler also supports provisions intended to provide
"immediate' notification to consumers regarding on-going water quality violations with the
potential to have serious adverse effects on human health. As such, Chandler generally supports
the broad goals of the proposed Public Notification Rule. Chandler does, however, have several
comments relating to specific provisions included in the proposed rule and the implementation of
the rule as proposed.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

Comments on the PN Rule Preamble

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): Table A and the attendant discussion are
highly misleading. To state "TWSs must comply only with existing national primary drinking
water regulations where short-term violations may pose a health threat..." is only the tip of the
iceberg of the monitoring reduction allowed TWSs under the NPDWRs. It needs to be clearly
stated that even for the short-term violations, the federal monitoring requirement for TWSs are
much more lax, allowing monitoring as infrequently as annually, leaving a huge vulnerability
when pumps are replaced, etc. many months before the next sample for total coliform testing will
be taken. The CDC/EPA report "Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks-United States,
1995-1996" published in December 1998, summary enclosed, shows noncommunity systems do

6

-------
indeed have serious problems. Of the 11 groundwater systems linked to outbreaks, 8 were
noncommunity systems. The public also has a right to know that volatile organic chemical
testing will not routinely be performed at the PWSs most likely to be contaminated-gas stations,
truck stops, and convenience stores.

Table A shows that nationally, a community system is much more likely to have a violation than
a TWSs. For this table to have any validity, a column needs to be added listing the potential
number of violations for each system type under the NPDWRS. In Missouri, TWSs are required
to monitor for total coliform every month they dispense water to the public. In 1998 TWSs in
Missouri accounted for 38 percent of all systems in the state, but had 48 percent of the MCL
violations for total coliform bacteria, 65 percent of the acute violations for fecal coliform or E
coli, and 58 percent of major monitoring violations (Annual Compliance Report enclosed). DNR
feels statistics would be similar nationally if the NPDWRS required monthly testing for total
coliform at TWSs. Missouri is ahead of the pack in finding these TWSs with major
bacteriological problems.

This issue is particularly vital with regard to vulnerable subpopulations. This group must be
educated to "know before they go," be it domestic or foreign travel. The last thing an
immunocompromised person needs is to get feeling just well enough to go on vacation to a
remote TWS that has not tested for total coliform in 10 months and to come home with a
waterborne illness. It is a misplaced priority that a community system with no violations
whatsoever is required to make mention of bottled water in their CCR while EPA draws no
national focus to low national drinking water standards at TWSs. . . .

The average cost of the public notice rule per primacy agency of $27,944 is low. Missouri has
one FTE with the working title of public notice coordinator, with salary, benefits, and overhead
costing approximately $50,000. Other staff at the regional office level also spend time on public
notice, particularly with respect to Tier 1 violations. Costs are easily more than twice what EPA
has indicated.

Response: EPA disagrees that Table A should present the number of potential
violations. EPA has based its cost analyses for the PN rule on the most recent
numbers of violations available from EPA's SDWIS data base. Estimates of the
number of potential violations would be based on state- or situation-specific
circumstances, and EPA cannot adequately account for all of these in a national-
level analysis (such an analysis would be beyond the scope of what is required).

EPA also believes that the cost to primacy agencies is accurate. EPA estimates
the cost of meeting the federal requirements-that is what each state must do to
oversee a program that meets EPA's requirements. In the cost analysis for the
final rule information collection request, EPA has added the cost of revising the
states's primacy package to the cost calculations.

Regarding the commenter's point about visitors to transient water systems being unaware
of violations, the rule requires that notices of these violations be posted so that they are

7

-------
visible to all users of the system. EPA also wishes to point out that issues related to the
adequacy of regulatory requirements for TWSs and what constitutes a monitoring
violation are beyond the scope of the PN rule.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA recommends that the costs for the public
notification requirements under the Stage I Disinfectants/Disinfection By Products Rule
(D/DBPR) and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) be included in
the final public notification regulation. The effective dates of these two regulations and the final
public notification regulation are actually almost the same. The Stage I D/DBPR & IESWTR is
effective for large systems in December, 2001 (small systems in December, 2003) and the
effective date for the final public notification will likely be December, 2001 (assuming
promulgation in December, 1999 and effective date two years after that). Additionally, the
notification triggers, such as the chlorine dioxide MRDL, are already included in the proposed
regulation. Therefore, the costs should also be included.

EPA should make some reasonable assumptions as to how many systems will be required to go
to public notification based on the myriad of requirements of these proposed regulations. EPA
should estimate an initial compliance percentage for these requirements, and assume that the
balance will have to go to public notification. EPA should then use the same cost information to
develop costs for these notifications, and then add these costs to the costs of all the other public
notifications. These two regulations are probably the most complex regulations ever promulgated
by EPA, and there will likely be a large number of public notifications required.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter on including in its final cost estimates
the burden and cost for PN under the D/DBPR and IESWTR. The ICR for the
final rule includes these estimates.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): [On] page 25972, Section 1, the text refers
to "New Disinfection By-Products (DBP)". We believe the text is referring to the Stage I D/DBP
rule. We recommend that the exact name of the rule be used.

Response: EPA agrees. The preamble text for the final rule has been amended
accordingly.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania appreciates the
side-by-side comparison between the existing and proposed PN rules.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): In section I of the preamble, it states that there is
no deadline for the promulgation of the public notice rules, but EPA intends to complete the
rulemaking by the end of 1999 so that the states and regulated community can coordinate public
notice implementation with implementation of the CCR. Since the final CCR rule was
promulgated 18 months prior to the anticipated promulgation date of this rule (therefore final

8

-------
CCR state rules are required by August 2000, and final public notice state rules are required by
December 2001), it is not quite as easy to conduct this coordinated effort as it is made to appear
here. In Iowa, the final CCR rules are scheduled for submission to our Environmental Protection
Commission for final adoption this month, and implementation has been underway for several
months. The first CCR is due from all CWS by October 19, 1999, and several have already been
received by our department.

Response: EPA agrees that bundling the PN and CCR primacy requirements into
one package poses difficulties. However, where the state finds this to be a more
efficient approach, EPA will work to support such efforts. EPA is moving to
promulgate the final rule as quickly as possible to give states the opportunity to
bundle the requirements.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): The regulations are written primarily for
community water systems. State flexibility should be provided the various categories of systems.

Response: EPA disagrees that the PN regulation is written for community water
systems. Where distinctions for CWS and NCWS are appropriate, such as in the
form and manner of a public notice, EPA specifies different requirements to
accommodate differing situations.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): The proposal discusses the consumer right-
to-know provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act but omits the most important one - the
Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA) provision. This provision provides the
public with key information on what risk reduction they might expect from a given regulation
and what they will be asked to pay to receive that reduction in risk. The HRRCA requirement
should be added to the preamble discussion of public right-to-know provisions.

Response: EPA agrees that the HRRCA provision is an important right-to-know
provision and should be included in discussions of the right-to-know provisions of
the 1996 SDWA Amendments.

Comments on Consistency of the PN Rule with the CCR Rule

Indiana DEM (1.04): In any instance where the same information (and corresponding rule
language) can be used in both the Public Notification rule and the Consumer Confidence Report
rule it should be used. This will allow for less confusion when implementing the consumer right-
to-know objectives.

Response: EPA agrees with the comment. The Agency is encouraging systems
to coordinate CCRs and PNs, so long as the PN content requirements are met.

Where possible, EPA has mirrored CCR standard elements in the PN
requirements. For example, health effects language is the same under both rules.

9

-------
There are elements which differ, however, to account for the differing messages
of a public notice of a drinking water violation and a CCR.

Massachusetts DEP (1.08): Although some of the requirements of a public notice overlap with
the requirements of the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) rule, this information won't be
repetitive to consumers. Public notices provide information on a more timely basis as opposed to
a CCR which will provide consumers with general water quality information in addition to
violations on an annual basis. The CCR will complement public notices in providing consumers
with more information about their drinking water allowing consumers to make informed choices
about the use of their drinking water.

Response: EPA agrees with the comment.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): The proposed rule does a good job of
interfacing public notification documents with the Consumer Confidence Report.

Response: EPA appreciates the comment.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): It is extremely important for the PNR to be compatible with
the CCR, especially with consistent health effects language, and using the CCR to meet public
notice requirements wherever applicable, such as; Tier 3 notices, unregulated contaminants, and
annual repeat notices.

Response: EPA agrees with the comment.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania supports EPA's
proposal to align the PN Rule requirements with parallel requirements in the CCR rule.

Response: EPA appreciates the comment.

Comments on Notices of Return to Compliance

Carroll County (MD) Health Department Bureau of Environmental Health (1.27): EPA
recommends that a supplemental notice be distributed once an emergency situation has been
corrected. This would apparently apply under tier 1 circumstances. Will this be a formal
requirement?

Response: EPA believes, but does not require in the final rule, that a
supplemental notice to announce that the violation has been resolved and the risk
from the drinking water has been abated is an effective way to bring closure to the
emergency situation. EPA does not require this closure notice because such
notices are not required under the SDWA Amendments. Furthermore, closure
notices are not appropriate in every situation. The Public Notification Handbook

10

-------
and primacy agency implementation guidance will continue to recommend such
notices.

City of Chandler (AZ) Office of the City Attorney (1.41): Why are there no specific standards or
provisions in the proposed rule regarding notice to the public of the cessation of the situation that
created the potential serious adverse effect on human health? This would, presumably, be
covered in a (more detailed) section dealing with "additional notice".

Massachusetts DEP (1.08): A follow-up posting will provide the public with a clearer picture of
what the violation was, how it occurred, and any details concluded after the original notice was
posted.

Renee Hall, Virginia Department of Health (at DC meeting) (E.2): Perhaps there could be a
notice that a system has returned to compliance.

Response: EPA believes, but does not require in the final rule, that a
supplemental notice to announce that the violation has been resolved and the risk
from the drinking water has been abated is an effective way to bring closure to the
emergency situation. EPA does not require this closure notice because such
notices are not required under the SDWA Amendments. Furthermore, closure
notices are not appropriate in every situation. The Public Notification Handbook
and primacy agency implementation guidance will continue to recommend such
notices.

-------
141.201 General Public Notification Requirements

EPA is proposing that the revised public notification rule become effective no later than
two years after the final rule is published in the Federal Register or on the date the
primacy agency's revised regulation becomes effective, whichever comes first. . .Because
the intent is still to replace the current regulation with the new streamlined rule as soon
as possible, comments are requested on the proposed effective date. Suggestions on other
options to put the new regulations into effect sooner are welcome. (64 FR 25968)

EPA is proposing a new "plain language "format for the revised public notification
regulation, consistent with the requirements outlined in the June 1, 1998 memorandum
sent by President Clinton to all Federal agencies and the ongoing Agency initiative to
take steps to improve both the clarity and comprehension of regulatory language. [There
is no specific request for comment on this issue.] (64 FR 25971)

Comments:

Indiana DEM (1.04): The format of the rule will be much easier for the general public and the
water systems to understand, however, it will be difficult to transfer into the format required for
most state regulations. We would need to work closely with U.S. EPA, either at the regional or
national level to be sure that the regulation that we adopt is at least as stringent as the federal
rule.

Response: EPA recognizes the potential problems some states may have in
transferring the format of the final rule into the format of their existing state
regulations. This will be an issue to be addressed with the EPA region as the state
moves to adopt the PN regulations during primacy revision.

Commission of Public Works, City of Spartanburg, SC (1.10): SWS applauds EPA's efforts to
present this proposed regulation in a clear and readily understandable format. This represents a
substantial improvement over past presentations. The use of summary tables, in particular, is
very helpful. SWS recommends that EPA continue its efforts to present regulations in a clearer
format, as this can only improve compliance. As an additional step, SWS recommends that EPA
attempt, wherever reasonably possible, to avoid the use of lengthy cross-references (for example
referring to paragraph (b)(l)(ii)(A)(4)(iii)etc).

Response: EPA agrees with the comment and has tried to avoid use of lengthy
cross-references in the final rule.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): The question and answer format is an
improvement.

12

-------
Response: EPA appreciates the comment and has retained this approach in the
final rule.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): ASDWA concurs that states should
have two years to adopt their own public notification regulations as allowed in the law. This
permits an orderly drafting, promulgation, implementation, and enforcement process within state
programs.

Response: EPA appreciates the comment and has retained this approach in the
final rule.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania agrees with
EPA's proposal to make the revised public notification ("PN") rule effective no later than two
years after the final rule is published. Based on our regulatory approval process, we would find
it difficult to comply with a shorter time frame.

Response: EPA appreciates the comment and has retained this approach in the
final rule.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): Two years following the final rule is a reasonable date for
implementation. This allows time for water systems to be informed of the new requirements. If in
fact the new requirements are simpler and more efficient than the existing requirements, as EPA
contends, then states and waterworks can use appropriate provisions of the new rule immediately
while still satisfying the old rule. . . .

The question and answer format does seem to help make the rule more easily understood.
However, there are other factors, such as print size, outlining format, and legalistic language that
have always made federal regulations difficult to read and understand.

Response: EPA has retained the two-year time frame and format, as suggested by
the commenter.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): AMWA agrees that the effective dates for
the rule as outlined in the proposal are appropriate and the best solution for replacing the current
regulation as soon as possible.

Response: The final rule maintains the proposed effective date for systems in
states with primacy.

-------
Topic 2: 141.201 (a) Who must give public notice?

EPA is asking for comment on the proposed addition of explicit regulatory language
enabling the primacy agency (including EPA in its regulations) to require public
notification for other situations it believes have the potential for serious health risk. EPA
is also asking for comment on its proposal to present in tabular form all the situations
requiring a public notice and its plans to update Appendix A as new rules are
promulgated. (64 FR 25972)

Comments:

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): DMWW supports the use of [sic] table format to delineate
situations requiring public notification. A table will also centralize the location of the data and
reduce confusion.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

Massachusetts DEP (1.08): The question and answer format, in addition to the use of more plain
language, will allow water systems to determine the violation type and fulfill the public notice
requirements efficiently.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

Coalition for Health, Environment and Economic Rights, et al. (1.09): Enforcement agency
flexibility to move Tier 3 treatment technology violations to Tier 2 or Tier 1. Clearly when such
violations are serious or persistent, greater than annual notification would do wonders to clear
them up rapidly, thus protecting public health. State agencies, always being short on resources
and time, can always ignore this option, but OW should not deprive them of the opportunity to
seek partners (the public, via the RTK) in compliance with drinking water regulations, so critical
to our health.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this flexibility in the final rule.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): The addition of explicit regulatory language
enabling the primacy agency to require PN for other situations that have the potential for serious
health risk is needed, so time is not lost, when these usually unforeseen situations occur. Also the
tabular form for Appendix A, etc. seems fine.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

American Water Works Association (1.14): In general, AWWA finds that the new format for the
regulatory language is easier to understand than previous rules. The tables included are adequate
for a utility to understand what has to be done to comply with this regulation. . . .

14

-------
AWWA supports the flexibility for primacy agencies (including EPA in direct implementation)
to require public notification for other serious health risks. It is nearly impossible to predict every
situation where public notification would be needed. A hypothetical public notification
regulation that legally mandated notification for every possible scenario would not have adequate
flexibility that is needed to run a drinking water program. AWWA supports EPA's plans to
update Appendix A as new regulations are promulgated.

Response: EPA has retained this flexibility and the plain language format in the
final rule.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): The added flexibility may add more work to
be done by the primacy agency. This may result in overloading primacy agencies with work. For
example, the rule requires the water system and the primacy agency to negotiate and decide on
the best way to issue a public notice. We believe that additional funds/resources must be
allocated by Congress or Legislature to help primacy agencies handle the additional public
notification work. . . .

The rule provides flexibility in handling the public notification process. This is a very positive
change and should result in better service to the community. Overall the format (question and
answer) of the Public Notice Rule is easy to follow and understand. The breakdown of the Tiers
and Appendix A makes it easy for the water systems to determine what Tier the violation is in.

Response: EPA disagrees that the flexibility for primacy agencies to tailor the
notice to fit the situation will result in overloading primacy agencies. First, states
are not required to exercise this flexibility if they are otherwise constrained.

Second, the rule only requires consultation for Tier 1 situations and for certain
violations of limits for turbidity, which are a very small percentage of all
violations. Finally, EPA's rule is self-implementing; no direction from the state is
required to comply with the rule. EPA appreciates the commenter's support of the
format of the rule and has retained this format in the final rule.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): This seems like a good idea to give States flexibility to address
specific situations that may not be identified in the Rule. . .[The tabular form is a gjood idea for
easy reference, and can be updated as new rules are promulgated.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support and has retained these
aspects of the rule.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): ASDWA supports the provision that
states (primacy agencies) have the flexibility to require public notification for other situations
that may have potentially serious health risks. ASDWA also appreciates the use of a tabular
format (Appendix A) and the proposal that it be updated as new regulations are developed and
promulgated. . . .

15

-------
ASDWA asks that the regulatory language clearly indicate that states have the flexibility to
modify the reporting time frames to be uniformly more stringent as well as to consider elevation
of the tier reporting requirements on a case-by-case basis.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support. EPA agrees with the
commenter and intends that states have the flexibility to modify reporting time
frames to be more stringent, as well as consider elevating violations to higher tiers
on a case-by-case basis. The rule clearly indicates in many places where the state
may modify the baseline rule. Where the state opts to take advantage of the
flexibility, EPA requires that the state address this in their primacy revision
application. States, of course, always retain their authority to implement more
stringent rules than this one.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania finds that
Appendix As format is acceptable and updating it for new rules is proper. However, the
designation of a violation as a specific tier in the table presents a problem for states that cannot
be more stringent than EPA and want to elevate a lower tier violation to a higher level. In
addition, it is strongly recommended that the violations or situations that may subsequently
identified as needing public notice due to the potential for serious health risk should not be added
to Appendix A. Such situations should be handled as emergencies based on the case specific
information.

Response: EPA intends that by providing explicit authority in the federal rule for
primacy agencies to elevate any violation or situation to Tier 1 based on the
potential for serious health effects as a result of short term exposure, states may
elevate a specific violation from the tier assigned in Appendix A, since this is part
of the regulation and not a stringency issue. EPA does not agree that it should
remove the tier-level assignment from Appendix A. EPA is assuming that
violations or situations that the primacy agency determines will require Tier 1
notice due to potential for health effects probably will be determined on a case by
case basis and handled as emergencies by the primacy agency and system. EPA
feels that listing this general category in Appendix A does not limit the primacy
agency's ability to treat a situation as an emergency.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (1.28): We agree that the States should
have flexibility in requiring public notice for other situations, not already covered by the rule,
which could have the potential for a serious health risk. Also, we feel that Appendix A is a very
useful guide to obtain necessary information quickly. Updating this appendix with the passage of
new rules would be very helpful in keeping all information in one area.

Response: EPA has retained these aspects of the proposal in the final rule.

-------
Virginia Department of Health (1.29): The table listing of all situations requiring PN is a definite
improvement over searching through the various sections for the same information. We support
the proposal to regularly update Appendix A as new rules are promulgated.

Response: EPA has retained this table in the final rule.

Utah DEQ, Division of Drinking Water (1.31): The language in paragraph (5) of Table 1 to §
141.202. appears appropriate. The language is general in nature and allows the states the
flexibility to deal effectively with each individual circumstance.

Response: EPA has retained this language in the final rule.

17

-------
Topic 3: 141.201 (b) What type of public notice is required for each violation

or situation?

EPA requests comment on whether the two- or three- tiered structure would be more
appropriate for the final EPA regulation and what the advantages and disadvantages of
the preferred tier structure would be. (64 FR 25973)

Comments:

Oklahoma DEQ (1.02): This tiered approach appears to be a reasonable method to provide
public notice for violations with different levels of severity.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

Dave Van Fleet (1.03): I support the use of the tier 1, 2, and 3 levels for public notices and the
varying notice time frames associated with each tier. It is logical to separate tier 1, potential for
serious adverse human health effects from the tier 3, for administrative or other non-serious
situations.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

Indiana DEM (1.04): The proposed three-tiered structure is appropriate. There are some minor
violations in which notification on an annual basis (possibly as part of the Consumer Confidence
Report for community water systems) is appropriate.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): DMWW believes that a three-tiered structure is suitable for
delineating violation levels. A three-tiered structure will offer a public water system a
comprehensive distinction between violations - from those having immediate adverse health
effects, those having potential serious adverse health effects, and violations with no immediate
adverse health effects.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

Coalition for Health, Environment and Economic Rights, et al. (1.09): We also basically support
EPA's 3-tiered approach to the frequency and content of notification of violations—no one can
dispute the need to notify the public immediately of acute threats to drinking water.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

Bridgeport (CT) Hydraulic Company (1.12): We support the Three-Tier notification structure
(page 25973).

18

-------
Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): The 3-tiered approach structure is preferable
to 2-tiers.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports the three-tier structure over a two-
tier structure. Administrative and technical violations, such as late submission of monitoring
data, should be a completely separate tier from health violations. The "middle-tier" is the most
appropriate notification mechanism between 24-hour notice and annual notice.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): The 3-tier approach to public notice is
good. It prioritizes problems based on the severity of the violations. The tier 2 and 3 notifications
should start out as tier 3 and be raised to tier 2 by the State Department of Environmental Quality
if they feel that is necessary.

Response: EPA has retained the three tier framework in the final rule. EPA
believes that some notices belong in Tier 2. Notice of MCL violations, for
example, should occur in less than one year. EPA acknowledges that some Tier 2
violations are not serious enough to warrant 30 day notice, and for this reason
gives primacy agencies limited discretion to extend the deadline for Tier 2 notices
up to 90 days.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): The three tiered structure is appropriate. One advantage is that
tier 3 violations can be dealt with through the annual CCR for community system, or other
annual notice.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): ASDWA firmly supports the use of
a three tier versus a two tier structure for public notification and concurs with the regulatory
intent to delineate between those violations not directly related to health risks and those that are.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): We are pleased that the agency has chosen to
proceed with a three tiered approach. The agency has proposed a three-tiered approach which we
feel adequately serves the purpose and spirit of the public notification rule by differentiating
between the seriousness of situations in which notice is required and specifying the required
form, manner, content, and frequency of the notice to be provided.

19

-------
Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania recommends
that a three-tiered structure be used, not withstanding the possible inability for some states to be
more stringent than EPA and not be able as presently proposed to elevate a Tier 3 violation to
Tier 2.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule. EPA intends that by
providing explicit authority in the federal rule for primacy agencies to elevate any
violation or situation to Tier 1 based on the potential for serious health effects as a
result of short term exposure, states may elevate a specific violation from the tier
assigned in Appendix A, since this is part of the regulation and not a stringency
issue.

Metro Water District (Tucson, AZ) (1.26): TWO TIER ALTERNATIVE. . . Strongly agree with
this approach. It allows much needed flexibility and more cohesive dialogs with States or the
primacy agencies.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the three-tier approach. EPA feels that this
approach is the most appropriate structure for the rule. These violations span a
wide range of potential health risks. A "middle-tier" public notice requirement
between the 24-hour notice and the annual notice is appropriate for those lower-
tier violations and situations that may have the potential for serious adverse
effects on human health, but are not significant or urgent enough to require an
emergency notice. EPA believes a three-tier system of public notification
effectively separates the form, manner, content, and frequency of public notice
based on the seriousness of any potential adverse health effects. The three-tier
system also meets the clear objectives and purposes of public notification, is
simple and straightforward to implement, and meets the requirements of the
statute.

Carroll County (MD) Health Department Bureau of Environmental Health (1.27): A 2-tier
system would be simpler, especially since simplicity is the key to more effective public
notification. Tiers 1 and 2 basically differ on time allotted for notification. Other than that they
seem similar. They should be combined into one classification?

Response: EPA has decided to retain the three-tier approach. EPA feels that this
approach is the most appropriate structure for the rule. These violations span a
wide range of potential health risks. Although a two-tier approach would make
the PN rule simpler, it would be more difficult for states to implement if they had
to distinguish between 24-hour and annual notice. A "middle-tier" public notice
requirement between the 24-hour notice and the annual notice is appropriate for
those lower-tier violations and situations that may have the potential for serious
adverse effects on human health, but are not significant or urgent enough to

20

-------
require an emergency notice. EPA believes a three-tier system of public
notification effectively separates the form, manner, content, and frequency of
public notice based on the seriousness of any potential adverse health effects. The
three-tier system also meets the clear objectives and purposes of public
notification, is simple and straightforward to implement, and meets the
requirements of the statute.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): We support the three tiered structure since the nature and
seriousness of the different violations seem to fit reasonably well into three categories. A two-tier
structure, while apparently giving a state more flexibility, would probably be more complicated
to administer since it would likely result in three or four or more PN categories in actual practice.

Response: EPA has retained the three tier framework in the final rule.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): AMWA agrees with EPA that the three-tier
system as proposed better meets the public notification objectives than the two-tiered alternatives
studied.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support for its proposal.

City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): CWD believes that
a two-tiered structure would be more appropriate. Customers will probably not understand the
nuances of when they receive the notification. Violations that have the potential to result in an
immediate danger to public health from acute exposure should result in immediate notification of
the public. For all other violations, the Consumer Confidence Report should be used to inform
customers about the problem. This would be less confusing for the customers, water systems, and
primacy agencies.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the three-tier approach. EPA feels that this
approach is the most appropriate structure for the rule. These violations span a
wide range of potential health risks. Although a two-tier approach would make
the PN rule simpler, it would be more difficult for states to implement if they had
to distinguish between 24-hour and annual notice. A "middle-tier" public notice
requirement between the 24-hour notice and the annual notice is appropriate for
those lower-tier violations and situations that may have the potential for serious
adverse effects on human health, but are not significant or urgent enough to
require an emergency notice. EPA believes a three-tier system of public
notification effectively separates the form, manner, content, and frequency of
public notice based on the seriousness of any potential adverse health effects. The
three-tier system also meets the clear objectives and purposes of public
notification, is simple and straightforward to implement, and meets the
requirements of the statute.

21

-------
American Dental Association (1.42): The Association supports the concept of a three-tiered
public notice system.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

American Water Works Service Co., Inc. (1.46): We agree with the three Tiered approach,
gearing a notice and timing of said notice to the severity of the violation.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

22

-------
Topic 4: 141.201 (c) Who must be notified?

The SDWA requires that public notice be provided to "the persons served by the system. "
(SDWA, Section 1414(c)(1)). Reaching the persons served may pose a challenge to some
water systems. . . The proposed rule will require water systems to provide the notice in a
form and manner that is reasonably calculated to get the information to all persons
served in the required time period. . . [There is no specific request for comment on this
issue.] (64 FR 25973)

Comments:

Dave Van Fleet (1.03): The word "served" should be replaced with the word "affected." The
paragraph should read,

"Who must be notified? Each public water system must provide public notice to
persons served affected by the water system,. . .

This change would allow large water systems to properly notify a smaller segment of their
systems without undo alarm to their customers not affected by a particular incident. The wording
"served" states to me that they would be required to notify all customers of their system even if
the problem was with one of multiple supply sources.

Response: EPA disagrees with changing the baseline requirement to distribute
notices of all violations system-wide, because EPA believes strongly that
consumers have a right to know in a timely manner when violations occur that
may affect them. In situations where evidence indicates that not all persons
served are affected equally by the violation, EPA expects the water system to
tailor the language in the public notice to communicate who is at most risk and
what actions they should take, not to limit the notice distribution based on relative
risk. EPA does agree, however, that exceptions to the system-wide notice
distribution may be warranted when the elevated contaminant levels are shown to
be contained exclusively in an isolated portion of the distribution system. In such
a situation, only those persons served by that portion of the system could be
affected. Accordingly, EPA has added language in the final rule allowing the
primacy agency to grant exceptions, at its option, where the violation is shown to
be due to exceedances in a portion of the system that is physically or
hydraulically isolated from the rest of the system.

Commission of Public Works, City of Spartanburg, SC (1.10): Some types of MCL exceedances
do not affect the entire water system. Bacteriological contamination, for example, is often quite
localized within the distribution system. There is little benefit to notifying and alarming all
system consumers for a clearly localized problem. SWS recommends inclusion of provisions for
localized notices, issued only to consumers within the reasonably affected area(s), in the Public
Notification Rule.

23

-------
Response: EPA added language to the final rule enabling the primacy agency to
grant exceptions to the distribution requirement where the violation is clearly
contained to a portion of the water system. The final rule states, "If a public water
system has a violation in a portion of the distribution system that is physically or
hydraulically isolated from other parts of the distribution system, the primacy
agency may allow the system to limit distribution of the public notice to only
persons served by that portion of the system which is out of compliance." To
meet EPA's criteria that a portion of the distribution system must be hydraulically
isolated to be eligible for an exception to the system-wide notice requirement, a
system must show that the water in the affected portion is separated from the
water in other parts of the distribution system because the projected water flow
patterns and water pressure zones effectively isolate the water to that portion of
the system. This hydraulic isolation can be part of the design of the distribution
system (e.g., pressure zones, backflow prevention devices) or be created through
system operation (e.g., flow control). This could be the case in the commenter's
example. If fecal coliform is found only in a collection of street laterals and
distribution mains which supply water for local use to several blocks, with no
water flow back to the rest of the distribution system, such limited distribution
may be appropriate. The decision of whether to permit an exception to the
system-wide notice requirement is solely the primacy agency's.

City of Glendale (AZ), Department of Public Works (1.15): The proposed rule requires that
public notice be provided to all persons served by the water system. This is a significant change
to current Arizona regulation that allows for public notice to be given to only that portion of the
population affected by the event.

We agree that all customers receiving drinking water that exceed the MCL (for contaminants that
can cause acute health effects) should be notified as soon as practicable. We disagree that all
water customers served by the water system need to be notified as soon as practicable,
particularly where the water system can demonstrate that only a segment of the population served
by the system is likely to be exposed to the water quality problem. In some instances, the water
system can show that sufficient blending is occurring in the distribution system. In other
instances the affected area (i.e., service area receiving the contaminated water) can be reasonably
determined. Customers deemed to have a reasonable chance of receiving drinking water that
exceed the MCL (for selected contaminants) should be notified using the Tier I process.
Customers determined not to have a reasonable chance of receiving water that violates the MCL
should be allowed to be notified using the Tier 3 public notification process.

For example, consider a drinking water system serving 55 million gallons of water per day. The
average nitrate concentration in the system is 2 mg/L. The system turns on one well that has a
nitrate concentration of 12 mg/L. The well produces 2 million gallons of water per day. The
concentration of nitrate in the system will increase to 2.35 mg/L. Only small portion of the total
service population, those located close to the well, have a potential of receiving water in which

24

-------
the nitrate MCL is exceeded. The potentially affected consumers should receive a Tier 1
notification, while the general service population should receive a Tier 3 notification. . . .

Allowing the water system to limit Tier 1 notification to the affected segment of the service
population would greatly enhance the water system's ability to ensure that notices are delivered
within 24 hours.

Response: EPA added language to the final rule enabling the primacy agency to
grant exceptions to the distribution requirement where the violation is clearly
contained to a portion of the water system. The final rule states, "If a public water
system has a violation in a portion of the distribution system that is physically or
hydraulically isolated from other parts of the distribution system, the primacy
agency may allow the system to limit distribution of the public notice to only
persons served by that portion of the system which is out of compliance." To
meet EPA's criteria that a portion of the distribution system must be hydraulically
isolated to be eligible for an exception to the system-wide notice requirement, a
system must show that the water in the affected portion is separated from the
water in other parts of the distribution system because the projected water flow
patterns and water pressure zones effectively isolate the water to that portion of
the system. This hydraulic isolation can be part of the design of the distribution
system (e.g., pressure zones, backflow prevention devices) or be created through
system operation (e.g., flow control). In the commenter's example, the water
system may be eligible for an exception if it could demonstrate, using other
monitoring information and distribution flow modeling, that exceedances above
the MCL could only be found in a single distribution main because of water flow
patterns and pressure zones. EPA notes that such a determination would require
a significant amount of data, and the rule is much more restricted than limiting
notice to an area that is "reasonably determined" to be affected, as the commenter
suggests.

EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that potentially affected consumers
should receive a Tier 1 notification, while the general service population receives Tier 3
notification. Nothing in the rule language allows Tier 1 notice to be provided to some
consumers and Tier 3 notice provided for others. A water system must provide either full
Tier 1 notice or limited Tier 1 notice. The decision of whether to permit an exception to
the system-wide notice requirement is solely the primacy agency's. Violations of EPA
drinking water standards are always recorded as system-wide violations, even where there
is evidence that only a portion of the persons served by the system are affected.

Therefore, the violation would appear in the system's CCR for the year. Regarding the
commenter's claim that Arizona regulations allow for public notice to be given to only
that portion of the population affected by the event, EPA responds that allowing the
system to provide notice to only the people affected is less stringent than the current rule.

-------
Association of California Water Agencies (1.16): There is confusion in the rule over who is to
notify consumers of a water quality concern. Language in the preamble implies that it is the
public water system's responsibility to reach "tenants, residents, patients, students or employees."
The rule, though, states that it is the responsibility of the public water system to notify persons
served by the water system (to include "residential, transient and nontransient users") and then
those customers should reach "tenants, residents, patients, students or employees". . . Public
water systems should be encouraged to reach as many consumers as possible, but this should not
be required.

Response: EPA originally intended that "persons served" mean everyone in the
system. EPA added language to the final rule enabling the primacy agency to
grant exceptions to the distribution requirement where the violation is clearly
contained to a portion of the water system. The final rule states, "If a public water
system has a violation in a portion of the distribution system that is physically or
hydraulically isolated from other parts of the distribution system, the primacy
agency may allow the system to limit distribution of the public notice to only
persons served by that portion of the system which is out of compliance."

Violations of EPA drinking water standards are always recorded as system-wide
violations, even where there is evidence that only a portion of the persons served
by the system are affected by any particular violation. EPA believes that all
public water system consumers have a right to know when the water system
providing their drinking water has a violation.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): EPA should clarify if "persons served"
means everyone in the system that had the violation or just the persons affected by the risk of the
violation.

Response: The final rule under §141.201(c) requires that each public water
system provide public notice to persons served by the water system. EPA
believes that consumers have a right to know in a timely manner whenever
violations occur that may affect them, to allow them to make their own choices
about using drinking water, based on their own perceived risk. This is consistent
with the statutory requirement under Section 1414(c)(1) of the SDWA, which
requires that public notice be provided to "the persons served by the system."

However, in response to comments on the proposed rule, EPA has added language
under §141.201(c)(2) to enable the primacy agency, at its option, to make
exceptions to the system-wide notice requirement if specific regulatory criteria are
met. The new language will allow a water system to limit the notice distribution
to only those persons served by a portion of the distribution system impacted by
the violation, where the water system is able to demonstrate that the affected
portion of the system is physically or hydraulically isolated from all other parts of
the distribution system.

26

-------
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): Secondly, the rule needs to be very clear on
what "public" needs to be notified. The rule consistently speaks to notification of "all persons
served by the water system." However, in many cases, only a portion of those served by a system
are impacted by a violation. This is particularly true of total coliform violations with indications
of fecal contamination. Such violations, particularly in larger systems, are typically isolated to a
portion of the distribution system. Being mindful that pressure zones can be hydraulically
independent or may be valved off in the case of contamination, notification in such instances
should be targeted to the affected population. This is particularly important where boil water
notices are involved. It would be inappropriate for notification to apply to persons not potentially
affected by an incident. This point needs to be discussed in the preamble to the final rule, and the
rule language adjusted appropriately.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that limited distribution is appropriate
in those situations where the risk is absolutely limited to a portion of the
distribution system. Accordingly, EPA has chosen to allow exceptions (at the
primacy agency's discretion) when the water system is able to demonstrate, with a
high degree of certainty, that the contaminant of concern is either physically or
hydraulically isolated to a portion of the distribution system. EPA emphasizes
that specific criteria must be met to justify limited distribution, and open-ended
judgements by the primacy agency are not allowed. The final rule states, "If a
public water system has a violation in a portion of the distribution system that is
physically or hydraulically isolated from other parts of the distribution system, the
primacy agency may allow the system to limit distribution of the public notice to
only persons served by that portion of the system which is out of compliance."

City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): Only those
customers affected by the violation should be required to receive the results, not all customers of
the water system. The problem could originate in the distribution system and only affect a
localized area.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that limited distribution is appropriate
in those situations where the risk is absolutely limited to a portion of the
distribution system. Accordingly, EPA has chosen to allow exceptions (at the
primacy agency's discretion) when the water system is able to demonstrate, with a
high degree of certainty, that the contaminant of concern is either physically or
hydraulically isolated to a portion of the distribution system. EPA emphasizes
that specific criteria must be met to justify limited distribution, and open-ended
judgements by the primacy agency are not allowed. The final rule states, "If a
public water system has a violation in a portion of the distribution system that is
physically or hydraulically isolated from other parts of the distribution system, the
primacy agency may allow the system to limit distribution of the public notice to
only persons served by that portion of the system which is out of compliance."

27

-------
City of Chandler (AZ), Office of the City Attorney (1.41): If a particular violation (monitoring
or water quality) is isolated to a small portion of a public water system's distribution system, why
shouldn't a Tier 1, Tier 2, and 141.208 notice be limited to those persons impacted by the
violation? Currently, notices are required to be provided to all persons served by the system,
even if most of those persons are not impacted.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that limited distribution is appropriate
in those situations where the risk is absolutely limited to a portion of the
distribution system. Accordingly, EPA has chosen to allow exceptions (at the
primacy agency's discretion) when the water system is able to demonstrate, with a
high degree of certainty, that the contaminant of concern is either physically or
hydraulically isolated to a portion of the distribution system. EPA emphasizes
that specific criteria must be met to justify limited distribution, and open-ended
judgements by the primacy agency are not allowed. The final rule states, "If a
public water system has a violation in a portion of the distribution system that is
physically or hydraulically isolated from other parts of the distribution system, the
primacy agency may allow the system to limit distribution of the public notice to
only persons served by that portion of the system which is out of compliance."

City of Madison (1.43): I am also concerned about language throughout the proposed Rule that
says notice must be served to "persons served by the water system." In many water systems,
particularly larger ones, there may be multiple sources of supply and multiple pressure zones that
are essentially hydraulically independent from one another. Many systems would have the
capability of isolating a contaminant within an identifiable, limited area of their distribution
systems. In cases such as this, it would be important to notify all persons potentially affected by
the contamination. It should not be necessary to notify persons served by the system who have no
possibility of being affected by the violation. Such notification would serve no productive
purpose and could be detrimental in terms of raising false fears among the public. If false fears
are raised in one incident, a subsequent valid notification may not be taken seriously.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that, where it is possible to identify
portions of the distribution system that are hydraulically independent from one
another, limited distribution of a public notice would be appropriate. In
particular, EPA agrees that people who have no possibility of being affected by a
violation do not need to receive a notice. However, if there is any chance that
people in a portion of the distribution system could be affected, they must receive
a notice. Accordingly, EPA has chosen to allow exceptions (at the primacy
agency's discretion) when the water system is able to demonstrate, with a high
degree of certainty, that the contaminant of concern is either physically or
hydraulically isolated to a portion of the distribution system. The final rule states,
"If a public water system has a violation in a portion of the distribution system
that is physically or hydraulically isolated from other parts of the distribution
system, the primacy agency may allow the system to limit distribution of the
public notice to only persons served by that portion of the system which is out of

28

-------
compliance." The decision on whether to permit an exception to the system-wide
notice requirement is solely with the primacy agency based on strictly applied
criteria.

Akron (OH) Public Utilities Bureau (2.4): Water distribution flow patterns may need to be
analyzed to determine the area affected by a boil water alert. . . If the primacy agency could be
given some discretion as to an extension of the public notice, unnecessarily large areas of public
notice may be avoidable.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that limited distribution is appropriate
in those situations where the risk is absolutely limited to a portion of the
distribution system. Accordingly, EPA has chosen to allow exceptions (at the
primacy agency's discretion) when the water system is able to demonstrate, with a
high degree of certainty, that the contaminant of concern is either physically or
hydraulically isolated to a portion of the distribution system. EPA emphasizes
that specific criteria must be met to justify limited distribution, and open-ended
judgements by the primacy agency are not allowed. The final rule states, "If a
public water system has a violation in a portion of the distribution system that is
physically or hydraulically isolated from other parts of the distribution system, the
primacy agency may allow the system to limit distribution of the public notice to
only persons served by that portion of the system which is out of compliance."

Unidentified participant at Madison meeting (E. 1): We have to more sharply define who has to
receive the notice, separating those clearly affected by the violation from those simply served by
the water system.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that limited distribution is appropriate
in those situations where the risk is absolutely limited to a portion of the
distribution system. Accordingly, EPA has chosen to allow exceptions (at the
primacy agency's discretion) when the water system is able to demonstrate, with a
high degree of certainty, that the contaminant of concern is either physically or
hydraulically isolated to a portion of the distribution system. EPA emphasizes
that specific criteria must be met to justify limited distribution, and open-ended
judgements by the primacy agency are not allowed. The final rule states, "If a
public water system has a violation in a portion of the distribution system that is
physically or hydraulically isolated from other parts of the distribution system, the
primacy agency may allow the system to limit distribution of the public notice to
only persons served by that portion of the system which is out of compliance."

Unidentified participant at DC meeting (E.2): Who is responsible for giving notice at a system
that purchases water? The group suggested that systems need memoranda of agreement to
clarify responsibilities. Also, one person asked when the clock starts for a purchasing system on
getting a PN to its customers.

29

-------
Response: The rule states that each water system must notify the persons served
by the system of violations. In the final rule, language has been added to define
the public notice obligation of public water systems that sell or otherwise provide
drinking water to other public water systems. These "parent" systems are
responsible for providing public notice of the violation or situation to the owner or
operator of the "consecutive" systems to whom they sell water, but they are not
required under the rule to distribute the notice to persons served by the
consecutive system. Although different public notice arrangements are sometimes
made between the parent and consecutive system, the consecutive system is the
water system responsible under this rule for delivering the notice to the persons it
serves. Although the legal obligation is clear under the rule, EPA recommends
that each consecutive water system in its contract with the parent system agree on
the most effective approach for distributing public notices. EPA will discuss such
agreements in the Public Notification Handbook.

Michelle De Haan, City of Scottsdale (at Phoenix meeting) (E.4): Clarify what is meant by "all
persons served." Does this mean everyone in the system or those affected? If it means only
those affected, the language should be changed to reflect this.

Response: The final rule under §141.201(c) requires that each public water
system provide public notice to persons served by the water system. EPA
believes that consumers have a right to know in a timely manner whenever
violations occur that may affect them, to allow them to make their own choices
about using drinking water, based on their own perceived risk. This is consistent
with the statutory requirement under Section 1414(c)(1) of the SDWA, which
requires that public notice be provided to "the persons served by the system."
However, in response to comments on the proposed rule, EPA has added language
under §141.201(c)(2) to enable the primacy agency, at its option, to make
exceptions to the system-wide notice requirement if specific regulatory criteria are
met. The new language will allow a water system to limit the notice distribution
to only those persons served by a portion of the distribution system impacted by
the violation, where the water system is able to demonstrate that the affected
portion of the system is physically or hydraulically isolated from all other parts of
the distribution system.

30

-------
Topic 5: 141.202 (a) Which violations or situations require a Tier 1 public

notice?

EPA is requesting comment on the Tier 1 public notification requirements, in particular
the list of violations requiring such a notice, the new consultation process now proposed
in lieu of more prescriptive EPA requirements, EPA 's interpretation of the statute under
1414(c)(2)(C) which allows EPA to require public water systems to consult with the
primacy agency, and the revised requirements for the form and manner of the Tier 1
notices. (64 FR 25975)

EPA is asking for comment on the proposed addition of explicit regulatory language
enabling the primacy agency (including EPA in its regulations) to require public
notification for other situations it believes have the potential for serious health risk. EPA
is also asking for comment on its proposal to present in tabular form all the situations
requiring a public notice and its plans to update Appendix A as new rules are
promulgated. (64 FR 25972)

Comments:

Indiana DEM (1.04): The list of violations requiring Tier 1 notice appears to be complete.

Regarding the proposed public notification requirement for failure to test for fecal coliform once
total coliform in the water distribution system is confirmed, which of the following situations
would this relate to:

(1)	A repeat sample which is analyzed for total coliform and not for fecal coliform;

(2)	A situation where two (or more) distribution samples are total coliform positive and
repeat samples are not collected; or

(3)	A situation where one distribution sample is positive for total coliform and no repeat
samples are collected (in this situation, the total coliform is not confirmed)? . . .

We believe it would be useful to allow the primacy agencies the opportunity to specify other
situations (on a case-by-case basis) which would require Tier 1 public notice. A table with the
situations and which type of notice they would require based on the federal rule would be
helpful, as long as there is a caveat that there may be some situations where a different type of
notice may be required (i.e., situations which would require a Tier 1 public notice include, but
are not limited to . . . ). In addition, Appendix A should be updated as new rules are
promulgated.

Response: In the final PN rule, EPA has clarified where TCR testing procedure
violations require Tier 1 notice. EPA has replaced the phrase, "after the presence
of coliform bacteria in the water distribution system is confirmed" in the proposed
rule with, "when any repeat sample tests positive for coliform." Tier 1 notice is
required for a violation of the MCL for total coliforms, when fecal coliform or E.

31

-------
coli are present in the water distribution system, or when the system fails to test
for fecal coliforms or E. coli when any repeat sample tests positive for coliform
(Table 1 to §141.202). This revision is intended to clarify that "confirmation of
the presence of coliform bacteria in the water distribution system" means that both
routine and repeat samples test positive for total coliform. In the situations the
commenter describes, the first situation, where a repeat sample is analyzed for
total coliform but not fecal coliform or E. coli would be a Tier 1 violation.

Situations where repeat samples are not collected would be considered monitoring
and testing procedure violations, not subject to Tier 1 notice. EPA agrees that
Appendix A should be updated as new rules are promulgated, and plans to do so.

EPA agrees that primacy agencies should be given the opportunity to specify other
situations which would require Tier 1 public notice. Table 1 to 141.202 includes in the
list of violations or situations requiring Tier 1 notice, "Other violations or situations with
significant potential to have serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short-
term exposure, as determined by the primacy agency either in its regulations or on a case-
by-case basis."

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports the Tier 1 violations that have
been listed in the proposed regulation, along with the form and manner of the Tier 1 notices.
AWWA supports the inclusion of the new chlorine dioxide Maximum Residual Disinfectant
Level (MRDL) as a Tier 1 violation, as long as it is recognized that there is some flexibility for
short-term exceedances of MRDLs for microbiological problems. This flexibility was a critical
component of the Reg-Neg agreement for the entire concept of MRDLs. This flexibility is not
clear in either the preamble or regulatory language. AWWA recommends that this flexibility for
the chlorine dioxide MRDL be clearly spelled out in the final regulation.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that flexibility for short-term
exceedances of the chlorine dioxide MRDL for microbiological problems is
appropriate. EPA also wishes to clarify that the final DBP rule allows no
exception for the chlorine dioxide MRDL. The preamble to that rule states:

"Unlike chlorine and chloramines, the MRDL for chlorine dioxide may not be
exceeded for short periods of time to address specific microbiological
contamination problems because of potential health concerns with short-term
exposure to chlorine dioxide above the MCL." (63 FR 69412) Because health
effects can result from short term exposure to chlorine dioxide, EPA plans to keep
acute chlorine dioxide violations in Tier 1. EPA wishes to clarify that only when
the MRDL is exceeded in the distribution system has a Tier 1 violation occurred.

If the MRDL is exceeded only at the entrance to the distribution system, a Tier 2
violation has occurred.

City of Glendale (AZ), Department of Public Works (1.15): Tier 1 public notice is required for
NPDWR violations and situations with significant potential to have serious adverse effects on
human health as a result of short-term exposure. The proposed rule assumes that a violation of

-------
the MCL at the point of entry into the distribution system means that the consumer is exposed to
the contaminant at the tap. While this assumption may hold true for some systems, it does not
hold true for integrated systems that utilizes [sic] multiple drinking water sources. If the volume
of water from a single point of entry is small relative to the total volume of water in the
distribution system, then it is highly unlikely that customers will actually receive water that
exceed [sic] the MCL.

The effects of blending are already recognized in the EPA regulations. We recommend that Tier
1 public notice requirements be reserved for those violations that actually have a reasonable
potential to exceed the MCL at the consumer's tap, or where measurements taken in the
distribution system confirm an MCL violation at the consumer's tap. Perhaps there should be
distinction made between sole source and multiple source systems in determining whether a
violation of the MCL at the point of entry causes unreasonable exposure requiring a Tier 1
response. . . .

False alarms and unwarranted actions are more likely to cause panic, distrust, and in the long-
term apathy than to provide useful information for the public to use in their decision-making
process. We urge the EPA to invest more time and effort in determining the situations in which a
Tier 1 public notice is warranted.

Response: EPA recognizes that some violations may not be a concern at the
consumer's tap; however, many water systems are small and have only one well.
Consumers in these systems could be affected directly by an MCL violation.

Where water is blended to reduce contamination levels, consumers at service
connections between the source water and the blending point would need to
receive public notice; beyond the blending point public notice would still be
required (unless the primacy agency approves limited distribution). EPA
encourages, but does not require systems to notify unaffected consumers at some
point to keep them informed. In any case, the violation will be reported in the
CCR.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania recommends
that explicit language be added to the PN rule to allow for PN to be required in other currently
uncharacterized situations that pose a potentially serious health risk. To assist in the
development of that language, Pennsylvania would like to direct your attention to a regulation
that DEP has had in place since December 1984. Our regulation which is found at 25 Pa. Code
§109.402 and is titled "Emergency Public Notification" addresses many of the concerns cited in
the supplementary information in Section IV (E)(l)of the preamble. Pennsylvania's approach in
this regulation is to explicitly require a public water supplier to report to DEP within one hour of
discovery of conditions that present an imminent hazard to the public health. DEP then
determines what further steps the supplier must take in response. DEP has included a specific
example related to failure to collect a nitrate and/or nitrite check sample in that regulation as a
reason for emergency PN. However, we tried to remain general regarding other situations as it
allows DEP and the supplier to address each problem at its outset and make a determination as to

33

-------
the steps needed in response. . . . Pennsylvania requests that similar or identical language be
included in the federal PN rule. Emergency public notice has proven useful in situations where
equipment failure has placed consumers at imminent public health risk long before a laboratory
analysis could be obtained to confirm it. Lack of that type of language may also make it difficult
for a state that cannot be more stringent than the federal regulations to address an imminent
public health risk with public notice. [Note: Section 109.402 of the Pennsylvania code,
Emergency public notification (25 Pa. Code §109.402) attached to comment.] . . .

Pennsylvania is concerned that the language in Section IV (F)(1) automatically requiring Tier 1
PN in the event a total coliform sample is not tested for fecal coliforms oris, coli is overly
prescriptive. DEP regulations allow a supplier to forego fecal coliform or E. coli testing on a
positive total coliform sample if the supplier assumes that the positive total coliform sample is
also fecal coliform positive and the supplier notifies DEP within one hour of making that
decision. Although it is risky, there is no MCL violation until a check sample is also found to be
total coliform positive. This entire scenario would be best handled under Emergency Public
Notification as described above. It is a case-by-case determination that must be based on the
condition of the system (Is disinfection working?), past monitoring history, circumstances
surrounding the positive total coliform sample, the results of the check samples, etc.

Response: EPA has incorporated 141.23(f)(2), which requires "immediate" notice
for failure to take a confirmation sample for nitrate into the list of violations or
situations requiring Tier 1 notice at 141.202 (a). EPA has chosen to continue to
require Tier 1 notification where a system fails to test for fecal coliform oris, coli
after coliform presence is confirmed, as proposed. This means that initial and
repeat samples have already tested positive for total coliform. Under
Pennsylvania regulations, a system may choose not to perform testing for E. coli
or fecal coliform if it assumes a sample is fecal coliform positive. Such an
assumption would also trigger a Tier 1 notice. However, not all states have such
rules. EPA feels that its proposal serves the same purpose as the Pennsylvania
regulation but would serve as a backstop in states which do not have such
authority. EPA has also decided to revise the description of the violation to
clarify the instances in which Tier 1 notification will be required. EPA has added
other waterborne emergencies, such as a failure or significant interruption in key
water treatment processes, a natural disaster that disrupts the water supply or
distribution system, or a chemical spill or unexpected loading of possible
pathogens into the source water that significantly increases the potential for
drinking water contamination, to the list of violations and situations that require
Tier 1 notice. See Table 1 to 141.202, item 7.

Metro Water District (Tucson, AZ) (1.26): Is Chlorine Dioxide MRDL violation limited to
surface water systems or are groundwater systems included? If groundwater systems are
included, when does it go into effect?

34

-------
Response: According to the Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule
(141.65(b)), groundwater systems not under the direct influence of surface water
and using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must comply with the
MRDL beginning December 16, 2003.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): Failure to test for fecal coliforms oris, coli is a
monitoring violation that should not be distinguished as a Tier 1 violation. It is taking the "guilty
until proven innocent" approach too far. At best it could fall under the Tier 1 "other violation or
situation" as determined by the primacy agency.

Response: In the final PN rule, EPA has clarified where TCR testing procedure
violations require Tier 1 notice. EPA has replaced the phrase, "after the presence
of coliform bacteria in the water distribution system is confirmed" in the proposed
rule with, "when any repeat sample tests positive for coliform." Tier 1 notice is
required for a violation of the MCL for total coliforms, when fecal coliform or E.
coli are present in the water distribution system, or when the system fails to test
for fecal coliforms or E. coli when any repeat sample tests positive for coliform
(Table 1 to §141.202). This revision is intended to clarify that "confirmation of
the presence of coliform bacteria in the water distribution system" means that both
routine and repeat samples test positive for total coliform. Regarding the
commenter's concern about a system being "guilty until proven innocent" EPA
believes that if there is a direct threat to public health from short-term exposure to
drinking water, public notice should be distributed as soon as practical to allow
consumers to take steps to protect their health. In this case, the public health
threat exists not just from the failure to monitor but because of the failure to
monitor when coliform has already been found to be present.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): The violation of the total coliform MCL with the
presence of fecal coliform oris, coli in the initial or repeat sample(s) is clearly a Tier 1 violation.
However, it is unclear what is meant by the "failure to test for fecal coliforms or E. coli after the
presence of coliform bacteria in the water distribution system is confirmed." In practical terms, if
a supply has a routine/initial total coliform positive and fecal/is. coli negative sample, three or
four repeat samples are required. These repeat samples are analyzed for total coliform bacteria,
and if those bacteria are determined to be present in the sample, then analyzed for the presence of
fecal/is. coli. Listed below are questions raised by this phrasing:

What is meant by "after the presence of coliform bacteria in the water distribution system is
confirmed"? Is the presence of coliform bacteria only "confirmed" by the analysis of
routine/initial And repeat/check samples?

If the supply fails to collect any or all of their repeat/check samples, does that constitute
"failure to test for fecal coliforms oris, coli"! Under the current rules, that would be either a
major or minor check/repeat sample monitoring violation, although in actuality that failure to
monitor could result in the supply missing an acute or non-acute coliform MCL violation.

-------
If the laboratory fails to conduct the fecal/is. coli confirmation of the total coliform positive
repeat sample, does that constitute the "failure to test. . . "?

The IDNR requests clarification in the rule of what exactly is meant by "failure to test for fecal
coliforms. . . "

Microbiological contaminants: All violations of these contaminants, with the previously
mentioned exception to the total coliform non-acute violation time period, should be increased to
Tier 1 MCL/MRDL/TT violations . . . The IDNR strongly urges such a change in violation
classification.

Response: In the final PN rule, EPA has clarified where TCR testing procedure
violations require Tier 1 notice. EPA has replaced the phrase, "after the presence
of coliform bacteria in the water distribution system is confirmed" in the proposed
rule with, "when any repeat sample tests positive for coliform." Tier 1 notice is
required for a violation of the MCL for total coliforms, when fecal coliform or E.
coli are present in the water distribution system, or when the system fails to test
for fecal coliforms or E. coli when any repeat sample tests positive for coliform
(Table 1 to §141.202). This revision is intended to clarify that "confirmation of
the presence of coliform bacteria in the water distribution system" means that both
routine and repeat samples test positive for total coliform. Failure to collect any
repeat samples would not automatically fall into Tier 1, since the presence of
coliform has not been confirmed. The rule does authorize primacy agencies to
elevate monitoring and testing procedure violations to Tier 2 or Tier 1 based on
the potential for adverse health effects.

EPA has decided to leave microbiological violations in Tier 2. However, it has decided
to require 24-hour consultation with the primacy agency in the event of a single turbidity
exceedance. If the PWS is unable to make contact with the primacy agency within 24
hours, turbidity violations would automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement.
EPA believes that turbidity exceedances can be a strong indication that filtration is not
working correctly, and filtration is the best protection against parasites such as Giardia
and Cryptosporidium. In the event of other SWTR violations, other barriers may be in
effect to protect the drinking water supply. Primacy agencies would make this
determination.

Utah DEQ, Division of Drinking Water (1.31): The State of Utah agrees that some situations
will arise that require notification of the public and are not specifically addressed by this
proposed rule. The circumstances and public health risk of these situations will vary and must be
handled on a case by case basis. Utah has been faced with this situation and has responded
appropriately. . . . The language in paragraph (5) of Table 1 to § 141.202. appears appropriate.
The language is general in nature and allows the states the flexibility to deal effectively with each
individual circumstance.

-------
Response: EPA has decided to maintain the flexibility allowed by the language in
141.202(a). All the comments EPA received on this issue supported giving the
primacy agencies flexibility to require notice for situations besides those
specifically listed.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Tier 1 notices require a water system to reach
all persons served within a 24-hour period. This type of notice should be reserved for water
quality issues which are immediate public health concerns. In most cases, these events are not
violations because they may be short lived, and not covered by current regulations. For example,
the following situations may require a 24-hour notice:

1)	Boil water advisory with a fecal coliform violation

2)	Boil water advisories without a coliform violation

3)	Chemical overfeed affecting water quality

4)	Waterborne disease outbreak

5)	Treatment technique (TT) violation for a surface supply: elevated turbidity
entering the distribution system.

Some systems can isolate these problems due to clearwell storage design. In situations where the
water does not enter the distribution, a notice should not be required.

Response: EPA agrees that Tier 1 public notice needs to be focused and has
limited its list of violations and situations routinely requiring a Tier 1 notice to
those with a significant potential for serious adverse health effects from short-
term exposure. There are other serious violations which may indicate a potential
for adverse health effects from short-term exposure in specific circumstances. But
EPA did not designate these other violations as automatically requiring a Tier 1
notice because they represent exceedances of indicator parameters which are not
strongly or consistently linked to the occurrence of the possible acute health
effects. Most routine Total Coliform Rule MCL violations and Surface Water
Treatment Rule TT violations would fall into this category. These violations are
included in the Tier 2 list. EPA believes focusing the 24-hour notice requirement
in its rule on the more limited set of violations will increase the effectiveness of
the Tier 1 notices and lead to greater health protection. When a specific violation
or situation clearly warrants a Tier 1 notice based on the strength of the evidence,
EPA expects the primacy agency to use its discretion to elevate the notice
requirement to Tier 1.

City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): [T]he proposed
addition of explicit regulatory language enabling the primacy agency to require public
notification for other situations it believes have the potential for serious health risk. . . . When
EPA, or the primacy agency, recognizes that a particular water system is delivering dangerous
water to customers of the system, EPA should have the authority to require public notice, even if
no specific violation of a NPDWR has occurred.

37

-------
Response: EPA agrees with the comment. In addition, EPA believes systems
should take responsibility for public notification for situations that are not
violations but may pose a health risk. Therefore, in the final rule, EPA has added
other waterborne emergencies such as a failure or significant interruption in key
water treatment processes, a natural disaster that disrupts the water supply or
distribution system, or a chemical spill or unexpected loading of possible
pathogens into the source water that significantly increases the potential for
drinking water contamination to the list of violations and situations that require
Tier 1 notice. See Table 1 to 141.202, item 7.

American Water Works Service Co., Inc. (1.46): Chlorine dioxide notification is proposed as
Tier 1 for both MCL and monitoring violations. We agree that chlorine dioxide exposure can
present an acute health effect, but not so extreme or immediate as fecal contamination or nitrates,
so we suggest both be Tier 2 for chlorine dioxide.

Response: EPA plans to keep acute chlorine dioxide violations in Tier 1.

Exceedance of the MRDL for chlorine dioxide is already a Tier 1 violation in
EPA's regulations under 141.133(c)(2)(i) and 141.32(a)( 1 )(iii)(E). As the
commenter recognizes, health effects can result from due to short term exposure
to chlorine dioxide; all violations with acute health effects are Tier 1 violations.
EPA wishes to clarify that only when the MRDL is exceeded in the distribution
system has a Tier 1 violation occurred. If the MRDL is exceeded only at the
entrance to the distribution system, a Tier 2 violation has occurred.

Paul Zielinski, Pennsylvania American Water Company (at Allentown meeting) (E.3): EPA
should define the requirements for elevating violations to higher tiers to give systems advance
warning that they may have less time to create notices.

Response: EPA has decided not to specify criteria on when to elevate other
violations and situations to Tier 1 in the final rule. EPA believes that the primacy
agency needs wide latitude to access individual situations based on the regulatory
definition of the Tier 1 notice. EPA also encourages public water systems to use
the Tier 1 notice protocols whenever a violation or situation has significant
potential to pose adverse health effects from short-term exposure. Since time is of
the essence to protect public health in such situations, public water systems should
act quickly to notify persons served, without waiting for direction from the
primacy agency. EPA will be issuing the final Public Notification Handbook and
the Public Notification Primacy Guidance, which will offer examples of other
situations where it believes a Tier 1 notice may be necessary, shortly.

Definition of a Waterborne Disease Outbreak

Comments:

38

-------
Indiana DEM (1.04): Regarding the definition for Waterborne disease outbreak, we agree that
the definition should be expanded, however it should relate to all instances where waterborne
disease outbreak is used in the EPA regulations, and not be exclusive to the public notification
rule.

Response: EPA has decided to not further define a "waterborne disease outbreak"
in the rule, and chose instead to leave the term as defined in 141.2. However, in
the final rule, EPA has added other waterborne emergencies, such as a failure or
significant interruption in key water treatment processes, a natural disaster that
disrupts the water supply or distribution system, or a chemical spill or unexpected
loading of possible pathogens into the source water that significantly increases the
potential for drinking water contamination, to the list of violations and situations
that require Tier 1 notice. See Table 1 to 141.202, item 7.

Consumer Federation of America (1.11): We agree that waterborne disease outbreaks should be
subject to public notification within 24 hours. We are concerned, however, that the definition in
the proposed rule would undermine the timeliness of those reports. The proposed rule defines
waterborne disease outbreaks as:

... the significant occurrence of acute infectious illness, epidemiologically associated
with the ingestion of water from a public water system which is deficient in treatment, as
determined by the appropriate local or state agency. "

The medical and public health community is accustomed to conducting lengthy study before
deeming a group of cases either an "outbreak" or "epidemiologically associated" with water.
Thus, the determination of a waterborne disease outbreak, as defined in the rule, is likely to be a
time-consuming process. Since the purpose of public notification in this case is to warn people
quickly to take sensible precautions to prevent more cases of waterborne illness, delaying the
notification while a formal determination is made would almost certainly result in more people
becoming ill.

We propose changing the definition as follows: "If a public health or drinking water official
(federal, state or local official) concludes that a significant number of new cases of probable
waterborne disease are occurring, public notice should be given within 24 hours." This would
balance the need for timely notification with the need for a reasonable degree of certainty that the
cases in question are water related.

Response: EPA has decided to not define a "waterborne disease outbreak" in the
rule, and chose instead to leave the term as defined in 141.2. However, in the
final rule, EPA has added other waterborne emergencies, such as a failure or
significant interruption in key water treatment processes, a natural disaster that
disrupts the water supply or distribution system, or a chemical spill or unexpected
loading of possible pathogens into the source water that significantly increases the

39

-------
potential for drinking water contamination, to the list of violations and situations
that require Tier 1 notice. See Table 1 to 141.202, item 7.

Association of California Water Agencies (1.16): The definition of "waterborne disease
outbreak" as a Tier 1 notification requirement does not sufficiently convey the serious health
effects associated with the other contaminants/violation circumstances included in this Tier.

Recommendation: Language similar to that in the preamble (see page 25974) should be included
to indicate that in addition to short-term (acute) risk the waterborne disease outbreak poses a
"serious" health risk.

Response: The language in the preamble is identical to the definition in 141.2.
The proposed rule refers to this definition. EPA believes that a waterborne
disease outbreak is a serious situation, as are other emergencies such as chemical
spills or overfeeds or natural disasters. In the PN rule, EPA cannot address every
possible situation for which 24-hour notice may be needed. For this reason, Table
1 to 141.202 attempts to define situations requiring Tier 1 notice as broadly as
possible. EPA believes that it is very important that every water system have a
contingency plan for addressing emergencies.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): It is unclear what type of public notification
should be used when an outbreak occurs by a cause other than a MCL or treatment violation
(such as backflow incident). We recommend that you make the outbreak definition a general one.
Do not limit the outbreak definition to treatment violations, but to any outbreak that may occur
because of consuming water. An outbreak public notification should be triggered when drinking
water is identified as the primary source of a health effect.

Response: In the final rule, EPA has added other waterborne emergencies, such
as a failure or significant interruption in key water treatment processes, a natural
disaster that disrupts the water supply or distribution system, or a chemical spill or
unexpected loading of possible pathogens into the source water that significantly
increases the potential for drinking water contamination, to the list of violations
and situations that require Tier 1 notice. See Table 1 to 141.202, item 7.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): We are concerned with the agency's use of the
following definition of waterborne disease in §141.2:

"Waterborne disease outbreak means the significant occurrence of acute infectious
illness, epidemiologicallv associated with the ingestion of water from a public water
system which is deficient in treatment, as determined by the appropriate local or state
agency.

This definition leaves too much room for interpretation and delay by virtue of the inclusion of
the underlined words. By using the word significant to define the occurrence, we may be faced

40

-------
with a situation where the primacy agency is forced into a protracted debate over whether the
occurrence in their locality is significant, thereby not effectuating the required immediate Tier
One action. Secondly, conclusively determining whether the occurrence of infectious illness is
epidemiologically associated with the ingestion of water could take months or years of study
before a group of cases can be formally deemed an outbreak or epidemiologically associated with
water. This type of delay runs contrary to the SDWA's intent to act swiftly and in a preventative
fashion to protect public health.

We urge EPA to adopt an alternative definition and propose the following language: If a federal,
state, or local drinking water or public health official determines that a notable number of cases
of acute infectious illness, likely related to drinking water are occurring, public notice shall [sic]
should be given within 24 hours.

Response: In the final rule, EPA has added other waterborne emergencies, such
as a failure or significant interruption in key water treatment processes, a natural
disaster that disrupts the water supply or distribution system, or a chemical spill or
unexpected loading of possible pathogens into the source water that significantly
increases the potential for drinking water contamination, to the list of violations
and situations that require Tier 1 notice. See Table 1 to 141.202, item 7.

Metro Water District (Tucson, AZ) (1.26): Change "water-born disease outbreak" to be
"distribution related water-born disease outbreak" thereby limiting the definition to a public
water supply. . . The mechanism as to how water-borne disease outbreaks is related to the public
water supplies is the crucial factor since they, the public water supplies, do not monitor and
collect disease data.

Response: EPA believes that the existing definition of a "waterborne disease
outbreak" in 141.2 provides the limitations suggested by the commenter.

Notification of Nitrate Violations

Comments:

City of Glendale (AZ), Department of Public Works (1.15): The proposed rule requires Tier 1
public notification for violations of the MCL for nitrates, nitrites, or the combination of nitrates
and nitrites. We do not believe such violations warrant Tier 1 response, particularly where the
maximum concentration does not exceed 20 mg/L. Several states presently allow water systems
to serve water that contain nitrates at concentrations over the MCL, up to 20mg/L, as long as
notice is provided to customers. Tier 1 public notice for nitrates and nitrites should be required
only when the MCL exceed 20 mg/L measured in the distribution system.

Response: EPA disagrees that nitrates, nitrites, and total nitrate and nitrite do not
warrant Tier 1 notice. Exposure to these contaminants can have serious health
effects for infants below the age of six months. However, federal regulations (40

41

-------
CFR 141.11(d)) allow non-community water systems only to serve water at
concentrations up to 20 mg/1, as long as notice is provided and the water is not
available to infants under the age of six months. In the final rule (section
141.209), EPA has added a requirement for a special notice of nitrate exceedances
by NCWS above 10 mg/1. Where a non-community water system has been
authorized by the primacy agency to exceed the nitrate MCL, a special notice
must be provided that meets the requirements for a Tier 1 notice. Non-
community water systems must provide continuous posting of the fact that nitrate
levels exceed 10 mg/1 and the potential health effects of exposure.

Metro Water District (Tucson, AZ) (1.26): Suggest MCL violations for Nitrate, Nitrite Or
Nitrate + Nitrite, be Tier two or part of the Two-Tier Alternative. These MCL's do not correlate
with Tier one intentions regarding the urgency to other parameters and the related immediate
health effects potentials. Although health effects issues are significant, nitrate, nitrite or nitrate +
nitrite can be blended and the MCL could be back in compliance before the 24-hour window.

Response: In the case of a violation or situation with significant potential to have
serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short-term exposure, the
critical issue is getting information to consumers as quickly as possible. EPA does
not believe that a quick return to compliance negates the need for 24-hour notice.
Consumers have a right to know about the quality of their drinking water,
including whether they were exposed to contaminants. EPA also believes that
consumers should be notified in such situations because the situation may recur.

In their notices, systems should explain that blending has solved the problem.

Where water is blended to reduce contamination levels, consumers at service
connections between the source water and the blending point would need to
receive public notice; beyond the blending point public notice would still be
required (unless the primacy agency approves limited distribution).

American Water Works Service Co., Inc. (1.46): There should not be a separate notification for
combined nitrate and nitrite, since there is no separate MCL for the combination. Current
regulation calls for increased monitoring if the combined nitrate and nitrite is over 10 mg/L, so
no notification should be required at all, unless an individual MCL is exceeded.

Response: Federal regulations do specify a separate MCL for total nitrate and
nitrite (40 CFR 141.62(b)(9)). Public notice is required for this violation.

Notification of SWTR and/or IESWTR Violations

Comments:

Washington State Department of Health, Division of Drinking Water (1.06): The July 2, 1999
ASDWA Weekly SDWA Implementation Update indicates that EPA is considering moving a
turbidity violation for surface water supplies from a Tier 2 (30 day notice) to Tier 1 (24 hour

42

-------
notice). We strongly believe that this is unnecessary from a public health perspective, that it
poses an unreasonable burden on water system operators, and that it could conceivably result in
undue confusion and concern among consumers. Unsteady turbidity readings are not unusual
and do not always pose an immediate or imminent risk to public health. Conditions resulting in
unusual turbidity readings can often be corrected within hours and it could be that by the time the
public received the Tier 1 24-hour notice, the "emergency" would be over. Turbidity violations
are simply not the same magnitude as other events in the Tier 1 category.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter, and has decided to continue to require a
Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new
24-hour consultation requirement in the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA
requires that PWSs consult with the primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24
hours of learning of a single turbidity exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation,
the primacy agency must determine whether public notice is necessary in less than 30
days. If the PWS is unable to make contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours,
turbidity violations would automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement.

EPA is concerned that placing turbidity in Tier 1 could result in some unnecessary Tier 1
alerts, potentially enuring the public to the seriousness of drinking water violations. The
Agency believes that adding a consultation requirement for turbidity violations inserts the
primacy agency into the decision-making process on whether the situation requires
elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively small number of turbidity single exceedances
(EPA's ICR estimates approximately 200 consultations per year), EPA does not
anticipate this requirement will be overly burdensome to states or water systems. EPA
believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations indicating an immediate
health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the immediate consultation
requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the violation indicates no
immediate risk to health.

Consumer Federation of America (1.11): Surges in the turbidity level, even in some cases spikes
that do not reach the MCL, have been the only predictor of cryptosporidiosis outbreaks.
Cryptosporidiosis is not only a serious acute illness for many, it continues to be fatal for many
immune compromised individuals. The traditional indicators of microbial pathogens — lack of
disinfection or violations of total coliform — did not precede six of the seven confirmed
cryptosporidiosis outbreaks from 1984 to 1994. Furthermore, there is now evidence that
significant increases in gastrointestinal cases requiring hospitalizations are associated with spikes
in turbidity. These cases have occurred not only among the severely immune compromised, but
also among children age 3 and older.1

1 Schwartz J, Levin R, Hodge K. Drinking Water Turbidity and Pediatric Hospital Use
for Gastrointestinal Illness in Philadelphia. Epidemiology 1997; vol. 8 no. 6: 615-620.

43

-------
In light of this evidence of health threats associated with turbidity surges that are, by any
definition, "significant and urgent enough to require an emergency notice," an MCL violation of
turbidity clearly should trigger an emergency public notice within 24 hours. If a violation of the
MCL of turbidity remains in Tier 2, as proposed, the public notification would be delivered 30 to
90 days after the fact. This is too late to allow members of the public to take sensible precautions
to protect their health.

Response: EPA has decided to continue to require a Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for
turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new 24-hour consultation requirement in
the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA requires that PWSs consult with the
primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24 hours of learning of a single turbidity
exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation, the primacy agency must determine
whether public notice is necessary in less than 30 days. If the PWS is unable to make
contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours, turbidity violations would
automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement. Table 1 of 141.202 now includes
turbidity single exceedances where the primacy agency determines after consultation that
a Tier 1 notice is required, or where contact between the operator and the primacy agency
does not take place within 24 hours of when the system learns of the violation.

EPA recognizes that the public health consequences of not alerting the public quickly
when pathogens have passed through to the drinking water are very high. However, EPA
does not believe that all such turbidity excursions should prompt a Tier 1 notice. A
turbidity exceedance by itself, without other supporting information, has not been shown
to date to be a predictable indicator of a pathogen loading in the finished water. A single
exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit, although a violation, may also
prove to be a false reading because of a testing equipment malfunction. EPA is
continuing research into the usefulness of turbidity as an indicator as part of the
development of the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

EPA agrees that certain exceedances of the turbidity limit deserve special attention in the
final rule, and the consultation requirement involves the primacy agency in the decision-
making process on whether the situation requires elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively
small number of single exceedance turbidity violations (estimated at less than 200 per
year), the additional primacy agency workload for consultation should not be overly
burdensome. EPA believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations
indicating an immediate health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the
immediate consultation requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the
violation indicates no immediate risk to health.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): Turbidity in excess of 5 NTU's needs to
bumped up to a Tier 1 violation.

Response: EPA has decided to continue to require a Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for
turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new 24-hour consultation requirement in

44

-------
the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA requires that PWSs consult with the
primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24 hours of learning of a single turbidity
exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation, the primacy agency must determine
whether public notice is necessary in less than 30 days. If the PWS is unable to make
contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours, turbidity violations would
automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement. Table 1 of 141.202 now includes
turbidity single exceedances where the primacy agency determines after consultation that
a Tier 1 notice is required, or where contact between the operator and the primacy agency
does not take place within 24 hours of when the system learns of the violation.

EPA recognizes that the public health consequences of not alerting the public quickly
when pathogens have passed through to the drinking water are very high. However, EPA
does not believe that all such turbidity excursions should prompt a Tier 1 notice. A
turbidity exceedance by itself, without other supporting information, has not been shown
to date to be a predictable indicator of a pathogen loading in the finished water. A single
exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit, although a violation, may also
prove to be a false reading because of a testing equipment malfunction. EPA is
continuing research into the usefulness of turbidity as an indicator as part of the
development of the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

EPA agrees that certain exceedances of the turbidity limit deserve special attention in the
final rule, and the consultation requirement inserts the primacy agency into the decision-
making process on whether the situation requires elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively
small number of single exceedance turbidity violations (estimated at less than 200 per
year), the additional primacy agency workload for consultation should not be overly
burdensome. EPA believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations
indicating an immediate health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the
immediate consultation requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the
violation indicates no immediate risk to health.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA also supports EPA's proposal that turbidity
violations NOT be automatically mandated to be a Tier 1 violation. The primacy agency needs
the flexibility to determine if a Tier 1 violation is warranted. There are many instances where a
turbidity violation may not warrant a massive boil water notice. One example is where a
turbidimeter malfunctions and measurements that are clearly erroneous are recorded. Another
example could be where lime is used to raise the pH for the Lead & Copper Rule and the lime
increases turbidity, which doesn't impact public health protection. Another example is the utility
response to a high turbidity event, i.e., the utility may have shut down the treatment plant or
dumped the water in the clearwell. These responses would negate the need for a massive boil
water notice, and the state needs the flexibility to take these issues, along with many other
possibilities, into account when determining if a Tier 1 violation is warranted or not. We don't
want to desensitize the public to the importance of Tier 1 violations that have immediate health
implications, i.e., we don't want the public to ignore boil water notices due to too many notices.

45

-------
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter, and has decided to continue to require a
Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new
24-hour consultation requirement in the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA
requires that PWSs consult with the primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24
hours of learning of a single turbidity exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation,
the primacy agency must determine whether public notice is necessary in less than 30
days. If the PWS is unable to make contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours,
turbidity violations would automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement.

EPA is concerned that placing turbidity in Tier 1 could result in some unnecessary Tier 1
alerts, potentially enuring the public to the seriousness of drinking water violations. The
Agency believes that adding a consultation requirement for turbidity violations inserts the
primacy agency into the decision-making process on whether the situation requires
elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively small number of turbidity single exceedances
(EPA's ICR estimates approximately 200 consultations per year), EPA does not
anticipate this requirement will be overly burdensome to states or water systems. EPA
believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations indicating an immediate
health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the immediate consultation
requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the violation indicates no
immediate risk to health.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): Routine turbidity and treatment technique violations should not
be placed in Tier 1. These type of violations are appropriate in Tier 2, and the States should have
flexibility to determine when violations should be elevated to Tier 1. . . . Routine turbidity and
treatment violations are appropriately placed in Tier 2, because the provision for other Tier 1
violations to be determined by the State. For example, an extreme level of turbidity and
treatment violation may warrant Tier 1 notice, but the States should have the flexibility to make
such determinations.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter, and has decided to continue to require a
Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new
24-hour consultation requirement in the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA
requires that PWSs consult with the primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24
hours of learning of a single turbidity exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation,
the primacy agency must determine whether public notice is necessary in less than 30
days. If the PWS is unable to make contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours,
turbidity violations would automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement.

EPA is concerned that placing turbidity in Tier 1 could result in some unnecessary Tier 1
alerts, potentially enuring the public to the seriousness of drinking water violations. The
Agency believes that adding a consultation requirement for turbidity violations inserts the
primacy agency into the decision-making process on whether the situation requires
elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively small number of turbidity single exceedances
(EPA's ICR estimates approximately 200 consultations per year), EPA does not

46

-------
anticipate this requirement will be overly burdensome to states or water systems. EPA
believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations indicating an immediate
health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the immediate consultation
requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the violation indicates no
immediate risk to health.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): We are extremely concerned with the agency's
decision to exclude turbidity violations because, although not necessarily a health hazard in
itself, surges in water turbidity levels are often the only indicator of microbial contamination.
Turbidity was the only indicator of a problem in the waterborne disease outbreak in Milwaukee
and certain other cases. We urge EPA to include turbidity among Tier One violations to properly
protect public health. . . .

Several recent studies have documented that turbidity spikes can be the only known advance
indications of waterborne disease outbreaks. In addition, several recent papers show that even
modest increases in turbidity are associated with increases in hospital admissions for vulnerable
people such as children.

We therefore urge the agency to adopt a Tier One classification for MCL violations of turbidity
in order to prevent future large-scale outbreaks.

Response: EPA has decided to continue to require a Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for
turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new 24-hour consultation requirement in
the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA requires that PWSs consult with the
primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24 hours of learning of a single turbidity
exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation, the primacy agency must determine
whether public notice is necessary in less than 30 days. If the PWS is unable to make
contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours, turbidity violations would
automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement. Table 1 of 141.202 now includes
turbidity single exceedances where the primacy agency determines after consultation that
a Tier 1 notice is required, or where contact between the operator and the primacy agency
does not take place within 24 hours of when the system learns of the violation.

EPA recognizes that the public health consequences of not alerting the public quickly
when pathogens have passed through to the drinking water are very high. However, EPA
does not believe that all such turbidity excursions should prompt a Tier 1 notice. A
turbidity exceedance by itself, without other supporting information, has not been shown
to date to be a predictable indicator of a pathogen loading in the finished water. A single
exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit, although a violation, may also
prove to be a false reading because of a testing equipment malfunction. EPA is
continuing research into the usefulness of turbidity as an indicator as part of the
development of the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

47

-------
EPA agrees that certain exceedances of the turbidity limit deserve special attention in the
final rule, and the consultation requirement inserts the primacy agency into the decision-
making process on whether the situation requires elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively
small number of single exceedance turbidity violations (estimated at less than 200 per
year), the additional primacy agency workload for consultation should not be overly
burdensome. EPA believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations
indicating an immediate health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the
immediate consultation requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the
violation indicates no immediate risk to health.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): IDNR supports the inclusion of the five
categories listed in the table. However, treatment technique violations of the surface water
treatment rule - SWTR - (elevated turbidity due to inadequate filtration, insufficient disinfectant
contact time, or failure to maintain a disinfectant residual) are also violations which could cause
waterborne illness outbreaks in a very short time period, yielding acute health effects for affected
populations. The argument that multiple violation notices inure the public to the "serious"
violations is outweighed by both the infrequent occurrence of these violations (at least in Iowa,
and probably nationwide) and the seriousness of the potential health consequences of such a
violation. The IDNR supports the inclusion of the SWTR treatment technique violations in the
Tier 1 violation category. . . .

[Violations of SWTR treatment techniques should be considered Tier 1 violations, due to their
potential for adversely impacting public health in an immediate and serious manner. The IDNR
strongly urges the reclassification of SWTR treatment technique (TT) violations as Tier 1
violations.

Response: EPA has decided to continue to require a Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for
turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new 24-hour consultation requirement in
the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA requires that PWSs consult with the
primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24 hours of learning of a single turbidity
exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation, the primacy agency must determine
whether public notice is necessary in less than 30 days. If the PWS is unable to make
contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours, turbidity violations would
automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement. Table 1 of 141.202 now includes
turbidity single exceedances where the primacy agency determines after consultation that
a Tier 1 notice is required, or where contact between the operator and the primacy agency
does not take place within 24 hours of when the system learns of the violation.

EPA recognizes that the public health consequences of not alerting the public quickly
when pathogens have passed through to the drinking water are very high. However, EPA
does not believe that all such turbidity excursions should prompt a Tier 1 notice. A
turbidity exceedance by itself, without other supporting information, has not been shown
to date to be a predictable indicator of a pathogen loading in the finished water. A single
exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit, although a violation, may also

48

-------
prove to be a false reading because of a testing equipment malfunction. EPA is
continuing research into the usefulness of turbidity as an indicator as part of the
development of the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

EPA agrees that certain exceedances of the turbidity limit deserve special attention in the
final rule, and the consultation requirement inserts the primacy agency into the decision-
making process on whether the situation requires elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively
small number of single exceedance turbidity violations (estimated at less than 200 per
year), the additional primacy agency workload for consultation should not be overly
burdensome. EPA believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations
indicating an immediate health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the
immediate consultation requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the
violation indicates no immediate risk to health.

New Jersey DEP, Interagency Work Group on Infectious Disease and Drinking Water (1.32):
Turbidity above 1 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) should be specifically listed as a possible
trigger for 24-hour primacy agency and public notification in the Tier I list of the newly proposed
Public Notification Rule. This number represents the upper limit in the Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule. The 1 NTU upper limit is based in part on the waterborne
cryptosporidiosis outbreak in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1993. The Milwaukee water system
never violated the turbidity standard in place at the time (a 5 NTU upper limit). In addition,
timely notification of the state primacy agency and the local health department(s) upon reaching
1 NTU would have been valuable.

Under the current proposal, surface water treatment problems, in addition to fecal coliform
detection, can be included by primacy states as one of the important triggers for public
notification. Including turbidity specifically in the list would mean that water purveyors would
be required to notify state primacy agencies within 24 hours, or preferably within 6-12 hours, to
discuss the cause and whether the elevated turbidity warrants immediate notification of the local
health agency and possibly a boil water advisory.

A mechanism should also be considered under this proposed rule (or under the planned Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule) whereby systems are required to quickly notify the state primacy
agency at some trigger point between 0.3 NTU (the limit for the 95th percentile of monthly
samples) and 1 NTU. That trigger point could be set on the basis of the normal operating range
of turbidity for each system. Too often important communication between the water system and
the state is delayed until a major problem has emerged. A national policy would serve to
improve preventive measures by insuring prompt involvement of state and local staff in a
potentially acute public health event. [Note: identical comment submitted by New Jersey
Department of Health and Senior Services.]

-------
primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24 hours of learning of a single turbidity
exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation, the primacy agency must determine
whether public notice is necessary in less than 30 days. If the PWS is unable to make
contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours, turbidity violations would
automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement. Table 1 of 141.202 now includes
turbidity single exceedances where the primacy agency determines after consultation that
a Tier 1 notice is required or where the consultation does not take place within 24 hours.
The commenter suggested that consultation be initiated at some trigger point between 0.3
NTU and 1 NTU. EPA will consider this suggestion as it amends the Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule.

EPA recognizes that the public health consequences of not alerting the public quickly
when pathogens have passed through to the drinking water are very high. However, EPA
does not believe that all such turbidity excursions should prompt a Tier 1 notice. A
turbidity exceedance by itself, without other supporting information, has not been shown
to date to be a predictable indicator of a pathogen loading in the finished water. A single
exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit, although a violation, may also
prove to be a false reading because of a testing equipment malfunction. EPA is
continuing research into the usefulness of turbidity as an indicator as part of the
development of the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

EPA agrees that certain exceedances of the turbidity limit deserve special attention in the
final rule, and the consultation requirement inserts the primacy agency into the decision-
making process on whether the situation requires elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively
small number of single exceedance turbidity violations (estimated at less than 200 per
year), the additional primacy agency workload for consultation should not be overly
burdensome. EPA believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations
indicating an immediate health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the
immediate consultation requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the
violation indicates no immediate risk to health.

Illinois EPA, Division of Public Water Supplies (1.33): It is understood that consideration may
be given to changing turbidity violations from Tier 2 to Tier 1 for public notice. Care should be
taken to only upgrade the violations that are easily identified at the moment. Violations
involving any one sample over 1 NTU is easily identified and could be followed with PN within
24 hours.

However, the violation involving 95% of the samples within a month is much more difficult.
There are some situations where this is easily identified, i.e. a large plant which operates 24
hours, 7 days a week, must take at least 6 combined effluent readings each day or 180 in, for
example, the month of June. If there are continuous turbidity problems for eleven reading or
forty-four hours, 6 percent of the samples exceed and therefore a violation can be identified.
Other situations are not as clearly identified and could result in a supply not making PN within
24 hours. Many small supplies only operate when there is a need and therefore do not know how

50

-------
many samples will be taken in a month. If one or two samples are over at different times during
the month, the supply may not be aware of the violation until they are preparing the monthly
report at the beginning of the next month.

Therefore only the single reading over 5 or 1 NTU should be Tier 1. If a state is aware of a
supply exceeding the 0.3 or 0.5 for a significant period of time they have the option of upgrading
the PN to Tier 1.

Additionally, if there is discussion of upgrading the turbidity to Tier 1, the disinfectant level at
the entry point should also be included. Similar to the turbidity only the easily identified
violation (maintaining a minimal level at the entry point) should be upgraded. The violations for
samples from the distribution system should not be included. [Note: the first three paragraphs of
this comment submitted in a separate comment from Illinois EPA.]

Response: EPA has decided to continue to require a Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for
turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new 24-hour consultation requirement in
the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA requires that PWSs consult with the
primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24 hours of learning of a single turbidity
exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation, the primacy agency must determine
whether public notice is necessary in less than 30 days. If the PWS is unable to make
contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours, turbidity violations would
automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement. Table 1 of 141.202 now includes
turbidity single exceedances where the primacy agency determines after consultation that
a Tier 1 notice is required, or where contact between the operator and the primacy agency
does not take place within 24 hours of when the system learns of the violation.

EPA recognizes that the public health consequences of not alerting the public quickly
when pathogens have passed through to the drinking water are very high. However, EPA
does not believe that all such turbidity excursions should prompt a Tier 1 notice. A
turbidity exceedance by itself, without other supporting information, has not been shown
to date to be a predictable indicator of a pathogen loading in the finished water. A single
exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit, although a violation, may also
prove to be a false reading because of a testing equipment malfunction. EPA is
continuing research into the usefulness of turbidity as an indicator as part of the
development of the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

-------
immediate consultation requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the
violation indicates no immediate risk to health.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): AMWA believes that turbidity, Surface
water Treatment Rule and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule violations belong in
Tier 2.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter, and has decided to continue to require a
Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new
24-hour consultation requirement in the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA
requires that PWSs consult with the primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24
hours of learning of a single turbidity exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation,
the primacy agency must determine whether public notice is necessary in less than 30
days. If the PWS is unable to make contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours,
turbidity violations would automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement.

EPA is concerned that placing turbidity in Tier 1 could result in some unnecessary Tier 1
alerts, potentially enuring the public to the seriousness of drinking water violations. The
Agency believes that adding a consultation requirement for turbidity violations inserts the
primacy agency into the decision-making process on whether the situation requires
elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively small number of turbidity single exceedances
(EPA's ICR estimates approximately 200 consultations per year), EPA does not
anticipate this requirement will be overly burdensome to states or water systems. EPA
believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations indicating an immediate
health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the immediate consultation
requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the violation indicates no
immediate risk to health.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (2.3): We agree with EPA's approach to not
include . . . SWTR violations in the Tier 1 list. The majority of the turbidity violations under the
SWTR rule do not pose a significant health risk. . . It is best left to the State primacy agency to
determine Tier 1 violations using a combination of TCR distribution system sampling results,
maintenance of CT values, filtration practices, disinfection residuals, and knowledge of the water
system operation.

The manpower requirements on the part of the water system and the state regulatory agency
would be too intensive to follow up on 24 hour notifications for all TCR and SWTR violations.
This would dilute the intent and meaning of the Tier 1 notification over a period of time such that
the public would not detect the sense of urgency to [sic] the notice and not pay attention to it.

-------
hours of learning of a single turbidity exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation,
the primacy agency must determine whether public notice is necessary in less than 30
days. If the PWS is unable to make contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours,
turbidity violations would automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement.

EPA is concerned that placing turbidity in Tier 1 could result in some unnecessary Tier 1
alerts, potentially enuring the public to the seriousness of drinking water violations. The
Agency believes that adding a consultation requirement for turbidity violations inserts the
primacy agency into the decision-making process on whether the situation requires
elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively small number of turbidity single exceedances
(EPA's ICR estimates approximately 200 consultations per year), EPA does not
anticipate this requirement will be overly burdensome to states or water systems. EPA
believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations indicating an immediate
health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the immediate consultation
requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the violation indicates no
immediate risk to health.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management (2.5): I am very opposed to moving
turbidity to Tier 1, if the raw water quality is such that turbidity will mask disinfection, bact.
analysis should be the next step, then you have something quality related to trigger notice. Let
the treatment rule handle it.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter, and has decided to continue to require a
Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new
24-hour consultation requirement in the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA
requires that PWSs consult with the primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24
hours of learning of a single turbidity exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation,
the primacy agency must determine whether public notice is necessary in less than 30
days. If the PWS is unable to make contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours,
turbidity violations would automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement.

EPA is concerned that placing turbidity in Tier 1 could result in some unnecessary Tier 1
alerts, potentially enuring the public to the seriousness of drinking water violations. The
Agency believes that adding a consultation requirement for turbidity violations inserts the
primacy agency into the decision-making process on whether the situation requires
elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively small number of turbidity single exceedances
(EPA's ICR estimates approximately 200 consultations per year), EPA does not
anticipate this requirement will be overly burdensome to states or water systems. EPA
believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations indicating an immediate
health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the immediate consultation
requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the violation indicates no
immediate risk to health.

53

-------
Diana Neidle, Consumer Federation of America (at DC meeting) (E.2): People died during the
Cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee. Turbidity should be Tier 1. At a meeting on June 2, a
presenter described eight Cryptosporidium outbreaks where fecal coliform was not present. Only
elevated turbidity levels were indicated in these situations. Although not every turbidity
exceedance indicates the presence of Cryptosporidium, protecting public health should be EPA's
objective.

Response: EPA has decided to continue to require a Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for
turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new 24-hour consultation requirement in
the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA requires that PWSs consult with the
primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24 hours of learning of a single turbidity
exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation, the primacy agency must determine
whether public notice is necessary in less than 30 days. If the PWS is unable to make
contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours, turbidity violations would
automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement. Table 1 of 141.202 now includes
turbidity single exceedances where the primacy agency determines after consultation that
a Tier 1 notice is required, or where contact between the operator and the primacy agency
does not take place within 24 hours of when the system learns of the violation.

EPA recognizes that the public health consequences of not alerting the public quickly
when pathogens have passed through to the drinking water are very high. However, EPA
does not believe that all such turbidity excursions should prompt a Tier 1 notice. A
turbidity exceedance by itself, without other supporting information, has not been shown
to date to be a predictable indicator of a pathogen loading in the finished water. A single
exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit, although a violation, may also
prove to be a false reading because of a testing equipment malfunction. EPA is
continuing research into the usefulness of turbidity as an indicator as part of the
development of the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

EPA agrees that certain exceedances of the turbidity limit deserve special attention in the
final rule, and the consultation requirement inserts the primacy agency into the decision-
making process on whether the situation requires elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively
small number of single exceedance turbidity violations (estimated at less than 200 per
year), the additional primacy agency workload for consultation should not be overly
burdensome. EPA believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations
indicating an immediate health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the
immediate consultation requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the
violation indicates no immediate risk to health.

Richard Kolish, City of Baltimore (at DC meeting) (E.2): If turbidity becomes Tier 1, there will
be many such violations over a short time. Historically, even an exceedance of 5 NTU was not
considered an emergency if a system added a lot of chlorine and no coliform bacteria were
present. This may not have been the right assumption all the time, but it should be kept in mind
when assigning a tier to turbidity exceedances. The linkage of turbidity to Cryptosporidium is an

54

-------
important one, but it is also important to consider the water source before requiring public
notification for increased turbidity. If Cryptosporidium has not been detected in the raw water at
that time or previously, turbidity may not be significant.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter, and has decided to continue to require a
Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new
24-hour consultation requirement in the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA
requires that PWSs consult with the primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24
hours of learning of a single turbidity exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation,
the primacy agency must determine whether public notice is necessary in less than 30
days. If the PWS is unable to make contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours,
turbidity violations would automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement.

EPA is concerned that placing turbidity in Tier 1 could result in some unnecessary Tier 1
alerts, potentially enuring the public to the seriousness of drinking water violations. The
Agency believes that adding a consultation requirement for turbidity violations inserts the
primacy agency into the decision-making process on whether the situation requires
elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively small number of turbidity single exceedances
(EPA's ICR estimates approximately 200 consultations per year), EPA does not
anticipate this requirement will be overly burdensome to states or water systems. EPA
believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations indicating an immediate
health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the immediate consultation
requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the violation indicates no
immediate risk to health.

Adrianna Quintero, Natural Resources Defense Council (at DC meeting) (E.2): Turbidity should
be a Tier 1 violation. In Milwaukee, turbidity levels were elevated at the time of the disease
outbreak.

Response: EPA has decided to continue to require a Tier 2 rather than Tier 1 notice for
turbidity exceedances; however, it has added a new 24-hour consultation requirement in
the event of a single turbidity exceedance. EPA requires that PWSs consult with the
primacy agency as soon as practical, but within 24 hours of learning of a single turbidity
exceedance [141.203 (b)]. During this consultation, the primacy agency must determine
whether public notice is necessary in less than 30 days. If the PWS is unable to make
contact with the primacy agency within 24 hours, turbidity violations would
automatically default to a Tier 1 notice requirement. Table 1 of 141.202 now includes
turbidity single exceedances where the primacy agency determines after consultation that
a Tier 1 notice is required, or where contact between the operator and the primacy agency
does not take place within 24 hours of when the system learns of the violation.

EPA recognizes that the public health consequences of not alerting the public quickly
when pathogens have passed through to the drinking water are very high. However, EPA
does not believe that all such turbidity excursions should prompt a Tier 1 notice. A

55

-------
turbidity exceedance by itself, without other supporting information, has not been shown
to date to be a predictable indicator of a pathogen loading in the finished water. A single
exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit, although a violation, may also
prove to be a false reading because of a testing equipment malfunction. EPA is
continuing research into the usefulness of turbidity as an indicator as part of the
development of the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

William Slade, DC Environmental Health Administration (at DC meeting) (E.2): Failure to

monitor for turbidity should be a Tier 1 violation.

Response: Primacy agencies have the discretion to elevate any monitoring
violation to Tier 2 or even Tier 1. EPA believes that most monitoring and testing
procedure violations do not warrant Tier 1 notice; however, if such notice is
needed, the authority to require it is available.

Frederick Loomis, Clean Water Action (at Allentown meeting) (E.3): Turbidity violations

should be included in Tier 1.

-------
to date to be a predictable indicator of a pathogen loading in the finished water. A single
exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit, although a violation, may also
prove to be a false reading because of a testing equipment malfunction. EPA is
continuing research into the usefulness of turbidity as an indicator as part of the
development of the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

Laura May, Arizona AIDS Network (at Phoenix meeting) (E.4): Cryptosporidium is difficult to
detect in drinking water and causes devastating disease in AIDS patients. Because of its
correlation to high turbidity levels, EPA should consider making turbidity violations a Tier 1
situation.

-------
EPA agrees that certain exceedances of the turbidity limit deserve special attention in the
final rule, and the consultation requirement inserts the primacy agency into the decision-
making process on whether the situation requires elevation to Tier 1. Given the relatively
small number of single exceedance turbidity violations (estimated at less than 200 per
year), the additional primacy agency workload for consultation should not be overly
burdensome. EPA believes the final rule ensures that notices for turbidity violations
indicating an immediate health risk will go out quickly when necessary (based on the
immediate consultation requirement) and unnecessary notices will be avoided where the
violation indicates no immediate risk to health.

Phyllis Rowe, Arizona Consumers Council (at Phoenix meeting) (E.4): Turbidity exceedances
should be included as Tier 1 violations. Studies by Harvard and the Centers for Disease Control
have correlated spikes in turbidity levels in drinking water (in the absence of other indicators)
with gastrointestinal illnesses and emergency room visits. Children and elderly adults are at risk.

-------
EPA recognizes that the public health consequences of not alerting the public quickly
when pathogens have passed through to the drinking water are very high. However, EPA
does not believe that all such turbidity excursions should prompt a Tier 1 notice. A
turbidity exceedance by itself, without other supporting information, has not been shown
to date to be a predictable indicator of a pathogen loading in the finished water. A single
exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit, although a violation, may also
prove to be a false reading because of a testing equipment malfunction. EPA is
continuing research into the usefulness of turbidity as an indicator as part of the
development of the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

Notification of Coliform Violations

Comments:

Massachusetts DEP (1.08): An MCL violation for total coliform should be required under the
Tier 2 violation. The presence of total coliform doesn't necessarily identify a problem with the
source water but it is considered an indicator of a potential source water problem. In addition,
because Tier 2 notices are required within 30 days, an MCL violation for any contaminant that is
monitored on a quarterly or monthly basis should automatically be considered a Tier 2 violation.

Response: EPA agrees with the comment, and has retained the Tier 2 notice
requirement for total coliform violations.

Consumer Federation of America (1.11): In some cases a total coliform violation does not
indicate a health threat. However, coliform in treated water often indicates the presence of a
variety of pathogenic microbes and parasites - not only fecal coliform. EPA makes clear the
health reasons for establishing a MCL for coliform in Regulation 141.32, which states:

The presence of these bacteria [coliform] in drinking water, however, generally is a
result of a problem with water treatment or the pipes which distribute the water, and
indicates that the water may be contaminated with organisms that can cause disease.
Disease symptoms may include diarrhea, cramps, nausea, and possibly jaundice, and any
associated headaches andfatigue. . . . EPA has set an enforceable drinking water
standard for total coliform to reduce the risk of these adverse health effects.

-------
In light of the seriousness of these health effects, the public should receive notification promptly
of violations of the total coliform MCL. This is particularly important since a violation is not
determined by a single test. A violation of total coliform only occurs if coliform has been
detected in more than five percent of many samples over the course of a month. Delaying public
notification of a total coliform violation until 30 days after that month of testing is little more
than a useless gesture, leaving those more vulnerable to infection with no opportunity to take
timely precautions.

Response: EPA has decided to keep total coliform MCL violations in Tier 2.

EPA defines a Tier 1 violation as one with a significant potential to have serious
adverse effects on human health as a result of short term exposure. Most TCR
violations (without supporting evidence) are not sufficiently strong or predictable
indicators of significant potential of risk from short-term exposure. Most TCR
violations with no evidence of fecal contamination clearly do not provide
sufficient evidence indicating significant potential of short-term health risk.

Moving total coliform MCLs to Tier 1 would result in an increase in false alarms
and might cause the public to ignore subsequent notices for fecal coliform oris.
coli MCL violations. The rule still requires that notice be given as soon as
practical and gives primacy agencies the authority to elevate such violations to
Tier 1 if they think the violation presents a health threat. EPA does have a means
to determine whether a positive test for total coliform is an emergency: Tier 1
notice is required whenever a system fails to test for fecal coliform oris, coli after
repeat samples test positive for coliform.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports EPA's proposal that total coliform
violations (absent of fecal contamination) NOT be automatically mandated to be a Tier 1
violation. Again, the primacy agency needs the flexibility to determine if a Tier 1 violation is
warranted.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this requirement in the final rule.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): We strongly recommend that the agency classify a
violation of the total coliform MCL as a Tier One violation requiring a notice to issue within 24
hours. The proposed rule currently requires notice within 24 hours only where the mandatory
follow-up test is positive for fecal coliform oris, coli in the distribution system; or if the fecal
coliform test is not performed. The presence of coliform in treated water, however, is an
indication of the potential presence of a variety of pathogenic microbes and parasites— not only
fecal coliform. EPA has made clear the health reasons for establishing a MCL for coliform.
Section 141.32 indicates that total coliform in some cases may be harmless, and goes on to state:

The presence of these bacteria [total coliform] in drinking water, however, generally is a
result of a problem with water treatment or the pipes which distribute the water, and
indicates that the water may be contaminated with organisms that can cause disease.
Disease symptoms may include diarrhea, cramps, nausea, and possibly jaundice, and any

-------
associated headaches andfatigue. . . EPA has set an enforceable drinking water
standard for total coliform to reduce the risk of these adverse health effects.

The public particularly in light of the potential impacts on vulnerable populations of the
organisms that may be indicated by the presence of total coliform should receive notification
promptly. Because a violation of total coliform only occurs if coliform has been detected in
more than 5% of several samples during a month, delaying public notification beyond 24 hours
after the violation is detected would extend this period for well over one month from the
occurrence. This delay poses an unnecessary health risk to consumers, and sends a clear signal
that the violation is not serious or worthy of significant health concern.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): The exclusion of non-acute coliform maximum
contaminant level (MCL) violations from the Tier 1 table is somewhat troublesome, since such a
violation indicates pathways for pathogenic organisms are present in the water system. While a
24-hour notice may be overreaction, the 30-day notice for Tier 2 violations seems to be too long
for affected target populations. The 90-day extended notice should not be allowed for non-acute
coliform. MCL violations. The IDNR suggest a special 15-day notice solely for non-acute
coliform MCL violations, which would remain a Tier 2 violation.

Response: In the final rule, EPA has decided to narrow the circumstances where
extensions will be allowed. For initial notices, EPA will allow no "across-the-
board" extensions; no extensions will be allowed for unresolved violations of any
kind. Any extension of the 30 day time frame will only be in situations where the
primacy agency deems it appropriate based on the risk posed by the situation.

Regarding the commenter's suggestion of a special 15-day notice solely for non-
acute coliform MCL violations, EPA believes that adding another notification tier
would complicate the rule. EPA requires that all Tier 2 notices be distributed as

-------
soon as practical, and that 30 days is the longest amount of time a Tier 2 notice
should take for an unresolved violation.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): AMWA believes that total coliform
violations properly belong in Tier 2. Tier 1 should be reserved for violations with significant
potential to have serious adverse effects on human health. EPA has long acknowledged that this
is not the case with total coliform violations absent indications of fecal contamination. However,
it is appropriate for the States to have the authority to elevate such violations to Tier 1 based on
specific, case-by case information indicating that immediate notification is appropriate for public
health protection. In the majority of cases, however, Tier 1 type notification for total coliform
may only serve to needlessly alarm the public, and, over time, desensitize the public to the
importance of taking appropriate action for Tier 1 violations that do have immediate health
implications.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): Violations of the
Total Coliform Rule (more than 5% of monthly samples positive) should not be included in the
Tier 1 group. A positive result for a total coliform test does not necessarily indicate that harmful
organisms are present. However, if the confirmation test indicates that fecal coliform is present,
then a Tier 1 notice should be required.

Response: EPA agrees with the comment. However, there may be some cases
where a primacy agency feels it is necessary to elevate a total coliform MCL
violation to Tier 1 based on other information.

City of Madison (1.43): I strongly agree with the EPA position reflected in the draft Rule that
Total Coliform should be considered a Tier 2 violation rather than a Tier 1 violation. As you
know, there has been much debate of late as to the efficacy of Total Coliform as an appropriate
indicator for fecal pollution and an implied public health risk. While the "total coliform" group of
indicators was originally developed as a surrogate for E. coli, this association no longer exists.
The great majority of positive total coliform tests do not contain E. coli. The other genera in the
group are ubiquitous in the environment, are not associated with fecal contamination, and do not
imply a health risk. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to consider Total Coliform a Tier 1
violation in the Public Notification Rule.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (2.3): We agree with EPA's approach to not
include the TCR . . . violations in the Tier 1 list. The majority of the turbidity violations under
the SWTR rule do not pose a significant health risk, and the same holds true for violations of the
Total Coliform rule. It is best left to the State primacy agency to determine Tier 1 violations . . .
The inclusion of fecal coliform positive samples in the Tier 1 category is appropriate, thus

-------
signifying a potential acute health risk; whereas, a Total Coliform positive result only is not an
acute health risk.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Barbara Federlin, WDNR (at Madison meeting) (E. 1): Total coliform violations, even without
the presence of fecal coliform, necessitate a boil water notice.

Response: EPA has decided to keep total coliform MCL violations in Tier 2.
EPA defines a Tier 1 violation as one with a significant potential to have serious
adverse effects on human health as a result of short term exposure. Most TCR
violations (without supporting evidence) are not sufficiently strong or predictable
indicators of significant potential of risk from short-term exposure. Most TCR
violations with no evidence of fecal contamination clearly do not provide
sufficient evidence indicating significant potential of short-term health risk.
Moving total coliform MCLs to Tier 1 would result in an increase in false alarms
and might cause the public to ignore subsequent notices for fecal coliform oris.
coli MCL violations. The rule still requires that notice be given as soon as
practical and gives primacy agencies the authority to elevate such violations to
Tier 1 if they think the violation presents a health threat. EPA does have a means
to determine whether a positive test for total coliform is an emergency: Tier 1
notice is required whenever a system fails to test for fecal coliform oris, coli after
repeat samples test positive for coliform.

Bob Baumeister, WDNR (at Madison meeting) (E. 1): Why were total coliform violations

assigned to Tier 2 rather than Tier 1?

-------
Jon Standridge, Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene (at Madison meeting) (E.l): The treatment of
the coliform issue in the handbook and the rule is good—it does not "cry wolf."

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

64

-------
Topic 6: 141.202 (b) When is the Tier 1 public notice to be provided? What

additional steps are required?

141.202 (b)(1) Provide notice in 24 hours

Comments:

Massachusetts DEP (1.08): Tier 1 violations should require an additional notice within 14 days
either through a newspaper, posting, or hand delivery, as in the current rule. Posting a notice
within 24 hours may not allow sufficient time for a public water system to give detailed
information about the violation, including possible sources of contamination or long term
remediation steps. A follow-up posting will provide the public with a clearer picture of what the
violation was, how it occurred, and any details concluded after the original notice was posted.

Response: EPA disagrees. The Agency considered requiring an additional notice
following 24-hour Tier 1 violations. Such notices would allow systems time to
gather more complete information about the violation and report this information
to consumers. Additional notices would also compensate for cases where
electronic media did not adequately provide notice to consumers. However, EPA
felt that automatically requiring a second notice may actually encourage systems
to not issue as complete a notice as possible during the first 24 hours. In addition,
it would create an additional tracking burden for primacy agencies. Lastly, the
need for additional notices and the content requirements of each notice would
vary based on the situation. For this reason, EPA decided that the authority
primacy agencies have to set additional notice requirements during consultation
with systems is adequate.

City of Glendale (AZ), Department of Public Works (1.15): The proposed rule requires systems
to provide Tier 1 public notification in a form and manner reasonably calculated to reach all
persons served within 24 hours. In order to reach all persons served, water systems are to use at a
minimum broadcast media, posting notices in conspicuous locations, or hand delivery of notices.
A water system can only ensure the content of the message (i.e., that the mandatory language is
included) if the notice is delivered in written form. The time required to prepare and print notices
for posing, [sic] hand delivery or inclusion in a newspaper is likely to take more than 24 hours,
particularly for large systems. . .

We also recommend that the rules allow large water systems to complete the notification process
within 72 hours after first discovery of the violation, if the activity causing the violation is
stopped soon after its discovery (e.g., within an hour after discovery).

Response: As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, in setting the
deadline for Tier 1 notification, EPA was limited by the provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (1414(c)(2)(C)(i)), which allow a maximum of 24 hours for

65

-------
violations with the potential to cause serious health effects as a result of short
term exposure. EPA recognizes that systems may have difficulty preparing
notices. For these reasons, EPA has developed a handbook for water systems that
includes templates for violations in Tier 1, as well as advice on working with the
media. EPA intends to expand its treatment of electronic notices in the final
version of the Public Notification Handbook.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): The reduction in time allowed from 72 to 24
hours for Tier 1 violations is a positive step. . . . The phrase "as soon as practical" needs to be
replaced with "as soon as possible".

Response: EPA agrees and has retained the 24-hour time period in the final rule.
EPA also has changed the phrase "as soon as practicable" to "as soon as
practical."

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): The requirement to notify within 24 hours
of being notified of an exceedance will be challenging.

Response: As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, in setting the
deadline for Tier 1 notification, EPA was limited by the provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (1414(c)(2)(C)(i)), which allow a maximum of 24 hours for
violations with the potential to cause serious health effects as a result of short
term exposure. EPA recognizes that systems may have difficulty preparing
notices. For these reasons, EPA has developed a handbook for water systems that
includes templates for violations in Tier 1, as well as advice on working with the
media. EPA intends to expand its treatment of electronic notices in the final
version of the Public Notification Handbook.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (1.22): While the SFPUC makes every effort to
communicate to the public as expeditiously as possible, the proposed 24-hour response time for
Tier 1 violations may short-circuit the emergency response process and could potentially result in
misleading or inaccurate information presented to the public. The current 72-hour notification
period is appropriate for the PWS to collect and interpret information on a potential violation,
involve key technical and administrative personnel, and contact the regulatory and public health
agencies before the decision to release a public notice is reached. The SFPUC feels that public
safety is best served by the existing 72-hour public notification deadline with utilities making
every attempt to meet a 24-hour deadline following the steps above. The proposed 24-hour
notification deadline may compromise the intent of the rule by not allowing adequate time to
assess potentially sensitive public health issues, and, in some instances, creating unnecessary
panic by releasing incomplete information.

The EPA may want to consider granting the primacy agencies more flexibility regarding
requirements to comply with the proposed 24-hour deadline. Perhaps staging the public notices
would be more effective. For instance, preliminary notice of a Tier 1 violation could be given

66

-------
within 24 hours of the violation with follow-up information via additional postings and media
coverage within 72 hours.

Response: As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, in setting the
deadline for Tier 1 notification, EPA was limited by the provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (1414(c)(2)(C)(i)), which allow a maximum of 24 hours for
violations with the potential to cause serious health effects as a result of short
term exposure. EPA recognizes that systems may have difficulty preparing
notices. For these reasons, EPA has developed a handbook for water systems that
includes templates for violations in Tier 1, as well as advice on working with the
media. EPA intends to expand its treatment of electronic notices in the final
version of the Public Notification Handbook.

Regarding "staging," EPA considered requiring an additional notice following 24-
hour Tier 1 violations. Such notices would allow systems time to gather more
complete information about the violation and report this information to
consumers. Additional notices would also compensate for cases where electronic
media did not adequately provide notice to consumers. However, EPA felt that
automatically requiring a second notice may actually encourage systems to not
issue as complete a notice as possible during the first 24 hours. In addition, it
would create an additional tracking burden for primacy agencies. Lastly, the need
for additional notices and the content requirements of each notice would vary
based on the situation. For this reason, EPA decided that the authority primacy
agencies have to set additional notice requirements during consultation with
systems was adequate.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): We are pleased that EPA has decided to follow the
SDWA statutory mandate to shorten the length of time for public notification on Tier One
violations from 72 hours to 24 hours. This amendment complies with the statutory intent to give
consumers timely information on violations and takes into account the possibility of potentially
serious adverse health effects.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Carroll County (MD) Health Department Bureau of Environmental Health (1.27): Tier 1 public
notices will now need to be distributed to consumers within 24 hours of notification of the
violation. This was formerly 72 hours. This places additional pressure on the systems and local
health departments. Local Health may have difficulty meeting this requirement due to time
involved in preparing notices and making arrangements to post facilities that are not always open
for business. Often, it is more than 24 hours before we can reach an individual.

-------
violations with the potential to cause serious health effects as a result of short
term exposure. EPA recognizes that systems may have difficulty preparing
notices. For these reasons, EPA has developed a handbook for water systems that
includes templates for violations in Tier 1, as well as advice on working with the
media. EPA intends to expand its treatment of electronic notices in the final
version of the Public Notification Handbook.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): The use of the word "practicable" in this section,
and throughout the proposed rule, seems unnecessarily complicating and awkward. The simpler
words "possible" or "practical" or "feasible" would usually suffice as replacements. "Provide a
public notice as soon as practicable but no later than 24 hours after the system learns of the
violation;" could be "Provide a public notice as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours after
the system learns of the violation." The IDNR recommends elimination of the word "practicable"
throughout the entire document.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter on the language revision. In the final
rule, the phrase "as soon as practicable" has been replaced with "as soon as
practical."

Utah DEQ, Division of Drinking Water (1.31): Utah supports the shorter time frame for public
notice for violations involving serious public health effects with short term exposure.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Lehigh County (PA) Authority (1.38): Notices regarding Tier 1 violations, like all other notices,
must contain the 10 basic elements listed in the draft handbook, according to the Proposed Rule.
However, mandatory delivery methods (radio, television, posting or hand delivery) may not
allow all elements to be included. For example, large systems will have to rely on television or
radio to meet the requirements of the Rule because posting and hand delivery would not be
practical or even possible within 24 hours. Unless the water utility purchases advertising space,
which would take longer than 24 hours to secure, the utility cannot ensure that all 10 elements
will be included in the radio or television announcement, especially because much of the
required language is lengthy.

Response: As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, in setting the
deadline for Tier 1 notification, EPA was limited by the provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (1414(c)(2)(C)(i)), which allow a maximum of 24 hours for
violations with the potential to cause serious health effects as a result of short
term exposure. EPA recognizes that systems may have difficulty preparing
notices. For these reasons, EPA has developed a handbook for water systems that
includes templates for violations in Tier 1, as well as advice on working with the
media. EPA intends to expand its treatment of electronic notices in the final
version of the Public Notification Handbook.

68

-------
City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): CWD agrees that a
24- hour time frame is sufficient to get notice of the problem to the broadcast media or directly to
customers.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

City of Chandler (AZ), Office of the City Attorney (1.41): There is no distinction made between
on-going violations and violations that are cured within 24 hours. For example, a public water
system could immediately disconnect or close a well that had a high nitrate reading to eliminate
any on going water quality issue. It should also be noted that the sampling frequency for nitrate
is quarterly and a "violation" might not be determined until after a confirmation sample is
analyzed. Further, the proposed requirement to notify the public within 24 hours of violation
does not seem to track well with the monitoring requirements - particularly under circumstances
where the basis for any violation will have been cured by the time the notice is provided.
Reducing the current 72-hour time to the proposed 24 hours under these circumstances may also
unnecessarily stress public water system resources if any issue occurs on a weekend or holiday.
As a practical matter, while public water systems will do everything possible to provide notice in
less than 24 hours, there may be no need to set up an additional "violation" or "penalty" if notice
is given 30 hours later where the basis for the violation was addressed before any notices could
have been given. As such, we believe the current requirement to provide notice as soon as
possible, but not later than 72 hours after learning of the violation should be retained except
where the violation or situation is on-going and will still have the potential to have serious
adverse effects on human health at the time the notice would be provided. At the very least there
should be an exception provision to the strict 24-hour time frame for "good cause."

Response: As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, in setting the
deadline for Tier 1 notification, EPA was limited by the provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (1414(c)(2)(C)(i)), which allow a maximum of 24 hours for
violations with the potential to cause serious health effects as a result of short
term exposure. EPA recognizes that systems may have difficulty preparing
notices. For these reasons, EPA has developed a Public Notification Handbook
for water systems that includes templates for violations in Tier 1, as well as advice
on working with the media. EPA intends to expand its treatment of electronic
notices in the final version of the handbook. On the commenter's point about
extensions for violations that have returned to compliance before the notice was
due, EPA does not believe that a quick return to compliance negates the need for
24-hour notice. In their notices, systems should explain that the violations has
been resolved. EPA also believes that consumers should be notified in such
situations because the situation may recur. Consumers have a right to know about
the quality of their drinking water, including whether they were exposed to
contaminants. Regarding the suggestion for an exception provision, EPA intends
to recommend in its primacy guidance that states use enforcement discretion
based on the seriousness of the violation.

69

-------
American Dental Association (1.42): The ADA agrees with the EPA on the need for public
water systems to provide public notice of violations. However, the Association believes that
dental offices should be notified as soon as possible after the system learns of such violations, as
opposed to allowing up to 24 hours to make the necessary notification.

Many dental offices use drinking water from public water systems to supply dental units, other
instruments, and equipment to deliver water for use in dental procedures. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Division of Oral Health has recommended that water
from public systems not be used in dental offices during boil-water advisories (see attached).

Dental patients use water from the public water system while rinsing. If dental offices are given
timely notice, water from alternative sources, such as bottled or distilled water, can be used.
However, many dental procedures cannot be performed during the advisory as they make use of
the public water system. Therefore, it is imperative that dental offices be notified as soon as
possible when these water violations occur. Dental assistants and hygienists also use water from
the public water supply for hand washing. Given timely notice, these workers could use
antimicrobial-containing products that do not require water for use, such as alcohol-based hand
rubs, until the boil-water notice is canceled.

By providing dental offices with timely notice of violations, we can protect patients, dentists, and
dental staff from adverse health effects caused by short term contaminated water situations. The
ADA strongly recommends that dental officials be notified as soon as possible when Tier 1
violations of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations occur.

Response: EPA considered amending the rule to require specific notification of
health professionals. However, water systems cannot be expected to have an up-
to-date list of all dentists and doctors on hand, and may not have the labor
resources to specifically target them. EPA believes that primacy agencies have
the authority to require such notification as part of the consultation requirement,
and it intends to recommend in the Public Notification Handbook that systems
make an effort to notify health professionals to the best of their ability.

Akron (OH) Public Utilities Bureau (2.4): APUB concurs with reservation with the reduction
from 72 hours to 24 hours for a Tier 1 public notice. This shortened time frame will sometimes
force public notices without all of the facts being gathered. Particularly on weekdays and
holidays it may be impossible to immediately collect all the information as to what happened the
day the sample was taken. There will be minimal time for corrective action prior to public notice.
Water distribution flow patterns may need to be analyzed to determine the area affected by a boil
water alert. Communications between the water system supervisory, lab, engineering,
maintenance and administrative personnel and EPA officials may take several hours before the
issues of the public notice are resolved. If the primacy agency could be given some discretion as
to an extension of the public notice, unnecessarily large areas of public notice may be avoidable.

70

-------
Response: As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, in setting the
deadline for Tier 1 notification, EPA was limited by the provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (1414(c)(2)(C)(i)), which allow a maximum of 24 hours for
violations with the potential to cause serious health effects as a result of short
term exposure. EPA recognizes that systems may have difficulty preparing
notices. For these reasons, EPA has developed a handbook for water systems that
includes templates for violations in Tier 1, as well as advice on working with the
media. EPA intends to expand its treatment of electronic notices in the final
version of the Public Notification Handbook.

Robb Pattison, City of Wauwatosa (at Madison meeting) (E. 1): 24 hours was not enough time to
give Tier 1 notice, especially via hand delivery.

Response: As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, in setting the
deadline for Tier 1 notification, EPA was limited by the provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (1414(c)(2)(C)(i)), which allow a maximum of 24 hours for
violations with the potential to cause serious health effects as a result of short
term exposure. EPA recommends that operators plan ahead for 24-hour
notification; the Public Notification Handbook provides suggestions for doing
this. EPA wishes to clarify that hand delivery is not a required method; systems
may choose from electronic media, hand delivery, or posting, and may use
whatever additional methods are calculated to reach all persons served. In most
cases, hand delivery will be used at relatively small systems or systems where
only a portion of the service area is affected.

Unidentified participant at DC meeting (E.2): 24 hour Tier 1 notification requirement is a
positive change from the current PN rule.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this requirement in the final rule.

Richard Kolish, City of Baltimore (at DC meeting) (E.2): Twenty-four hours is too long a
deadline for Tier 1 notice; the Maryland Department of the Environment requires notice be given
by the end of the day. If a system has 24 hours to distribute a notice, it might wait that long
hoping that the violation would be resolved.

Response: EPA hopes that most systems will provide notices earlier if at all
possible, since the rule language requires notices "as soon as practical, but no later
than 24 hours after the system learns of the violation."

Peter Lukens, North Wales Water Authority (at Allentown meeting) (E.3): For a Tier 1 notice,
24 hours does not allow time to distribute a notice by any means other than radio or TV.
Shortening the deadline from 72 hours to 24 hours will eliminate the option of placing
advertisements in newspapers.

Alan Friedman, Los Cerros Water Company (at Phoenix meeting) (E.4): The 24 hour deadline
for Tier 1 notification is difficult for small systems to meet. EPA should consider giving small
systems the option of shutting down their operations and delivering water to their customers
instead. Public notices can cause false illnesses.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. A Tier 1 public notice does not
necessarily need to be a "boil water" notice. Systems are required to distribute an
alert, regardless of whether the risk was addressed so that people are aware of the
violation. EPA hopes that systems take whatever immediate action is necessary,
including shutting down their operations and delivering water to their customers,
to address the risk posed by the violation.

Trigger Point for Tier 1 Deadline

Comments:

Bridgeport (CT) Hydraulic Company (1.12): BHC suggests that the language in the proposed
rule be modified to clearly indicate when the 24 hour clock begins FOR EACH OF THE TIER 1
CONTAMINANTS (Fecal Coliform, Nitrate, Nitrite, Nitrate + Nitrite, Chlorine Dioxide, and
Waterborne Disease Outbreak).

We believe it would be helpful for EPA to provide examples of when the notification should start
for each of the Tier 1 contaminants. For example, the Total and Fecal bacteria tests have
presumptive and confirmatory steps. The presumptive result is available 24 hours after sample
collection, but the confirmed result may take several more days. Is the intent of the rule that
notification proceed based on the presumptive result (risking a potential false positive that does
not confirm) or on the confirmed result (could delay notification several days)? Examples or
clarification of these type of issues would greatly assist water suppliers or the primacy agency in
determining when to first notify the public for these type Tier 1 violations.

Response: The definition of an MCL or MRDL differs for each violation, but in
most cases a confirmation or repeat sample must be positive for there to be a
violation. Systems should check their state's regulations for each type of
contaminant or ask their primacy agency for this information. Under federal

-------
regulations, the triggers for MCLs are generally described with the monitoring
requirements. For a waterborne disease outbreak, the trigger is the point in time
when the PWS becomes aware of the violation or situation.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): Use of the phrase "after the public water
system learns of the violation or situation" is a concern when dealing with those relatively few
systems that test the boundary of what is reasonable. Most of the time DNR notifies the PWS of
the violation, rather than the other way around. Some systems purposefully fail to learn of
violations by refusing mail and ignoring messages left on answering machines, etc. The rule
needs to be written so the PN clock starts ticking at the time the violation or situation is
determined to have occurred whether it is by the PWS or primacy agency. We suggest this phrase
be replaced by "after a violation or situation has been identified by the public water system or
primacy agency."

Response: EPA has decided not to modify the language. EPA believes it is
important to hold the PWS responsible for learning about a violation and the
actions it is required to take. Accounting in the rule for every way in which a
system could learn of a violation would make the rule overly complicated. EPA
would interpret "learns" to include situations where the system refused to "learn"
of the violation by ignoring mail or telephone messages. EPA wishes to re-state
that the trigger point for notification is when the system learns that the violation
exists, not at the point when a system expects that a violation will occur (e.g.,
when the presence of coliform is discovered and the system is awaiting the results
of a confirmation sample). In such cases, EPA encourages systems to "gear up"
for preparing a notice by reviewing the PN requirements or Public Notification
Handbook.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA recommends that the final regulation
clearly state when the clock for the 24 hour notice begins. This clock should begin when the
utility receives notification of the Tier 1 violation, i.e., when they receive the monitoring data
from their internal laboratory or an outside contract laboratory, or they are so informed by their
primacy agency. The key point in time is when the utility has the knowledge of the Tier 1
violation. Every party involved in the public notification process (utilities, laboratories, primacy
agencies, and EPA) need to clearly understand the communication process, particularly the
transmittals of laboratory data. In the end, the primacy agency needs to clearly communicate to
each of the utilities exactly when the 24-hour period begins, based on specific laboratory
arrangements (internal, outside, state). Additionally, the utilities need to make appropriate
arrangements when key personnel are unavailable, i.e., in a meeting, on vacation, etc.

Response: EPA has decided not to modify the language. EPA believes it is
important to hold the PWS responsible for learning about a violation and the
actions it is required to take. Accounting in the rule for every way in which a
system could learn of a violation would make the rule overly complicated. EPA
wishes to re-state that the trigger point for notification is when the system learns

73

-------
that the violation exists, not at the point when a system expects that a violation
will occur (e.g., when the presence of coliform is discovered and the system is
awaiting the results of a confirmation sample). In such cases, EPA encourages
systems to "gear up" for preparing a notice by reviewing the PN requirements or
Public Notification Handbook. In the case of systems that use an independent
laboratory, this means that the 24 hours starts when the laboratory notifies the
system that a violation has occurred.

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (1.19): [T]he rule should clarify when the timing of
the twenty-four hour notice period begins.

Response: EPA has decided not to modify the language. EPA believes it is
important to hold the PWS responsible for learning about a violation and the
actions it is required to take. Accounting in the rule for every way in which a
system could learn of a violation would make the rule overly complicated. EPA
wishes to re-state that the trigger point for notification is when the system learns
that the violation exists, not at the point when a system expects that a violation
will occur (e.g., when the presence of coliform is discovered and the system is
awaiting the results of a confirmation sample). In such cases, EPA encourages
systems to "gear up" for preparing a notice by reviewing the PN requirements or
Public Notification Handbook.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): ASDWA supports the 24-hour
reporting requirement for Tier 1 notices but strongly suggests that the language be strengthened
to clarify that the "reporting clock" begins when the system is notified (as opposed to when the
sample was taken or when the lab completed the analysis). Language should also emphasize that
this "clock" is not dependant on the requirement for systems to consult with the primacy agency.
Perhaps "on the next business day" could be added to the consultation statement to ensure that
systems understand the difference between the two reporting requirements.

Response: EPA has decided not to modify the language. EPA believes it is
important to hold the PWS responsible for learning about a violation and the
actions it is required to take. Accounting in the rule for every way in which a
system could learn of a violation would make the rule overly complicated. EPA
would interpret "learns" to include situations where the system refused to "learn"
of the violation by ignoring mail or telephone messages. EPA wishes to re-state
that the trigger point for notification is when the system learns that the violation
exists, not at the point when a system expects that a violation will occur (e.g.,
when the presence of coliform is discovered and the system is awaiting the results
of a confirmation sample). In such cases, EPA encourages systems to "gear up"
for preparing a notice by reviewing the PN requirements or Public Notification
Handbook. In the case of systems that use an independent laboratory, this means
that the 24 hours starts when the laboratory notifies the system that a violation has
occurred.

-------
EPA disagrees with the commenter's recommendation to change to the rule language on
the consultation requirement. EPA believes the requirement is clear as written. EPA
reaffirms the preamble language, which says the consultation is independent of the public
notice. That is, the 24-hour deadline must be met, regardless of whether the system
actually makes contact with the primacy agency.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): We urge the agency to specify, however, that the 24
hours should run from the time the violation is detected. No extensions of time should be made
for failure to notify relevant parties in a timely fashion. We ask that EPA emphasize that notice
must be distributed within the mandated 24 hour period and no later.

Response: The point at which a violation occurs is specific to each contaminant
(a monthly average, result of confirmation sample, etc.). The regulatory "clock"
starts when the system learns of the violation. EPA requires that Tier 1 notice be
given as soon as practical, but no later that 24 hours after it learns of the violation.
EPA wishes to re-state that the trigger point for notification is when the system
learns that the violation exists, not at the point when a system expects that a
violation will occur (e.g., when the presence of coliform is discovered and the
system is awaiting the results of a confirmation sample). In such cases, EPA
encourages systems to "gear up" for preparing a notice by reviewing the PN
requirements or Public Notification Handbook.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania objects to the
language in Sections 141.202(b), 141.203(b) and 141.204(b) that deals with issuing a Tier 1, 2 or
3 PN, respectively after the system learns of the violation. The proposed language in each case is
imprecise and subject to various interpretations as to when a system constructively learned of a
violation. The use of the phrase in 141.202(b) is not as critical as it should be relatively easy to
call the systems laboratory to find out when they notified the system. However, weeks, months
or a year later, it may be very difficult to track down when the system was notified to ensure that
PN was issued within the prescribed time limit. Pennsylvania recommends, for consistency,
changing the wording in all three sections to after the system is notified by their analytical
laboratory or otherwise learns of the violation. This allows a state that does not personally
collect and analyze a systems samples to more precisely determine when a supplier had
constructive knowledge of the violation. [Note: comment is also in Section 141.204(b)~\

Response: EPA disagrees with the proposed change and believes the rule is
adequate as written. EPA believes that the rule covers all possible circumstances
by which the system may become aware of the violation. The proposed language
appears to offer more guidance for a specific situation. EPA will provide advice
on specific situations in the primacy guidance and the Public Notification
Handbook. EPA would interpret "learns" to include situations where the system
refused to "learn" of the violation by ignoring mail or telephone messages. EPA
wishes to re-state that the trigger point for notification is when the system learns
that the violation exists, not at the point when a system expects that a violation

-------
will occur (e.g., when the presence of coliform is discovered and the system is
awaiting the results of a confirmation sample). In such cases, EPA encourages
systems to "gear up" for preparing a notice by reviewing the PN requirements or
Public Notification Handbook. In the case of systems that use an independent
laboratory, this means that the 24 hours starts when the laboratory notifies the
system that a violation has occurred.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): The preamble should clearly state that the
24 hour notification period begins when the public water system learns of a violation.

Response: EPA agrees and believes this requirement is clear in the rule and
preamble. The trigger point for notification is when the system learns that the
violation exists.

Boston Water and Sewer Commission (1.37): The Commission recommends that the final
regulation state that the clock for the 24-hour notice begins with the confirmation of a violation
from a second sample. This will ensure that there is indeed a violation rather than a single
contaminated sample.

Lehigh County (PA) Authority (1.38): According to the Proposed Rule, public notification for
Tier 1 violations is required within 24 hours. The proposed rule does not specify the trigger point
at which time the 24-hour period officially begins. This lack of specificity may pose timing
concerns for many utilities, especially those who rely on an independent laboratory to inform
them of MCL violations.

Response: EPA believes that the rule is clear as written. It states that public
notice must be provided as soon as practical but no later than 24 hours after the
system learns of the violation. In the case of systems that use an independent
laboratory, this means that the 24 hours starts when the laboratory notifies the
system that a violation has occurred.

City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): The time frame
should start when the water system receives the test results, not when the sample is taken.

Response: EPA agrees. The trigger point for Tier 1 notification begins when the
system learns of the violation. EPA believes this is clear in the rule and preamble.

-------
141.202 (b)(2) Consultation with Primacy agency

EPA is requesting comment on the Tier 1 public notification requirements, in particular
the list of violations requiring such a notice, the new consultation process now proposed
in lieu of more prescriptive EPA requirements, EPA 's interpretation of the statute under
1414(c)(2)(C) which allows EPA to require public water systems to consult with the
primacy agency, and the revised requirements for the form and manner of the Tier 1
notices. (64 FR 25975)

Comments:

Indiana DEM (1.04): [W]e believe that it is prudent for the systems to consult with the primacy
agency. However, there will need to be stipulations in the federal rule so that the system will not
incur a violation if they cannot consult with the primacy agency within 24 hours (i.e., a violation
occurs on a Friday evening and they cannot consult with the primacy agency until Monday). It
may be possible to require the notice within 24 hours of the violation with consultation with the
primacy agency required by the end of the next business day.

Response: EPA considered changing the consultation deadline to the end of the
next business day to account for the possibility of a violation occurring on a
weekend or holiday. However, EPA decided that the proposed language requiring
the system to "initiate consultation" within 24 hours was sufficient. By using the
phrase "initiate consultation," EPA means that the system must contact the
primacy agency but not necessarily discuss the situation if the state was
unavailable. EPA intends to clarify its interpretation in the Public Notification
Handbook as well as in primacy agency implementation guidance. Most states
now have voice mail or an emergency hotline, so systems can at least leave a
message.

City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department (1.05): The Department supports the EPA's
proposal to set minimum required procedures for water systems to follow and the requirement
that water systems consult the primacy agency to ensure that appropriate measures are taken.

Response: EPA agrees that consultation is necessary to ensure that an accurate
notice is provided to the people served by the system and has retained this
requirement in the final rule.

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): DMWW believes that EPA should clarify the requirement that
a system distribute a public notice "no later than 24 hours after the public water system learns of
the violation or situation." The concern surrounding this requirement comes from the inability to
reach primacy agency representatives or the media on weekends. It is unclear that if a violation
were to occur on a weekend day whether leaving a message with the primacy agency or media
satisfactorily meets the requirement of the new rule?

77

-------
Response: EPA considered changing the consultation deadline to the end of the
next business day to account for the possibility of a violation occurring on a
weekend or holiday. However, EPA decided that the proposed language requiring
the system to "initiate consultation" within 24 hours was sufficient. By using the
phrase "initiate consultation," EPA means that the system must contact the
primacy agency but not necessarily discuss the situation if the state was
unavailable. EPA intends to clarify its interpretation in the Public Notification
Handbook as well as in primacy agency implementation guidance. Most states
now have voice mail or an emergency hotline, so systems can at a minimum leave
a message. The notice must still be issued within 24 hours whether or not the
system has a consultation with the primacy agency.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): "Initiate consultation" needs to be replaced
with "Consult". DNR usually notifies systems of E. coli positive results, so the systems cannot
technically initiate the consultation. "Consult" will work no matter who notifies whom about the
violation.

Response: EPA decided that the proposed language requiring the system to
"initiate consultation" within 24 hours was sufficient. By using the phrase
"initiate consultation," EPA means that the system must contact the primacy
agency but not necessarily discuss the situation if the state was unavailable. Most
states now have voice mail or an emergency hotline, so systems can at least leave
a message. The intent of this requirement is for the system operator and primacy
agency staff to discuss the violation, regardless of who initiates the call. EPA
reiterates that the consultation with the primacy agency is independent of the
public notice itself; the notice must be issued within 24 hours, even if the system
is unable to contact anyone at the primacy agency. EPA intends to clarify its
interpretation in the Public Notification Handbook as well as in primacy agency
implementation guidance.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): Tier 1 violations are acute violation [sic]
and require immediate action, however, 24 hours does not take into account if the water system
learns about the violation at close of business day on a Friday. ADEQ (primacy agency) does not
work on weekends/holidays; which makes it difficult to inform them within 24 hours, if the
violation was to happen Friday afternoon. The current rule requiring notice within 72 hours for
acute violation allows sufficient time under these circumstances.

-------
Handbook as well as in primacy agency implementation guidance. Most states
now have voice mail or an emergency hotline, so systems can at least leave a
message. The notice must still be issued within 24 hours whether or not the
system has a consultation with the primacy agency.

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (1.19): The proposed rule presents an opportunity to
encourage Public Water Suppliers to coordinate action with Public Health Agencies. It is
important that consumers receive consistent information from the water supplier and the public
health officials on appropriate actions to take if there are potential health issues associated with a
water quality problem. The PWS and Primacy Agency should include consultation with public
health agencies or officials in determining the scope and content of notifications.

The proposed rule requires the PWS to consult with the Primacy Agency within 24 hours of the
time when the PWS first learns of the violation, but does not include a requirement that the
Primacy Agency be available for such consultation on a "twenty-four hour-seven day" basis
throughout the year. The regulations should provide some flexibility to account for problems of
availability of the primacy agency particularly on weekends, holidays and time after working
hours.

Response: EPA agrees that coordination with health agencies that have expertise
in epidemiology, risk communication, and outreach is a good idea. EPA plans to
stress the importance of such coordination in its primacy agency implementation
guidance. EPA considered changing the consultation deadline to the end of the
next business day to account for the possibility of a violation occurring on a
weekend or holiday. However, EPA decided that the proposed language requiring
the system to "initiate consultation" within 24 hours was sufficient. By using the
phrase "initiate consultation," EPA means that the system must contact the
primacy agency but not necessarily discuss the situation if the state was
unavailable. EPA intends to clarify its interpretation in the Public Notification
Handbook as well as in primacy agency implementation guidance. Most states
now have voice mail or an emergency hotline, so systems can at least leave a
message. The notice must still be issued within 24 hours whether or not the
system has a consultation with the primacy agency.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): [T]he proposed consultation process is appropriate. Some
situations such as a boil water warning become rather complicated, and even a good handbook is
not adequate to assess case- by- case situations.

Response: EPA agrees that consultation is a good way to address the specifics of
a Tier 1 violation and has retained this requirement in the final rule. The notice
must still be issued within 24 hours whether or not the system has a consultation
with the primacy agency.

-------
Carroll County (MD) Health Department Bureau of Environmental Health (1.27): The proposal
requires the system to initiate contact with the primacy agency (for transient noncommunity
water systems that is the local health department) within the 24 hours allotted to post a tier 1
notice. It does not take into account that some local health departments initiate contact with the
system to inform them of the violation.

Response: EPA recognizes that different systems learn of violations differently.
The language "initiate consultation" was chosen to stress that systems have the
responsibility to make contact. The intent of this requirement is for the system
operator and primacy agency staff to discuss the violation, regardless of who
initiates the call. EPA reiterates that the consultation with the primacy agency is
independent of the public notice itself; the notice must be issued within 24 hours,
even if the system is unable to contact anyone at the primacy agency.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): The 24 hour consultation requirement is a good approach
for allowing the State to establish Tier 1 repeat notice requirements, provided EPA will indeed
allow States to freely utilize its discretion in this area.

Response: EPA agrees that consultation is a good way to allow states to set
additional public notice requirements. States will have discretion but they will
need to describe their procedures when they apply for primacy.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): The proposed rule would require systems to
initiate consultation with the State primacy agency with 24 hours for Tier 1 violations, but
contains no special primacy requirement for primacy agencies to be available for consultations
24 hours per day, seven days per week, 52 weeks per year. Reaching many of the State primacy
agencies after working hours, or on weekends or holidays can be difficult if not impossible. This
needs to be discussed and accounted for in any final rule. AMWA believes that consultation with
the States should be within 24 hours unless weekends and/or holidays are involved and the State
primacy authority is not available for consultations. In this case, the rule should allow for the
present 72 hour period.

Response: EPA considered changing the consultation deadline to the end of the
next business day to account for the possibility of a violation occurring on a
weekend or holiday. However, EPA decided that the proposed language requiring
the system to "initiate consultation" within 24 hours was sufficient. By using the
phrase "initiate consultation," EPA means that the system must contact the
primacy agency but not necessarily discuss the situation if the state was
unavailable. EPA intends to clarify its interpretation in the Public Notification
Handbook as well as in primacy agency implementation guidance. Most states
now have voice mail or an emergency hotline, so systems can at least leave a
message. The notice must still be issued within 24 hours whether or not the
system has a consultation with the primacy agency.

-------
City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): Consultation with
the State primacy agency within 24 hours may not be possible if the primacy agency does not
staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays. The water system should contact
their primacy agency as soon as possible, but within 72 hours.

Response: EPA considered changing the consultation deadline to the end of the
next business day to account for the possibility of a violation occurring on a
weekend or holiday. However, EPA decided that the proposed language requiring
the system to "initiate consultation" within 24 hours was sufficient. By using the
phrase "initiate consultation," EPA means that the system must contact the
primacy agency but not necessarily discuss the situation if the state was
unavailable. EPA intends to clarify its interpretation in the Public Notification
Handbook as well as in primacy agency implementation guidance. Most states
now have voice mail or an emergency hotline, so systems can at least leave a
message. The notice must still be issued within 24 hours whether or not the
system has a consultation with the primacy agency.

141.202 (b)(3) Additional PN requirements

EPA is requesting comment on the Tier 1 public notification requirements, in particular
the list of violations requiring such a notice, the new consultation process now proposed
in lieu of more prescriptive EPA requirements, EPA 's interpretation of the statute under
1414(c)(2)(C) which allows EPA to require public water systems to consult with the
primacy agency, and the revised requirements for the form and manner of the Tier 1
notices. (64 FR 25975)

Comments:

City of Chandler (AZ) Office of the City Attorney (1.41): The provision at 141.202(b)(3)
regarding "additional public notification requirements are too vague and open-ended. It is unclear
how disagreements during "consultation" are to be resolved, whether, notwithstanding the
consultation process, the primacy agency can direct the timing, form, manner or frequency of any
additional notices (see Section 141.209) and what standards are to be utilized for establishing any
additional public notification requirements. Other sections use statements such as "unless
directed otherwise by the primacy agency" (141.203(c)(1)) or "unless the primacy agency
determines - that specific circumstances warrant a different repeat notice frequency"

(141.203.(b)) to provide primacy agency authority to modify requirements. While that approach
raises issues as well (what standards will be used by the primacy agency and how, can a public
water system challenge any such determination made?), it is certainly cleaner than establishing
all requirements through the "consultation with the primacy agency" approach set forth in
Section 202(b)(3).

Response: EPA has decided to maintain the consultation provision as it is in the
proposed rule. The Agency believes that this is less burdensome than

81

-------
automatically requiring subsequent or update notices, repeat notices for ongoing
violations, or closure notices. Primacy agencies may feel the need to require
additional notices to address deficiencies in the initial notice or may feel that the
public should be informed when the violation is resolved. In addition, if the
consultation is complete early in the PN process, primacy agencies may approve
notices before distribution, preventing the need for some additional notices. EPA
does not believe that added precision to the PN rule is appropriate. It is EPA's
intent to give primacy agencies discretion to address the specifics of every case in
determining whether additional actions are needed. Regarding water systems'
ability to "challenge" the determination of the primacy agency, EPA does not
believe that a formalized dispute resolution process is needed or even appropriate.
Any dispute resolution processes over PN requirements will be established, if at
all, by the primacy agency.

Des Moines Water Works (1.44): DMWW supports EPA's decision to give the primacy agency
this authority [the authority to require follow-up notices]. Educating the public using updated
information demonstrates that the system is working to correct the violation and helps focus
community attention on the utility correction of the problem.

Response: EPA agrees with the comment and has retained this provision in the
final rule.

82

-------
Topic 7: 141.202 (c) What is the form and manner of the public notice?

EPA is requesting comment on the Tier 1 public notification requirements, in
particular ... the revised requirements for the form and manner of the Tier 1 notices. (64
FR 25975)

Comments:

Mike Mecke (1.01): I am in favor of requiring all public water purveyors to provide notice
within 24 hrs. of their first knowledge of a violation. This may be thru [sic] TV, Radio,
Newspaper, Letters and Internet Posting - either by one chosen as most effective to their
customers or several methods preferably. With an Executive Summary clearly defining any
health hazards. Must be released to all local news media regardless.

Response: Mail, newspapers, and web site posting were not designated as
required methods for Tier 1 because in most cases they are unlikely to reach the
affected population within 24 hours. Such methods may be used as secondary
methods if they do reach persons served within 24 hours. EPA allows primacy
agencies to designate another delivery method in writing for use in advance or on
a case-by-case basis. Many small systems may not have access to all forms of
news media, and the media may not publish stories about violations at very small
systems such as gas stations or campgrounds. For this reason, EPA is not
requiring release to all news media but is allowing the use of hand delivery and
posting if such methods reach all persons served. The rule will require the use of
brief mandatory health effects language for all violations.

Consumer Federation of America (1.11): The delivery of a Tier 1 notice, as proposed, "requires
water systems to use, as a minimum, appropriate broadcast media, posting of the notice in
conspicuous locations and/or hand delivery to residences or businesses served by the system."
We are concerned that posting the Tier 1 notice in conspicuous locations would rarely be an
effective way of communicating quickly with all those served by a water system. Instead,
systems should be required to use "appropriate broadcast media" for delivery of Tier 1 notices
and should be strongly encouraged to supplement that notification by posting of the notice in
conspicuous locations and/or delivering it by hand. Where broadcast media can not be reasonably
expected to reach all the people served, the water system should be required to use direct delivery
unless it is clear that it will be equally effective to post the notice in several conspicuous
locations frequented by all those served.

Response: EPA has decided not to modify any of the proposed methods of
delivery; however, it agreed to add another option allowing systems to use a
primary method different from media, posting, or hand delivery if the primacy
agency preapproves it or approves it during consultation. This is in response to
comments requesting permission to use other methods such as phone dialers,
newspapers, or mail. Regarding the commenter's concern about posting, EPA has

83

-------
reworded the final rule to require posting of the notice in conspicuous locations
throughout the distribution system. EPA asserts that systems have a regulatory
obligation to do whatever is needed to reach all persons served, not merely the
minimum necessary to distribute a notice.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): This is an excellent measure to ensure
notification of each Tier 1 violation is suited to the specific situation. In the past electronic media
notification has been the cornerstone for acute violations; this has proven to be woefully
ineffective. People who did not hear about boil orders until days after they were issued will call
DNR and exclaim, "We were at work all day and couldn't listen to the radio or watch TV. Why
didn't the city notify everyone directly and post notices around town?" Enclosed please find
copies of a few newspaper articles on this issue regarding a recent boil water order, issued due to
turbidity in exceedence of 5 NTU. Also enclosed is a copy of Missouri Resources with an article
on boil orders on pages 2-5.

At community systems, DNR anticipates electronic media notification will still be routinely
done, but distribution directly to customers will be the most effective effort. The importance of
putting written instructions in peoples hands cannot be overstated. As most community systems
under boil water orders serve a small population, DNR has developed a door hanger format using
a standard 8.5 x 11 inch sheet of paper. Systems can add needed information and make copies.
Next the paper is folded in half so a 5.5 x 8.5 inch door hanger results. A. hole is punched in the
top of each door hanger and a rubber band is looped through the hole. The door hanger can then
be attached to most door knobs and uses readily available office supplies. We approximate that
no one in Missouri is more than an hour's drive from a copier they can use for a reasonable cost.
Of course some people routinely enter their homes through the back door or garage, so no
method is foolproof. When this method is used, however, we may get complaints about the boil
order itself, but almost no reports of people not knowing about the boil order in a timely manner.
This method is feasible for systems of up to about 500 connections relatively close together and
assumes clerical or other staff would assist in distribution. . . .

Use of a minimum of only 1 of be 3 forms of delivery listed is inadequate in most instances.
Community systems need to be required to perform at least 2 of the 3 forms given. In certain
circumstances a noncommunity system may be allowed to only post the notice, as at a highway
rest stop where it's unpredictable who would stop and it's not practical to have personnel handing
out notices to everyone who uses the restrooms.

Response: EPA agrees that the focus of delivery should not be primarily
electronic media; the Public Notification Handbook includes recommendations
for other types of delivery, including creating door hangers. EPA realizes that
most community systems will need to use more than one method of delivery. This
is why EPA prefaced the required methods with a statement that notice must be
provided in a form and manner reasonably calculated to reach all persons served.

It may be necessary for systems to use other methods in addition to the chosen
primary method. This performance standard should prevent systems serving

-------
50,000 people from using posting as a primary method of notification. The
consultation required under 141.202(b) is intended to be a backup. If consultation
occurs before the notice is provided, the primacy agency might specify a
combination of methods to be used for delivery. If it occurs after notification is
complete, the primacy agency may require an additional notice.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): [T]he phrase, "reasonably calculated to
reach all persons," ignores the fact that most persons traveling through the system at the time of
the violation never will be known to the water system. For example, anyone who stopped at a
restaurant and drank tap water, then continued his/her trip cannot be identified. Similarly, any
person who stayed at a hotel, motel or other lodging and left before the 24-hour period within
which notice must be issued, may be impossible to reach, even though the notice includes the
required language encouraging those regularly served by the system to notify such transient
individuals not normally reached by the notice. Consequently, we recommend that the wording
of this section should be: "Public water systems must provide notice within 24 hours in a form
and manner reasonably calculated to reach all customers, including language requesting their
help by informing persons who were in the area at the time of the violation, but who have
left the area

We believe it is essential that the rule note that the notice must be transmitted to the
"appropriate broadcast media" so as not to imply that it definitely must be broadcast. . . .

We believe the rule should contain language at part of 141.202 that states: "The notice sent to
broadcast (radio and television) stations, must contain all required information see 141.205 (a).
This information should be arranged in order of importance, including a phone number to call for
more information. However, the water system cannot be held accountable if all of the
information is not broadcast.

Response: EPA wishes to clarify that systems have a regulatory obligation to do
whatever is needed to reach all persons served, not merely the minimum
necessary to distribute a notice. Regarding broadcast messages, EPA recognizes
that providing a message to electronic media does not guarantee that it will be
aired. If the system does not believe the notice will be aired, it is the system's
responsibility to take other steps to be sure that the message gets to consumers. It
is important that systems cultivate a relationship with the local media in advance
so that they can be assured that, in the event of a PN situation, notices are given
appropriate attention. In the PN rule, EPA intends to give primacy agencies
discretion to address the specifics of each case in determining what actions are
appropriate.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): [T]he revised requirements are good, particularly the and/or
hand delivery in lieu of broadcast media. For example, a mobile home park would be much
better served by a hand delivered notice than a radio or television broadcast. Such flexibility is
beneficial in providing adequate notice.

-------
Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): The delivery of a Tier One notice as proposed
"requires water systems to use, as a minimum, appropriate broadcast media, posting of the notice
in conspicuous locations and/or hand delivery to residences or businesses served by the system."
We disagree with the Agency's proposal that notice be given through either electronic media,
posting or hand-delivery. The SDWA requires that notice be provided to the appropriate
broadcast media and be prominently posted in a newspaper or be provided by posting or door-to-
door notification; this requirement is a floor not a ceiling. SDWA §1414(c)(2)(C)(iv). Due to
the urgency of Tier One notices and the severity of the potential health effects, we urge the EPA
to adopt a rule that will clearly require that notice be provided through more than one channel at
a minimum (i.e.: television or radio and hand-delivery or posting or newspapers). The Act's
mandate in section 1441(c)(1) that all consumers must be notified suggests that mere reliance on
a single type of notice that is unlikely to reach all consumers of the water will simply not fulfill
the statutory goal. EPA has the authority under this provision of the Act and under section
1450(a) of the Act to require multiple methods of notice. For example, the issuance of a
newspaper notice will not reach that majority of the public that does not use newspapers as their
primary source of news (including those who cannot read due to their educational status or
handicap). Thus, multiple means of notice are critical, particularly for Tier One violations.
Certainly Congress could not have intended that the Tier One notices be distributed in a manner
less comprehensive and less likely to reach all consumers than PN for Tier Two or Tier Three
violations. That, unfortunately, would be the result of EPA's proposal.

Response: EPA disagrees that more than one method of delivery would be
required in all cases. EPA realizes that most community systems will need to use
more than one method of delivery. However, many non-community systems and
even very small community systems will only need to use one method. This is
why EPA prefaced the required methods with a statement that notice must be
provided in a form and manner reasonably calculated to reach all persons served.

It may be necessary for systems to use other methods in addition to the chosen
primary method. This performance standard should prevent situations such as
systems serving 50,000 people using posting as a primary method of notification.
The consultation required under 141.202(b) is intended to be a backup. If
consultation occurs before the notice is provided, the primacy agency might
specify a combination of methods to be used for delivery. If it occurs after
notification is complete, the primacy agency may require an additional notice.

EPA also allows use of another delivery method approved in writing for use in
advance or on a case-by-case basis by the primacy agency.

Finally, EPA does not agree that SDWA Section 1414(c)(2)(C)(iv) establishes a "floor"
for the 24 hour notice required under 1414(c)(2)(C)(i). Rather, EPA believes that
paragraph (iv) applies only to any additional or follow up notices required by the primacy
agency after the consultation prescribed in paragraph (iii). These methods of notification
do not apply to the immediate 24 hour public notice prescribed in paragraph (i).

-------
Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania recommends
that EPA maintain mail or direct delivery of PN as a baseline against which other options can be
compared for effectiveness. This will allow for the development of innovative methods for
delivery of PN while assuring that the targeted customers will receive the same or greater level of
coverage. Several methods have been proposed in Pennsylvania as alternatives to direct delivery
with varying results. For example, one supplier proposed to use an automated telephone dialer
with a pre-recorded message to call every bill-paying customer. The machine would redial until
someone or an answering machine took the call. While this seems like a good idea and the
system would have a record of the calls, the length of the message that can be delivered and who
answers the telephone limits its applicability. As a result, the message could be cut off by the
telephone answering machine or missed entirely if a two-year old answers the call. Another
option to use email to customers who voluntarily provide an email address or to fax customers
who provide a fax telephone number would be more in keeping with traditional mail delivery.
The customer in either case would receive the entire text of the PN and would have the same
choice of reading or not reading the information as they currently have with mail or hand
delivery.

Response: EPA disagrees that mail should be the baseline method of delivery for
Tier 1 notices. The rule allows systems to use any one of three methods of
delivery. EPA also allows the use of another delivery method approved in writing
for use in advance or on a case-by-case basis by the primacy agency. Mail is
impractical for Tier 1 notices and hand delivery is not possible for large systems.
EPA encourages the use of alternative methods as secondary methods if they
would help in reaching all persons served. EPA agrees that methods such as
phone dialers and email or faxes may have limited applicability. Therefore, EPA
has decided to limit the use of alternative methods as a primary means of
notification unless the primacy agency approves the method ahead of time or
during consultation.

Metro Water District (Tucson, AZ) (1.26): Regarding form and manner of Tier One Notice
Delivery, several methods are mentioned, for example "appropriate broadcast media, posting of
notices in conspicuous locations, and /or hand delivery to residences or businesses served by the
system". Is this a step-by-step approach and all inclusive, or would one or more of these
notification mechanisms meet the Notice Delivery requirement?

Response: One of the three methods must be used. The method chosen should be
appropriate for the system type and size. For example, posting would be
inappropriate as a primary method in any city. In addition, because the notice
must be provided in a form and manner reasonably calculated to reach all persons
served, a second or more methods may need to be used. These additional methods
do not have to be the other methods listed in the rule, although they can be. The
combination of methods must meet the "reasonably calculated" standard. EPA
also allows the use of another delivery method approved in writing for use in
advance or on a case-by-case basis by the primacy agency.

-------
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): The sole use of posting the notice of an acute
MCL violation should be restricted to non-community systems, and should be required to be
noticeably posted (such as at every drinking fountain, entry ways to the business, break rooms,
etc.) for as long as the unsafe water condition exists. It is also recommended to renumber the
second and third items to list them in a most stringent order: (1) broadcast media; (2) hand
delivery; (3) posting.

For an acute MCL violation, an additional mail delivery or newspaper posting requirement
within a short time period should be added for community water systems, if notice hasn't already
been conducted by hand delivery. Otherwise, in municipalities where the notice would most
likely have only been conducted by broadcast media, the consumer has to have heard it on the
radio or TV, and usually within 24 hours of the notice, in order to be notified of the problem.
There is no guarantee that the news media will continue to inform the consumers that the water is
unsafe if the situation exists for an extended period of time. Many areas of the nation do not have
"local" radio and TV stations readily available. In addition, the radio and TV stations are under
no obligation to run the announcement, although it's difficult to imagine them ignoring the
serious situation in their local or nearby community. A possible solution would be to add mail
delivery and newspaper posting as additional options using the language from the Tier 2 section,
and requiring broadcast media plus one other option for community systems. The IDNR
recommends this last solution in order to better inform consumers of this serious situation.

For an acute MCL violation in Iowa, the IDNR, as the SDWA primacy agency, immediately
notifies the state department of health of the violation. The local department/board of health and
medical community in the affected area are then notified via the department of health's
notification mechanism. We would anticipate no change from this practice. However, should it
also be a responsibility of the public water supply system (PWS) to notify the medical
community in their area, particularly in situations of community and non-transient non-
community system acute MCL violations? Such a notification is mandated under the lead public
education requirements, and may be appropriate in acute MCL situations.

Response: EPA agrees that posting is inappropriate as a primary method of
delivery in almost all community systems, except perhaps at systems such as
washeterias in Alaska Native communities. However, EPA believes that the
performance standard that requires notification "in a form and manner reasonably
calculated to reach all persons served" within 24 hours will prevent the sole use of
posting in community systems. EPA also allows the use of another delivery
method approved by the primacy agency in writing in advance or during
consultation.

EPA has chosen not to require additional follow up methods for notification.

However, the rule gives primacy agencies authority to require additional notices.
EPA believes that primacy agencies are the best qualified to determine what
additional measures are needed, based on the availability of different media or
methods of delivery at a specific system.

-------
EPA has decided not to require specific notification of the medical community.
EPA believes that the requirement to use methods reasonably calculated to reach
all persons served should be sufficient to notify the medical community. EPA
also believes that water systems may not have the information needed to contact
all members of the medical community. However, EPA feels that primacy
agencies have the authority during consultation to require such notification, and
EPA will discuss this issue in the Public Notification Handbook and primacy
guidance.

Utah DEQ, Division of Drinking Water (1.31): Utah also supports the elimination of the
redundant follow up methods of public notification for the same violation.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): While AMWA believes that the broadcast
media will respond to Tier 1 notifications and broadcast information to the public, it is unlikely
that all elements required in a notice will be picked up in all news or special broadcasts. Water
systems can control what is given the media, but not what the media does with it.

Along these lines, as long as Tier 1 is limited to violations with significant potential to have
serious adverse effects on human health, the broadcast media will be more likely to broadcast the
notices.

Response: EPA recognizes that systems may have difficulty preparing notices.

For these reasons, EPA has developed a handbook for water systems that includes
templates for violations in Tier 1, as well as advice on working with the media.
EPA agrees that violations placed in Tier 1 should be those with significant
potential to cause health affects and that this can help reduce the likelihood that
the media and public will ignore the notice.

Lehigh County (PA) Authority (1.38): Tier 1 violations, requiring notice within 24 hours, must
be distributed via radio, television, posting or hand delivery. While other distribution methods
may be used in addition to these methods, the Proposed Rule does not allow a water utility to use
a more effective method specific to the system, such as auto-dialing customers, in the place of
these mandatory methods.

Response: EPA has modified the rule to allow systems to use other methods in
place of the required methods if the primacy agency preapproves them or
approves them during consultation.

City of Chandler (AZ), Office of the City Attorney (1.41): Is the delivery of notice to broadcast
media sufficient to comply with Section 141.202(c)? Unless the water supplier buys air time, it
cannot guarantee how, when and in what form the media will actually broadcast notice of a

-------
violation. Posting or hand delivery of a notice is often not a practicable, alternative for large
systems even under the old 72-hour time frame.

Response: EPA wishes to clarify that systems have a regulatory obligation to take
steps reasonably calculated to reach all persons served, not merely the minimum
necessary to distribute a notice. In the PN rule, EPA intends to give primacy
agencies discretion to address the specifics of each case in determining what
actions are appropriate. Regarding broadcast messages, EPA recognizes that
providing a message to electronic media does not guarantee that it will be aired.

If the system does not believe the notice will be aired, it is the system's
responsibility to take other steps to be sure that the message gets to consumers. It
is important that systems cultivate a relationship with the local media in advance
so that they can be assured that, in the event of a PN situation, notices are given
appropriate attention.

American Water Works Service Co., Inc. (1.46): There are now automatic telephone dialing
systems which can call customers and deliver a pre-recorded message. This should be
specifically allowed as an alternate to electronic media.

Response: EPA has modified the rule to allow systems to use other methods in
place of the required methods if the primacy agency preapproves them or
approves them during consultation.

United States Postal Service (2.6): [Add to Tier 1 methods of delivery] First-Class Mail or hand
delivery of the notice to persons served by the water systems.

The Postal Service has very high standards for overnight delivery of First-Class Mail within
specific overnight service delivery areas. Over 95% of first class mail within an overnight
delivery service area is delivered the next day. Due to the close proximity of the public water
systems to their respective customers, virtually all Tier 1 notices will be mailed within an
overnight delivery service area. Mail is a cost effective manner of providing public notification.
Postage rates for postcards currently range from $0,141 - $0,200 per postcard, depending on the
number of pieces mailed and the level of mail preparation and sortation. Another benefit of
mailing Tier 1 notices is that mailing avoids the safety factor for the public water system
employees/contractors involved with hand delivery of the notice. Postal employees deal with
dogs and other local threats every day and have been trained in the precautions to take to ensure
their safety while delivering mail.

Response: Although overnight delivery may be possible, it is highly unlikely that
a large system could develop a notice, have it printed and folded or stuffed into
envelopes, and bring it to the post office in time to still have it delivered to
consumers within 24 hours. Therefore, EPA has decided not to specifically allow
it as a primary method for Tier 1. However, EPA has decided to allow systems to

90

-------
use other methods in place of the required methods if the primacy agency
preapproves them or approves them during consultation.

Adrianna Quintero, NRDC (at DC meeting) (E.2): Mail is often the only practical way to reach
everybody served; not everybody is connected to the Internet or watches TV.

Response: Although overnight mail delivery may be possible, it is highly unlikely
that a large system could develop a notice, have it printed and folded or stuffed
into envelopes, and bring it to the post office in time to still have it delivered to
consumers within 24 hours. Therefore, EPA has decided not to specifically allow
it as a primary method for Tier 1. However, EPA has decided to allow systems to
use other methods in place of the required methods if the primacy agency
preapproves them or approves them during consultation.

Diana Neidle, Consumer Federation of America (at DC meeting) (E.2): There should not be just
one method of delivery for Tier 1. Shouldn't there be a combination of methods, or maybe even
all three should be required?

EPA also allows use of another delivery method approved by the primacy agency
in writing for advance or during consultation.

Bruce Carl, PA DEP (at Allentown meeting) (E.3): More alternatives for distributing Tier 1
notices, such as phone dialers, are needed. The rule should also be clearer about how long posted
notices should remain in place.

Response: EPA has modified the rule to allow systems to use other methods in
place of the required methods if the primacy agency preapproves them or
approves them during consultation.

Monique Coady, U.S. Postal Service (at Phoenix meeting) (E.4): EPA should recommend
mailing as the primary method of delivery for Tier 1 notices. Via first class mail, the Postal

-------
Service can deliver notices to each person within 24 hours, if the post office receives them by 5
p.m. The Postal Service can also provide EPA with guidance for formatting mass-mailing post
cards that cost $0.18 per piece to mail.

Response: Although overnight mail delivery may be possible, it is highly unlikely
that a large system could develop a notice, have it printed and folded or stuffed
into envelopes, and bring it to the post office in time to still have it delivered to
consumers within 24 hours. Therefore, EPA has decided not to specifically allow
it as a primary method for Tier 1. However, EPA has decided to allow systems to
use other methods in place of the required methods if the primacy agency
preapproves them or approves them during consultation.

92

-------
Topic 8: 141.203 (a) Which violations or situations require a Tier 2 public

notice?

EPA is requesting comment on the Tier 2 public notification requirements, in particular
the list of violations included under Tier 2, the 30-day time period for the initial notice,
the requirement for a repeat notice of ongoing violations every three months, the
discretions given to the primacy agency to extend the initial notice to three months or the
repeat notice frequency to one year (either on a case-by-case basis or by rule), and the
revised requirements for the method of delivery of the Tier 2 public notice. (64 FR 25976)

Comments:

Note: many commentersproposed including nitrate violations in Tier 2. These comments are
included under section 141.202 (a) above.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA generally supports the Tier 2 requirements.
AWWA agrees with the listing of Tier 2 violations, the discretion given to the primacy agency to
extend the time intervals, and the revised delivery requirements.

Response: EPA has retained these requirements in the final rule.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): [T]he proposed list of violations is appropriate.

Response: EPA has retained this list in the final rule.

Carroll County (MD) Health Department Bureau of Environmental Health (1.27): The proposal
states that treatment technique violations are grounds for a tier 3 [,sic, Tier 2] notification. Will
this be required for facilities having maintenance problems with their treatment systems?

Response: Treatment technique violations will be Tier 2. Maintenance problems
that result in treatment technique violations require public notice. The PWS may
explain the circumstances that led to the violation in their notice.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): In the absence of EPA allowing the State any discretion
to downgrade any violation, we support the option to move some of the MCL and TT violations
into Tier 3. We do not believe the rule would be any more complicated by a having a longer list
of specific violations in any of the tiers.

Response: EPA has decided not to move any MCL or treatment technique
violations to Tier 3. All MCL and TT violations have the potential to cause
serious adverse health effects, whether directly or indirectly and, as a result, EPA
believes that prompt public notification is necessary.

93

-------
Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Tier 2 notice should be required for all
maximum contaminant level (MCL), maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL), and TT
violations; monitoring and reporting (M/R) violations; and variances/exemptions (V/Es).
Maryland prefers the first option which moves M/R violations to Tier 3, and the Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) treatment technique violation would also be classified as Tier 3.

Response: EPA has decided to leave the rule as proposed. For public health and
right-to-know reasons, EPA does believe that treatment technique violations
deserve the same level of notice as MCL violations. LCR TT violations are an
indicator of potential increased levels of lead in drinking water; this is a
significant public health issue for a large segment of the population, and, for this
reason, EPA believes that Tier 3 notice is not appropriate.

Akron (OH) Public Utilities Bureau (2.4): APUB agrees with the rule as proposed including . . .
the list of violations included under Tier 2

Response: EPA has retained this list in the final rule.

Paul Zielinski, Pennsylvania American Water Company (at Allentown meeting) (E.3): EPA
should define the requirements for elevating violations to higher tiers to give systems advance
warning that they may have less time to create notices.

Response: EPA plans to make recommendations for elevating violations to higher
tiers in its guidance to primacy agencies on implementing the PN rule. EPA
agrees that these changes should be made in advance so that all systems have
notice of the appropriate PN requirements for each violation.

94

-------
Topic 9: 141.203 (b) When is the Tier 2 public notice to be provided?

EPA is requesting comment on the Tier 2 public notification requirements, in particular
the list of violations included under Tier 2, the 30-day time period for the initial notice,
the requirement for a repeat notice of ongoing violations every three months, the
discretions given to the primacy agency to extend the initial notice to three months or the
repeat notice frequency to one year (either on a case-by-case basis or by rule), and the
revised requirements for the method of delivery of the Tier 2 public notice. (64 FR 25976)
An alternative option to the approach proposed in today's rule would be to require a
three month deadline (rather than 30 days) for delivery of the initial Tier 2 notice, and/or
a one-year frequency for repeat notices rather than three months. Under this alternative,
the primacy agency would retain the discretion to require the notice sooner on a case-by-
case basis or across the boardfor all Tier 2 violations. (64 FR 25976)

Comments:

Massachusetts DEP (1.08): The extension of posting a Tier 2 violation from 14 days to 30 days
doesn't provide consumers information of a violation on a timely basis. The proposed rule notes
that this extension (with allowance of a primacy agency to extend notice requirements to 3
months) is to help consumers recognize the difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 violations.

With the language requirements of the Tier 1 notice, it should be obvious to the consumer that
Tier 2 violations don't pose as significant a health risk as Tier 1 violations. In addition, allowing
the possibility of a primacy agency to extend the notice requirements to 3 months from when the
violation occurred defeats the purpose of the notice. If the violation is for a contaminant the
water system is monitoring at a frequency less than quarterly, the notice will not be masked by
recent monitoring results that are in compliance. Such a late notice reporting violations that have
since been remedied will be of little relevance or interest to a consumer. The Consumer
Confidence Reports (CCR) will provide consumers with past violation information for that
reporting year. Tier 2 notices should provide more recent information and allowing a primacy
agency to extend the reporting timeframe to 3 months would defeat the purpose.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the 30-day timeframe for Tier 2 notification.
EPA believes that the need to know of Tier 2 violations is not immediate.

Further, the 30-day time frame distinguishes Tier 2 notification from the more
immediate notice required for Tier 1-type violations or situations. Violations in
Tier 2 are not likely to pose a serious health risk from short term exposure; thus,
immediate notification is not needed. EPA also clarifies that the rule requires
notice as soon as practical, but in no case longer than 30 days after the system
learns of the violation, and that primacy agencies may elevate any Tier 2 violation
to Tier 1 if appropriate.

The final rule gives primacy agencies discretion to extend the Tier 2 deadline to up to
three months where appropriate. The final rule provides for extensions because EPA
recognizes that Tier 2 encompasses a wide range of violations, and that one size does not

-------
fit all. The Agency believes that there are specific situations where extension of the 30-
day time frame is appropriate. For example, an extension may be appropriate for
violations that were quickly resolved, allowing the water system to include the notice in
the same mailing as a quarterly bill. EPA will allow no "across-the-board" extensions
and no extensions will be allowed for unresolved violations of any kind.

Coalition for Health, Environment and Economic Rights, et al. (1.09): Achieving the
compliance/pollution prevention benefits of the RTK would be substantially aided by eliminating
the option of the enforcement agency to extend from 30 to 90 days the deadline to notify a
consumer of Tier 2 violations. Treatment violations can be very dangerous; as can be DBP
exposure (and OW is far behind the curve in regulating DBPs). As to MCLs, the backbone of the
SDWA, although the RfD methodology that sets chronic MCL's is conservative and represents
chronic, lifetime exposure risks, it does not account for cumulative exposures, including to
unregulated contaminants, nor is every health effect of a contaminant always accounted for by
the RfD method. More critically, with the decrease in the required frequency of monitoring in
recent years for many PWS, it is possible that large numbers of consumers are already being
exposed to contaminants above the MCL for long periods. A further 60 day delay in informed
consent is ill-advised.

Response: The final rule gives primacy agencies discretion to extend the Tier 2
deadline to up to three months where appropriate. The final rule provides for
extensions because EPA recognizes that Tier 2 encompasses a wide range of
violations, and that one size does not fit all. The Agency believes that there are
specific situations where extension of the 30-day time frame is appropriate. For
example, an extension may be appropriate for violations that were quickly
resolved, allowing the water system to include the notice in the same mailing as a
quarterly bill. EPA will allow no "across-the-board" extensions and no
extensions will be allowed for unresolved violations of any kind.

Consumer Federation of America (1.11): Under current regulations, Tier 2 notifications must
occur within 14 days. Under the proposed rule, systems would be given 30 days to notify the
public of Tier 2 violations, and the primacy agency would be free to grant an additional 60-day
extension. By definition, Tier 2 violations have "the potential for serious adverse effect on
human health." Health risk information is useless to the consumer if not delivered in a timely
manner. Although some Tier 2 violations may only pose health risks after chronic exposure,
others pose a serious threat after short term exposure, especially to infants, children or persons in
poor health. We urge, therefore, that the proposed rule at least be amended to require Tier 2
notification within 14 days. We strongly oppose the alternative suggested for comment, that the
public notice deadline for Tier 2 violations be a flat 90 days.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the 30-day timeframe for Tier 2 notification.
EPA believes that the need to know of Tier 2 violations is not immediate.

Further, the 30-day time frame distinguishes Tier 2 notification from the more
immediate notice required for Tier 1-type violations or situations. Violations in

-------
Tier 2 are not likely to pose a serious health risk from short term exposure; thus,
immediate notification is not needed. EPA also clarifies that the rule requires
notice as soon as practical, but in no case longer than 30 days after the system
learns of the violation, and that primacy agencies may elevate any Tier 2 violation
to Tier 1 if appropriate.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): Extensions from 30 days to 3 months for
some Tier 2 violations may be appropriate. Quarterly billing is a legitimate reason. It can be
anticipated, however, a significant portion of the public will consider this excessively lenient.
Currently when a total coliform MCL violation tracks to June and the notice is distributed and
published in July, many of the public feel the should have been notified when that first total
coliform positive sample result was obtained. . . .

For on-going violations of community systems, customers should be directly supplied with the
notice. Chancing they might see it on a bulletin board is not adequate.

Response: EPA agrees and has decided to keep the Tier 2 deadline as proposed.
EPA has defined in the final rule those circumstances where extensions of the
deadline should not be allowed. For initial notices, EPA will allow no "across-
the-board" extensions; no extensions will be allowed for unresolved violations of
any kind. EPA agrees with the commenter that posting is not an appropriate
public notification method at community water systems. The final rule requires
that at CWSs, Tier 2 notice be by mail or other direct delivery.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA recommends that the default notification
period for Tier 2 violations be set at 120 days to allow utilities that use quarterly billing to
include the notice with the regular bill. AWWA also supports the flexibility for the primacy
agency to move Tier 2 violations to Tier 1 if necessary to protect public health. Maintaining this
flexibility is critical, rather than mandating 24-hour public notification for such violations as
turbidity as previously discussed.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the 30-day timeframe for Tier 2 notification.
EPA believes there are situations where it is appropriate to extend the timeframe
for notification of these violations to up to 90 days. However, EPA will not allow
extensions for unresolved violations of any kind, nor are "across-the-board"
extensions allowed. EPA believes that extending the time frame to up to 90 days
is appropriate, if the violation is resolved, to allow a water system to include the
initial notice in the same mailing as a quarterly bill, with no loss in effectiveness.

Chemical Manufacturers Association (1.17): EPA should clarify that subsequent Tier-2 notices
are not required after a violation has been corrected.

97

-------
Response: EPA agrees. The final rule requires a single notice only where the
violation or situation has been resolved; repeat notices are only required in the
case of on-going violations.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): The 30-day time period for initial Tier 2 notices is reasonable.
An extension to 3 months for an initial notice does not seem appropriate because such a delay
would likely confuse the public. The initial notice in a timely manner is important even for
chronic risks or resolved problems. . . . Repeat notices would be adequate if done annually in
conjunction with the CCR. A greater frequency would tend to confuse the public. The State
would retain the discretion to require the notice sooner. . . It is appropriate for the States to have
flexibility, and discretion to extend the initial notice up to 3-months would allow case-by-case
determinations.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support of the 30-day timeframe for
Tier 2 notices. The final rule provides for extensions because EPA recognizes that
Tier 2 encompasses a wide range of violations, and that one size does not fit all.
The Agency believes that there are specific situations where extension of the 30-
day time frame is appropriate. For example, an extension may be appropriate for
violations that were quickly resolved, allowing the water system to include the
notice in the same mailing as a quarterly bill. EPA will allow no "across-the-
board" extensions and no extensions will be allowed for unresolved violations of
any kind.

Regarding annual notification for repeat notices, the final rule gives the primacy agency
discretion to allow less frequent repeat notice than every three months (but no less than
once per year) for unresolved violations. It also specifically disallows primacy agencies
from approving less frequent repeat notices for ongoing TCR, SWTR, and IESWTR TT
violations.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): ASDWA also supports the
appropriateness of a 30 day reporting deadline for Tier 2 violations. ASDWA concurs that this
approach is warranted for those violations that pose no acute threat to public health. ASDWA
reiterates the request for specific reference to the flexibility for states to determine when a more
stringent reporting time frame is necessary in general as well as on a case-by-case basis.

Response: EPA clarifies that the rule requires notice as soon as practical, but in
no case longer than 30 days after the system learns of the violation, and that
primacy agencies may elevate any Tier 2 violation to Tier 1 if appropriate. EPA
will reiterate this point in the preamble to the final rule.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): We strongly oppose permitting extensions of the
notification period. We are especially concerned with allowing extensions up to 90 days.
Permitting these extensions defeats the purpose of the Public Notification Rule altogether by
failing to provide the public notice while there is still opportunity to prevent potentially serious

-------
adverse health effects. For certain violations, such as trihalomethane and arsenic, a twelve-
month period of detection is required before a violation can be determined. Adding a three-
month extension to that year-long period is simply unacceptable.

While we are adamantly opposed to extensions, we are particularly surprised that the EPA has
not even specified what specific circumstances would qualify as grounds for an extension,
leaving this instead to the state primacy agency's discretion. This could ultimately result in
states granting blanket 90-day extensions to one or more systems for virtually any reason.
Although some Tier Two violations may only pose health risks from chronic exposure, some can
be dangerous after exposure of several days or months, especially to infants, children, or persons
in vulnerable health. These extensions substitute the public's interest for the interest of the water
system. The purpose of the PN rule is notifying the public NOT providing the water system with
sufficient time to remedy the situation prior to notification or allowing systems to include the
public notice with the consumer's quarterly water bill. We firmly oppose the alternative
suggesting a flat 90-days as well as any extensions beyond 30-days.

Response: The final rule gives primacy agencies discretion to extend the Tier 2
deadline to up to three months where appropriate. The final rule provides for
extensions because EPA recognizes that Tier 2 encompasses a wide range of
violations, and that one size does not fit all. The Agency believes that there are
specific situations where extension of the 30-day time frame is appropriate. For
example, an extension may be appropriate for violations that were quickly
resolved, allowing the water system to include the notice in the same mailing as a
quarterly bill. EPA will allow no "across-the-board" extensions and no
extensions will be allowed for unresolved violations of any kind.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania recommends
that Tier 2 PN be routinely issued within 30 days after the violation with the option for a state to
extend that to 3 months on a case-by-case basis, rather than the option to automatically give 3
months. Even though the Tier 2 MCL violations are related to contaminants with chronic rather
than acute health risks, there is always the risk that a sub-population exists who are more
susceptible to harm than the general population. Those individuals should have the benefit of
being notified sooner than 3 months, so they can take the necessary precautions to protect their
health.

Pennsylvania recommends that CWSs repeat notice for on-going Tier 2 violations every 3
months. This serves as an incentive for the CWS to return the violation to compliance. The
alternatives presented in Section VI (B) should not present a problem if monitoring violations are
elevated to Tier 2. Currently, return to compliance for monitoring violations usually involves the
supplier taking the next round of samples as soon as possible to verify that no MCL or treatment
technique violation exists and the issuance of PN. In those instances, repeat PN would not be an
issue.

99

-------
Response: In the final rule, EPA defines circumstances where extensions of the
deadline should not be allowed. For initial notices, EPA will allow no "across-
the-board" extensions; no extensions will be allowed for unresolved violations of
any kind. EPA has clarified in the final rule that the PWS must repeat the notice
every three months as long as the violation or situation exists, unless the primacy
agency determines, in writing, that appropriate circumstances warrant a different
repeat notice frequency. Decreases in repeat notice frequency will not be
permitted for violations of the Total Coliform Rule, Surface Water Treatment
Rule, and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Drinking Water (1.31): Utah supports
the longer time frame for public notice for violations public health effects with long term
exposure. Utah also supports the elimination of the redundant follow up methods of public
notification for the same violation.

Response: EPA agrees with the comment and has decided to keep the Tier 2
deadlines as proposed.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): The proposed rule requires a Tier 2 public
notice to persons as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the violation with quarterly
repeats. Maryland supports the three month deadline rather than 30 days for all Tier 2 violations
except total coliform and nitrate violations which should remain at 30 days. Quarterly updates
are also preferred because it encourages the system to take immediate actions to take corrective
actions after the initial notice.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the 30-day timeframe for Tier 2
notification. EPA believes there are situations where it is appropriate to extend
the timeframe for notification of these violations to up to 90 days. However, the
Agency does not believe this applies to all Tier 2 violations and has set the default
time frame for Tier 2 notice at 30 days. For example, EPA will not allow
extensions for unresolved violations of any kind, nor are "across-the-board"
extensions allowed. EPA believes that extending the time frame to up to 90 days
is appropriate, if the violation is resolved, to allow a water system to include the
initial notice in the same mailing as a quarterly bill.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): AMWA believes that the default period for
reporting Tier 2 violations should be 120 days to allow the many water systems using quarterly
billing to include the notice with bills. This period could be reduced by the State when
appropriate.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the 30 day timeframe for Tier 2 notification.
EPA believes there are situations where it is appropriate to extend the timeframe
for notification of these violations to up to 90 days. However, the Agency does
not believe this applies to all Tier 2 violations and has set the default time frame

100

-------
for Tier 2 notice at 30 days. For example, EPA will not allow extensions for
unresolved violations of any kind, nor are "across-the-board" extensions allowed.
EPA believes that extending the time frame to up to 90 days is appropriate, if the
violation has been resolved, to allow a water system to include the initial notice in
the same mailing as a quarterly bill.

City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): If EPA does elect to
proceed with a three-tiered approach, then a three- month deadline for delivery of Tier 2 notices
would be appropriate. Many water systems bill customers quarterly, or on a three-month cycle.
The rule would impose less of a hardship on utilities if the mailing can be included with the bill.
If no health danger exists that would require a Tier 1 notice, then a delay of three months would
not endanger customers.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the 30-day timeframe for Tier 2 notification.
EPA believes there are situations where it is appropriate to extend the timeframe
for notification of these violations to up to 90 days. However, the Agency does
not believe this applies to all Tier 2 violations and has set the default time frame
for Tier 2 notice at 30 days. For example, EPA will not allow extensions for
unresolved violations of any kind, nor are "across-the-board" extensions allowed.
EPA believes that extending the time frame to up to 90 days is appropriate, if the
violation is resolved, to allow a water system to include the initial notice in the
same mailing as a quarterly bill, with no loss in effectiveness.

City of Chandler (AZ), Office of the City Attorney (1.41): The 30-day time period for Tier 2
Public notice (see Section 141.203(b)) is not always practicable if such notice is to be included
with the monthly bills sent to water customers. Because our bills are typically mailed to 4 or 5
zones within Chandler's service area throughout each month, and billing services require some
lead time to prepare space for a notice, we propose a 45-day time limit. A strict 30-day time limit
would often preclude the most effective option of providing notice within the billing statement
and require a special mass mailing at considerable expense to the water system. As such, the
proposed 30-day time limit effectively eliminates some of the flexibility EPA claims the rule was
intended to provide.

The repeat notice required at Section 141.203(b) should not be required if the violation is not on-
going. All violations for a given year can be summarized in the annual CCR. Providing
continuous repeat notices on a quarterly basis of all past violations, when there is no on-going
threat to the public relating to those past violations, serves no purpose.

Response: Regarding the commenter's suggested timeframe of 45 days, EPA has
decided to retain the 30-day timeframe for Tier 2 notification. EPA believes there
are situations where it is appropriate to extend the timeframe for notification of
these violations to up to 90 days. However, the Agency does not believe this
applies to all Tier 2 violations and has set the default time frame for Tier 2 notice
at 30 days. For example, EPA will not allow extensions for unresolved violations

101

-------
of any kind, nor are "across-the-board" extensions allowed. EPA believes that
extending the time frame to up to 90 days is appropriate, if the violation has been
resolved, to allow a water system to include the initial notice in the same mailing
as a quarterly bill, with no loss in effectiveness. EPA recognizes that 30 days and
45 days are fairly similar, but in a national rule, the Agency had to choose a cutoff
point. Regarding repeat notices for resolved violations, the final rule requires
repeat notices only in the case of on-going violations.

Akron (OH) Public Utilities Bureau (2.4): APUB agrees with the rule as proposed including. . .
the 30 day time period for the initial Tier 2 notice, with discretion given to the primacy agency to
extend the initial notice to three months. . . the requirement for a repeat Tier 2 notice of ongoing
violations every three months, with discretion given to the primacy agency to extend the repeat
notice frequency to one year.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Diana Neidle, Consumer Federation of America (at DC meeting) (E.2): If there are already
problems notifying the public of Tier 2 violations in 14 days, as required currently, EPA should
not be relaxing this deadline further. If systems do not comply with the new 30-day deadline or
get an extension of up to 90 days, most notices will not make the 30-day deadline.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the 30-day timeframe for Tier 2 notification.
EPA believes that the need to know of Tier 2 violations is not immediate.

Adrianna Quintero, NRDC (at DC meeting) (E.2): Extending the deadline for Tier 2 notification
to 90 days poses too great a health risk.

Response: In the final rule, EPA defines circumstances where extensions of the
deadline should not be allowed. For initial notices, EPA will allow no "across-
the-board" extensions; no extensions will be allowed for unresolved violations of
any kind.

Frederick Loomis, Clean Water Action (at Allentown meeting) (E.3): The deadline for Tier 2
notification is too long.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the 30-day timeframe for Tier 2 notification.
EPA believes that the need to know of Tier 2 violations is not immediate.

102

-------
Further, the 30-day time frame distinguishes Tier 2 notification from the more
immediate notice required for Tier 1-type violations or situations. Violations in
Tier 2 are not likely to pose a serious health risk from short term exposure; thus,
immediate notification is not needed. EPA also clarifies that the rule requires
notice as soon as practical, but in no case longer than 30 days after the system
learns of the violation, and that primacy agencies may elevate any Tier 2 violation
to Tier 1 if appropriate.

Phyllis Rowe, Arizona Consumers Council (at Phoenix meeting) (E.4): For Tier 2 violations, the
30-day deadline is too late for a violation with "serious adverse health effects;" a seven day
deadline is recommended.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the 30-day timeframe for Tier 2 notification.
EPA believes that the need to know of Tier 2 violations is not immediate.

Bing Brown, City of Phoenix Water Services (at Phoenix meeting) (E.4): Mail or hand delivery
of a Tier 2 notice within 30 days is difficult for large systems. Bill inserts are typically prepared
one month ahead of mailing, and a Tier 2 notice would not be complete by the deadline. In some
systems, the billing cycle is continuous; bills are sent out as meter results come in. Suggested
alternatives include a preliminary notice in the newspaper or on the radio within 30 days,
followed up by a more complete notice after the 30-day deadline.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the 30-day timeframe for Tier 2 notification.
EPA believes there are situations where it is appropriate to extend the timeframe
for notification of these violations to up to 90 days. EPA recognizes that an
extension beyond 30 days may be especially appropriate for contaminants posing
a chronic rather than acute health risk. However, the Agency does not believe this
applies to all Tier 2 violations and has set the default time frame for Tier 2 notice
at 30 days. For example, EPA will not allow extensions for unresolved violations
of any kind, nor are "across-the-board" extensions allowed. EPA believes that
extending the time frame to up to 90 days is appropriate, if the violation has been
resolved, to allow a water system to include the initial notice in the same mailing
as a quarterly bill. Regarding the use of newspapers for Tier 2, newspaper notices
are typically placed in the legal notices section of the newspaper where they are
not likely to be read. For this reason, they are not permitted as a primary method
of notification for Tier 2. However, primacy agencies may approve newspaper or
other methods as alternatives to mail or hand delivery.

103

-------
Topic 10: 141.203 (c) What is the form and manner of the Tier 2 public

notice?

EPA is requesting comment on the Tier 2 public notification requirements, in particular
the list of violations included under Tier 2, the 30-day time period for the initial notice,
the requirement for a repeat notice of ongoing violations every three months, the
discretions given to the primacy agency to extend the initial notice to three months or the
repeat notice frequency to one year (either on a case-by-case basis or by rule), and the
revised requirements for the method of delivery of the Tier 2 public notice. (64 FR 25976)

Comments:

City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department (1.05): The Department supports the EPA's
proposal to set minimum required procedures for water systems to follow and the requirement
that water systems consult the primacy agency to ensure that appropriate measures are taken,
[iComment also relates to Tier 1 and Tier 3 delivery.]

Response: EPA has retained the consultation requirement for Tier 1. For Tiers 2
and 3, EPA decided not to have a mandatory consultation requirement because
such violations would not necessarily require consultation and because tracking
compliance with such a requirement would be a burden, especially for Tier 2
violations which require more frequent notice than Tier 3 violations. However,

EPA has decided to require 24-hour consultation for single turbidity exceedances,
even though the violations will still be in Tier 2. This will enable states to decide
whether to elevate turbidity exceedances to Tier 1. In any case, EPA anticipates
that consultations between systems and primacy agencies will happen, whether
the rule requires them or not. Systems must report violations to the state within
48 hours (or less for some violations), In addition, in many states, it is the primacy
agency that informs systems of violations. In addition, systems may consult the
primacy agency to make sure they are doing their notice correctly.

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): DMWW supports allowing a public water system to choose
their public notice distribution methodology. This will encourage compliance and the
development of creative solutions that will assist both the system and the public. Generally, the
proposed rules encourage compliance with EPA regulation by allowing a system to determine
practical distribution methods based on its customer base and will make compliance more
feasible for the system. We would also offer that this proposed rule could be more effective if
primacy agency would review the delivery methods proposed by systems prior to
implementation of any notice.

Creative solutions will be developed if each system is allowed to develop their own notification
method. Each system will develop methods tailored to their own individual needs. Thus, several
different options will be created for fulfillment of the requirement. EPA's analysis of the various

104

-------
notice distribution methods used by systems will result in EPA's better understanding of options
that work for systems of different sizes. EPA will be then be able to make more informed
recommendations for delivery requirements in the future.

DMWW suggests that a system be required to consult with the primacy agency prior to using a
specific notice distribution methodology. The primacy agency's review of the delivery method
will ensure that a system is adequately developing methods to inform the community they serve
while meeting EPA regulations. [Comment also relates to Tier 3 delivery.]

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter on the importance of flexibility in the
public notification process. However, EPA feels that the rule must specify basic
requirements in order to allow the rule to be self-implementing and enforceable.

Therefore, while the rule provides flexibility it also limits methods of notification
and requires that the chosen methods may need to be supplemented if the
minimum method is not likely to reach all persons served. Systems have
significant flexibility in determining what supplemental methods should be used.
In addition, primacy agencies may allow other methods in place of the required
methods. EPA considered requiring consultation with the primacy agency for
Tier 2 and Tier 3 violations (to discuss methods of delivery, among other things)
but decided it against it because tracking compliance with such a requirement
would be a burden, especially for Tier 2 violations which require more frequent
notice than Tier 3 violations. In practice, consultation may already be occurring,
since systems must report all violations to the state within 48 hours and since
many states inform systems that they are in violation. In addition, requiring
consultation would place an additional tracking burden on primacy agencies.

Coalition for Health, Environment and Economic Rights, et al. (1.09): It appears OW's proposed
performance based standard governing who and how many consumers are reached by Tier 2
notices of violations is illegal. The Act requires that public notice be provided "to the persons
served by the system" [SDWA 1414(c)(1)], As you note, a portion of consumers do not receive
an invoice from their PWS, eliminating this assured route of delivery of violation notices to
countless people (OW should *require* that PWS *request* that landlords, managers,
commercial or residential—whoever receives their invoice—send, duplicate or post the enclosed
notice. Many, possibly millions more, would thus receive their informed consent). Whereas Tier
1 notices seems to contain at least an attempt to fulfill this hard and fast requirement—by
requiring broadcast media, conspicuous location posting, or direct delivery; Tier 2 would only
require a delivery method "reasonably calculated to reach other persons regularly served". You
must meet the requirement of the law—possibly just substituting Tier l's requirement would keep
you out of trouble. . . .

Flexibility in notice delivery methods. Again, beware of grossly violating the Act's plain english
requirement to reach all consumers. We disagree that your floated alternative that PWS take
"steps reasonably calculated to reach all persons served" is legal. Rather than not even require a
specific notification method (i.e. only have this vague non-requirement), OW must have a hard

105

-------
and fast requirement that assures strong efforts by PWS's to reach all their consumers. We are
shocked to see OW propose to walk around this crucial requirement, which Congress inserted as
the heart of their response to decades of complaints that SDWA violation notices were not being
read by anyone.

All these recommendations highlight the need to *DELIVER* on the Act's promised RTK
provisions, i.e., OW should broadly review for RTK efficacy the proposed requirements as to
notice frequency and how many consumers are reached; inter alia[.] For example, aside from the
above questions, are there assurances that posted notices will be durable, especially outdoors?
Or, is the requirement that the posted location be "conspicuous" specific enough? \Comment also
relates to Tier 3 delivery.']

Response: The commenter may have misread the proposed rule. EPA did
propose a performance standard for Tier 2; however, it also proposed a minimum
requirement of mail or hand delivery for community water systems and a
minimum of posting, mail, or hand delivery for non-community systems.

Systems must then take other steps to make sure the performance standard is met.
EPA also requires that notices, where applicable, include language asking
landlords, business owners, etc., to provide notices to tenants, customers, and
others. EPA has chosen to keep the rule language for Tier 2 delivery as it was in
the proposed rule.

EPA believes that the overarching requirement, that the notice be provided in a form and
manner reasonably calculated to reach all persons served in the required time period,
along with the specific methods identified in the rule, meet the letter and spirit of the
public notice provisions in SDWA Section 1414. EPA believes that Congress left
decisionmaking on how best to implement the 1414(c) provisions to EPA, in consultation
with its State partners, as specified in 1414(c)(2). Recognizing that it is impossible for all
systems to reach all persons who might have been or are drinking water from the system
during a violation, EPA's objective has been to make sure that the rule is specific enough
to give systems firm instruction on how to get the word out to a significant number of
easily identifiable users by highly reliable methods. They must then to try to reach
everyone else, including those who may be hard, if not impossible, to identify, with any
other method reasonably calculated to reach them. EPA believes that the rule thus
requires systems to inform as many persons as is reasonably possible and that no more is
required under Section 1414(c).

Regarding the display of the notices themselves, EPA feels that the types of systems
where notices will be displayed are too varied to set specific requirements for durability
and conspicuousness. Any requirements EPA might set would be inappropriate for at
least some systems. However the bottom line is that the notice must be in a form and
manner reasonably calculated to reach persons served in the required time period. A
notice that lacks reasonable durability would not meet this requirement and would thus be
a violation of this rule.

106

-------
Commission of Public Works, City of Spartanburg, SC (1.10): Proposed requirements for Tier 2
Public Notice (141.203) require that notice be made within 30 days after the system learns of a
violation, but grants primacy states flexibility to extend this period to three months (141.203 (b)).
Tier 2 violations, in general, would not present an acute risk to health. Many violations could
potentially be corrected within a three month time period. A three month notification period
would thus allow Public Water Systems, which are always conscious of public perception, the
opportunity to present a less negative notice for a Tier 2 violation, indicating in many cases that
the cause of the violation had been identified and corrected. SWS therefore recommends that the
time period to issue a Tier 2 Public Notice be set at three months. . . .

The proposed Public Notification Rule does not clearly address in all cases how often and for
how long public notices must be maintained and/or repeated. SWS recommends clarification of
language for when public notices of all types may be discontinued or rescinded.

Response: EPA disagrees that the Tier 2 deadline should be three months. EPA
has retained the 30 day timeframe for Tier 2 notification. However, the final rule
gives primacy agencies discretion to extend the Tier 2 deadline to up to three
months where appropriate. For violations that have been resolved, EPA requires
that the notice be posted for seven days. EPA believes that seven days is long
enough for consumers to see the notice but not long enough for them to become
desensitized to it. EPA expects the primacy agencies to make decisions on when
a violation or situation has been resolved.

Consumer Federation of America (1.11): The proposed rule sets an excellent performance
standard for the delivery of Tier 2 public notification: "that the notice be provided in a form and
manner reasonably calculated to reach all persons regularly served by the system." We are
concerned, however, that the minimum methods required for the delivery of a Tier 2 notice do
not meet this standard. While we support the requirement to mail or otherwise directly deliver the
Tier 2 notice to each customer, we believe the final rule should also require the use of broadcast
media as the simplest and cheapest way of reaching non-bill-paying consumers. When broadcast
media cannot be reasonably expected to reach most of those served, then the system should be
directed to select another appropriate method of reaching non-customers.

Response: EPA's intent in setting the minimum method allowable for delivery of
Tier 2 notices is to get public notices into people's hands. EPA believes that the
methods identified in the rule will allow systems to meet the performance
standard that the notice be provided in a form and manner reasonably calculated
to reach persons regularly served by the system. Beyond this regulatory
minimum, water systems are obligated to use any other method reasonably
calculated to reach other persons served by the system if they would not normally
be reached by solely relying on the minimum regulatory method. Any other
methods used, such as broadcast media, would serve to enhance this minimum
objective.

107

-------
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): In the proposed rule, the near elimination of
the publication of the public notice is most unfortunate. Publication requirements need to be
maintained as in the current rule. Waivers are allowed in the current rule and this should allow
appropriate flexibility. Much criticism has been given to printing public notices in the public
notice section of newspapers, as it is not widely read. While some of this criticism is justified,
newspaper publication provides documentation not generally available through other methods of
public notice. When DNR receives an affidavit of publication and a copy of the notice on
newsprint, we can feel confident the public notice has indeed been performed and has become a
permanent document readily available to most consumers. Documentation of other methods of
public notice do not inspire this confidence. This is non-trivial.

A minimum time frame for posting must be specified in addition to "for as long as the violation
or situation exists". If a system fails to monitor for 11 months, but submits one sample at the end
of the year just before it has to do public notice for that first violation, it could be argued that the
violation no longer exists, so the notice doesn't have to be posted at all. This is why if posting is
to be the method of public notice, it needs to be done in as timely a manner as possible and to
remain posted for a reasonable period of time. For MCL and major monitoring violations, DNR
specifies a minimum posting period of 7 days if the violation has been corrected or is corrected
during the 7 day posting time. [,Second paragraph of comment also relates to Tier 3 delivery.']

Response: EPA agrees that it is important for primacy agencies to have
documentation that public notice requirements were met. Indeed, systems are
required to submit to their primacy agency within 10 days a certification that all
public notice requirements were met, along with a copy of the notice. EPA
believes this requirement is sufficient to allow regulators to track compliance and
will increase voluntary compliance with the PN requirements.

EPA's intent in setting the minimum method allowable for delivery of Tier 2 notices is to
get public notices into people's hands. EPA believes that the methods identified in the
rule will allow systems to meet the performance standard that the notice be provided in a
form and manner reasonably calculated to reach persons regularly served by the system.
Beyond this regulatory minimum, water systems are obligated to use any other method
reasonably calculated to reach other persons served by the system if they would not
normally be reached by solely relying on the minimum regulatory method. Any other
methods used would serve to enhance this minimum objective. EPA notes that
newspapers are included in the rule as a possible additional method to ensure that the
notice reaches all persons served.

On the commenter's point about the duration of posting, EPA agrees that the
regulation could be read as if posting was not required if the violation was
resolved. Therefore, it decided to add a minimum posting requirement. All
systems posting a notice will have to post for as long as the violation persists, or
for at least seven days if they have returned to compliance.

108

-------
American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports the proposed requirements for
mail or direct delivery of the notices. The menu-based approach would only create more
questions on compliance, rather than providing answers. [Comment also relates to Tier 3
delivery.]

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule. EPA's intent in
setting a minimum method allowable for delivery of Tier 2 notices is to get public
notices into people's hands. EPA believes that the methods identified in the rule
will allow systems to meet the performance standard that the notice be provided in
a form and manner reasonably calculated to reach persons regularly served by the
system. Beyond this regulatory minimum, water systems are obligated to use any
other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons served by the system if
they would not normally be reached by solely relying on the minimum regulatory
method. Any other methods used would serve to enhance this minimum
objective.

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (1.19): MWRA supports the option which would
allow the PWS to choose from a longer list of possible delivery methods, including delivery by
mail or by hand. MWRA agrees with EPA that the PWS's obligation to take steps reasonably
calculated to reach all persons served can be better accomplished by giving the PWS flexibility
to select the delivery method most likely to reach persons served, as circumstances require,
[iComment also relates to Tier 3 delivery.]

Response: EPA has chosen to keep the Tier 2 delivery requirements the same as
in the proposed rule. EPA's intent in setting the minimum method allowable for
delivery of Tier 2 notices is to get public notices into people's hands. EPA
believes that the methods identified in the rule will allow systems to meet the
performance standard that the notice be provided in a form and manner reasonably
calculated to reach persons regularly served by the system. Beyond this
regulatory minimum, water systems are obligated to use any other method
reasonably calculated to reach other persons served by the system if they would
not normally be reached by solely relying on the minimum regulatory method.

Any other methods used would serve to enhance this minimum objective.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): The proposed requirements seem reasonable, i.e., minimum
specific method to deliver notice, with options to reach other persons served. . . . The alternative
of allowing water systems to select from a menu of delivery options rather than require that a
specific method be used, seems like it would be confusing for the water system and more
difficult to monitor by the States.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule. EPA's intent in
setting the minimum method allowable for delivery of Tier 2 notices is to get
public notices into people's hands. EPA believes that the methods identified in
the rule will allow systems to meet the performance standard that the notice be

109

-------
provided in a form and manner reasonably calculated to reach persons regularly
served by the system. Beyond this regulatory minimum, water systems are
obligated to use any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons
served by the system if they would not normally be reached by solely relying on
the minimum regulatory method. Any other methods used would serve to
enhance this minimum objective.

Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc. (1.21): In order to provide additional flexibility for
noncommunity systems to provide notice of tier 2 and 3 violations, delete sections
141.203(c)(2)(ii) and 141.204(c)(2)(ii) because a posting, mailing or direct delivery is reasonably
calculated to reach persons served by the system of violations which are not nearly as serious as
the tier 1 violations. Requiring additional notification for tier 2 and 3 violations to unknown
users of a noncommunity system could be a futile effort. If the unknown users have already left
the area, which is relatively common in a seasonal operation, any attempt to contact the unknown
users through newspapers, newsletters or copies to central locations would not only be fruitless
and untimely, but required under the proposed rule. Alternatively, the EPA could use the word
'or' instead of 'and' at the end of sections 141.203 (c)(2)(i) and 141.204 (c)(2)(i). This would
make the notification of those not known to the noncommunity drinking water system another
option and it could be still be required by the primacy agency. [Comment also relates to Tier 3
delivery.]

Response: EPA disagrees with the proposed change to the rule language. An
initial notice may not reach all persons served by the system, and therefore
another method of delivering the notice may be needed. Beyond the minimum
delivery requirement, water systems are obligated to use any other method
reasonably calculated to reach other persons served by the system if they would
not normally be reached by solely relying on the minimum regulatory method.

Examples when EPA would expect additional notices beyond the minimum
include: for community water systems that provide drinking water to persons who
do not pay a water bill or otherwise receive their drinking water from the bill
paying customers (e.g., students, renters, prisoners) and would not routinely
receive a mailed notice. This additional method may include: publication in a
local newspaper or newsletter distributed to customers; use of e-mail to notify
employees or students; or delivery of multiple copies in central locations (e.g.,
community centers).

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (1.22): Two issues of interest to the SFPUC that are
open to interpretation by the primacy agency are posting requirements and the use of multilingual
notices. The Public Notification Handbook presents general recommendations for posting
notices, but does not define the type and number of locations. For large regional PWS such as
SFPUC, such efforts could be costly and ineffective.

Response: The Public Notification Handbook provides guidance to systems on
how to comply with PN requirements, including suggestions for posting of Tier 2

110

-------
notices. The handbook is general in nature because EPA realizes that it can not
address every possible situation. The rule sets a performance standard that the
notice be provided in a form and manner reasonably calculated to reach persons
regularly served by the system. EPA believes that individual systems, perhaps in
consultation with primacy agencies, are in the best position to determine the
specific type and number of locations to post notices. For a large community
water system, posting would most likely be used, if at all, as a supplementary
method in cases where consumers would not receive a mailed copy. If it is
unlikely to be effective as a public notice, then the system should choose a more
appropriate method.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): Notices must be reasonably calculated to reach all
persons served. To achieve this goal, we urge the Agency adopt a proposal which will require at
a minimum that community systems mail or directly deliver notices to all persons served and use
at least one other method of communication historically designed to reach large numbers of the
population (media, fliers, posting). While section 1414(c)(2)(D)(I) suggests that notice in a bill,
a separate report, or by direct delivery is required, nothing in the Act prohibits EPA from going
beyond this absolute minimum, and EPA is obliged under the Act to assure that all users of the
water will be notified (see section 141(c)(1), [sic] requiring notice to the persons served by the
system). Section 1450(a) also provides EPA with additional authority to assure that the statutory
goal of full notice is achieved through requiring multiple means of notice. We urge the Agency
reject the proposal to allow the primacy agency to adopt methods as it deems appropriate because
we fear this could result in a lack of true notice to consumers. This would result in a situation
similar to past problems identified by GAO in its report several years ago. The GAO report gave
impetus to Congress to amend this provision of the Act to improve public notice. EPA should
recognize Congress intent and adopt a proposal which assures true notice reaches all persons
served.

The law allows systems to include the public notice with the consumers quarterly water bill.

This method of delivery alone, however, could defeat the purpose behind the PN provision of
providing timely notice to all persons affected in a timely, clear and simple fashion. Allowing
utilities to include the notice of violations as a bill stuffer alone will the not draw adequate
attention to this very important document and will fail to reach all persons served. This
document must be a separate and discrete notice designed to catch the reader's attention.

Response: EPA has chosen to adopt the rule language as proposed. For
community water systems, the proposed rule does require mail or hand delivery
and the use of additional methods to reach those who would not be reached by
mail or hand delivery, as the commenter requested. In some community systems,
additional methods may not be necessary, because all consumers may be reached
by mail or hand delivery. For non-community water systems, mail or hand
delivery are not always practical, so posting is also allowed as a minimum. Non-
community systems will still have to use another method if the minimum is not
likely to reach anyone who would not normally be reached by one of these

111

-------
methods. Such persons may include persons not expected to see a posted notice
because the notice is not in a location they routinely pass. The methods may
include: publication in a local newspaper or newsletter distributed to customers;
use of e-mail to notify employees or students; or delivery of multiple copies in
central locations (e.g., community centers).

Regarding the commenter's concern that bill stuffers would not draw adequate attention,
EPA notes that section 141.205(c)(2)(iii) requires that notices not be formatted in a way
that defeats the purpose of the notice. In addition, not all notices will be included in
quarterly bills. Notice is required for Tier 2 violations within 30 days, unless primacy
agencies grant an extension of up to 90 days.

Metro Water District (Tucson, AZ) (1.26): Of the two alternatives described, alternative two
appears less financially imposing to public water supplies, but not as pro-public information
oriented. Perhaps combining more of the pro-public information in alternative two would suffice.

Response: EPA's intent in setting a minimum method allowable for delivery of
Tier 2 notices is to get public notices into people's hands. EPA believes that the
methods identified in the rule will allow systems to meet the performance
standard that the notice be provided in a form and manner reasonably calculated
to reach persons regularly served by the system. Beyond this regulatory
minimum, water systems are obligated to use any other method reasonably
calculated to reach other persons served by the system if they would not normally
be reached by solely relying on the minimum regulatory method. Any other
methods used would serve to enhance this minimum objective.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (1.28): In regards to the method of
delivery for public notice, our systems have not had any difficulty in fulfilling requirements
under the current system, therefore we do not have a need for additional methods. We are not in
favor of leaving the delivery methods open ended since determining compliance could be more
difficult and require additional staff review time.

Response: EPA's intent in setting a minimum method allowable for delivery of
Tier 2 notices is to get public notices into people's hands. EPA believes that the
methods identified in the rule will allow systems to meet the performance
standard that the notice be provided in a form and manner reasonably calculated
to reach persons regularly served by the system. Beyond this regulatory
minimum, water systems are obligated to use any other method reasonably
calculated to reach other persons served by the system if they would not normally
be reached by solely relying on the minimum regulatory method. Any other
methods used would serve to enhance this minimum objective.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): The proposed rule does not contain any language about
how long to repeat a Tier 2 notice. It just says to repeat the notice every 3 months and in no case

112

-------
less frequent than yearly. The Tier 3 requirements address the length of time the notice must be
repeated, i.e. for as long as the violation exists. The proposed 30-day initial notice and 3-month
repeat notice requirements, along with state discretion to lengthen those times, are not
unreasonable.

The proposed language, consisting of a minimum prescribed method plus other options to reach
persons served, is acceptable in that it also allows the state to direct some changes even to the
prescribed delivery method. [Comment also relates to Tier 3 delivery.]

Response: EPA has retained its approach to Tier 2 and 3 delivery in the final rule.

EPA's intent in setting a minimum method allowable for delivery of Tier 2
notices is to get public notices into people's hands. EPA believes that the
methods identified in the rule will allow systems to meet the performance
standard that the notice be provided in a form and manner reasonably calculated
to reach persons regularly served by the system. Beyond this regulatory
minimum, water systems are obligated to use any other method reasonably
calculated to reach other persons served by the system if they would not normally
be reached by solely relying on the minimum regulatory method. Any other
methods used would serve to enhance this minimum objective.

Regarding the commenter's request for clarification on repeating Tier 2 notice, the PN
rule requires notices of unresolved violations to be repeated every three months for as
long as the violations persist.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): The form and manner of the Tier 2 public notice
is well-written, understandable, and protective of public health.

Response: EPA has retained this approach to Tier 2 notification in the final rule.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): The regulation states that a system should
maintain the posting until the violation is resolved. For most total coliform violations, the system
corrects the problem within one to two weeks of the occurrence. This wording in the regulation
makes it difficult to require notices after the violation has been corrected.

OPTION SECTION VI(B): EPA requested alternative language. The wording should say or, not
and. This allows more flexibility for meeting the needs of the community and directing
information to the correct population. It is also important to recognize that violations will also be
reported through the Consumer Confidence Report for all community water systems.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggested alternative language.
EPA believes that both a minimum delivery method plus an additional method
necessary to reach persons served are necessary. EPA's intent in setting a
minimum is to get public notices into people's hands. EPA believes that the
methods identified in the rule will allow systems to meet the performance

113

-------
standard that the notice be provided in a form and manner reasonably calculated
to reach persons regularly served by the system. Beyond this regulatory
minimum, water systems are obligated to use any other method reasonably
calculated to reach other persons served by the system if they would not normally
be reached by solely relying on the minimum regulatory method. Any other
methods used would serve to enhance this minimum objective.

EPA agrees that the regulation could be read as if posting was not required if the violation
was resolved. Therefore, it decided to add a minimum posting requirement. All systems
posting a notice will have to post for as long as the violation persists, or for at least seven
days if they have returned to compliance.

New York Department of Health (1.36): In Section 141.203, we believe the method of delivery
for a tier 2 repeat notice should be a newspaper notice, with discretion given to the primacy
agency to require mail or other form of direct delivery to each customer. This will reduce a
tremendous burden on large public water systems operating under an established compliance
schedule.

Response: EPA has chosen to keep the requirements the same as in the proposed
rule. EPA believes that the method of delivery requirements for Tier 2 notices
will ensure that notices announcing violation of drinking water requirements are
communicated earlier and more effectively than under the current rule to a wider
range of the people served by the water system.

EPA's intent in setting a minimum method allowable for delivery of Tier 2 notices is to
get public notices into people's hands. EPA believes that the methods identified in the
rule will allow systems to meet the performance standard that the notice be provided in a
form and manner reasonably calculated to reach persons regularly served by the system.
EPA does not believe that newspaper notices meet this objective. Newspaper notices are
typically placed in the legal notices section of the newspaper where they are not likely to
be read. Beyond this regulatory minimum, water systems are obligated to use any other
method reasonably calculated to reach other persons served by the system if they would
not normally be reached by solely relying on the minimum regulatory method. Any
additional methods used, including newspapers, would serve to enhance this minimum
objective.

United States Postal Service (2.6): [Modify rule language to read] Unless directed otherwise by
the primacy agency, community water systems must provide notice by: . . . Mail or other direct
delivery to each customer receiving a bill or to each address within the impacted area or other
service connections . . . The Postal Service often delivers bulk mailings to each postal customer
within a zip code or area specified by the mailer. A bulk mailing would reach more persons than
those limited to receiving a bill from the public water system, including all residents within an
apartment complex or mobile home park that have an individual address but do not receive an
individual monthly water bill. The local Postmaster is available to assist the public water system

114

-------
owner operator by providing the correct number of postal service addresses within a specified
geographical area. [This comment also relates to Tier 3 delivery.]

Response: EPA agrees that delivering notices to billing customers only would not
be sufficient. EPA is changing the rule language at 141.202(c)(l)(i) to read "mail
or other direct delivery to each customer receiving a bill and to other service
connections." EPA believes this clarifies the rule. In some cases, mail to postal
patrons may be appropriate; however this approach may not work for every
system that must do public notification. Where mail to postal patrons is the most
efficient way to reach all service connections, EPA agrees that it should be used.
EPA also would appreciate any input the commenter can provide for the
discussions of Tier 2 and Tier 3 delivery in the Public Notification Handbook.

Adrianna Quintero, NRDC (at DC meeting) (E.2): Mail is often the only practical way to reach
everybody served; not everybody is connected to the Internet or watches TV.

Response: EPA believes that the method of delivery requirements for Tier 2
notices will ensure that notices announcing violation of drinking water
requirements are communicated earlier and more effectively than under the
current rule to a wider range of the people served by the water system. At a
minimum, those people reached by mail or direct delivery would receive the
notice early enough to make informed choices about their drinking water.

Unidentified participant at Allentown meeting (E.3): Mail or direct delivery are rarely done,
rather, systems rely on newspaper notices, especially where billing cycles are not conducive to
meeting the 30-day deadline for distributing Tier 2 notices.

Response: EPA will not allow newspaper to be used as a minimum method in the
final rule, although it may be used as a supplemental method. Newspaper notices
are typically placed in the legal notices section of the newspaper where they are
not likely to be read. EPA's intent in setting a minimum method allowable for
delivery of Tier 2 notices is to get public notices into people's hands. EPA
believes that the methods identified in the rule will allow systems to meet the
performance standard that the notice be provided in a form and manner reasonably
calculated to reach persons regularly served by the system. Beyond this
regulatory minimum, water systems are obligated to use any other method
reasonably calculated to reach other persons served by the system if they would
not normally be reached by solely relying on the minimum regulatory method.
Any other methods used, including newspapers, would serve to enhance this
minimum objective.

115

-------
Topic 11: 141.204 (a) Which violations or situations require a Tier 3 public

notice?

EPA is requesting comment on the proposed Tier 3 public notice requirements, in
particular on the option to allow public water systems to provide an annual report of
violations in lieu of individual notices twelve months after each violation. (64 FR 25977)

Comments:

Dave Van Fleet (1.03): I agree that these types of violations should be in tier 3.

Response: EPA has retained these violations in the Tier 3 list in the final rule.

City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department (1.05): The Department supports EPA's proposal
to place "monitoring and testing procedure violations" in the Tier 3 category due to the fact that a
majority of monitoring violations are unlikely to result in imminent health threats. In addition,
EPA should provide primacy agencies the flexibility to place "monitoring and testing violations"
in the Tier 1 or Tier 2 on a case-by case basis depending on the specific incident. Placing
"monitoring and testing procedure violations" in the Tier 2 category may only reduce the
effectiveness of the public notification process in the long run.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): DMWW agrees with the EPA proposal to classify monitoring
and testing procedure violations as a Tier 3 violations. A Tier 3 violation classification is
appropriate for these types of violations because they are unlikely to produce immediate adverse
health effects. Under this proposed rule, EPA authorizes the primacy agency to evaluate the
violation to determine whether it should be re-classified as a Tier 2 violation. Giving the primacy
agency this discretion offers more flexibility for the public water system to negotiate with the
agency as well, it provides a system of checks and balances, ensuring that monitoring and testing
violations with immediate adverse health effects result in a Tier 2 violation.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Coalition for Health, Environment and Economic Rights, et al. (1.09): OW is aware of the
irretractability of massive numbers of monitoring violations. This represent a large and serious
risk (failure to detect acute or chronic contaminants), which justifies moving the notification of
these violations into Tier 2 from Tier 3 (annual reporting); but allowing PWS's to petition and
show that their monitoring record is now adequate enough to report monitoring violations
annually.

Response: EPA has decided to keep all monitoring and testing procedure
violations in Tier 3, except for those already in Tier 1, unless the primacy agency

116

-------
decides to elevate them. EPA believes that Tier 3 notice is appropriate because
most monitoring and testing procedure violations pose no ongoing risk to public
health, and annual notice meets the public's right to know about these violations.

While some monitoring and testing procedure violations may have the potential
for serious adverse health effects, many others may not. EPA believes that the
appropriate tiering for monitoring and testing procedure violations must be done
on a case-by-case basis and that it would be impossible to identify all instances
where Tier 2 notice would be more appropriate in the rule. As a result, the rule
gives primacy agencies the authority to elevate any monitoring violation to Tier 2
based on potential health effects or persistence of the violation.

Consumer Federation of America (1.11): Major Monitoring Violations Should Be Subject to
Tier 2 Notifications. Chronic, repeated failure to test or to take samples at the scheduled times
and locations for microbial indicators or some 80 regulated contaminants exposes the public to
unknown adverse health effects potentially significant enough to merit Tier 1 or 2 classification.
Nonetheless, the proposed rule classifies any and all monitoring violations as so unimportant that
they need only be grouped together and reported to the public in one annual notice. The proposed
rule leaves it to the discretion of the primacy agency to upgrade a serious monitoring violation to
Tier 1 or 2. However, we believe that some monitoring violations are too serious to be left to
primacy agency discretion. We urge that a Tier 2 public notice be required for all serious
monitoring violations as currently defined and classified by EPA as "Major Monitoring
Violations."

Response: EPA has decided to keep all monitoring and testing procedure
violations in Tier 3, except for those already in Tier 1, unless the primacy agency
decides to elevate them. EPA believes that Tier 3 notice is appropriate because
most monitoring and testing procedure violations pose no ongoing risk to public
health, and annual notice meets the public's right to know about these violations.

While some monitoring and testing procedure violations may have the potential
for serious adverse health effects, many others may not. EPA believes that the
appropriate tiering for monitoring and testing procedure violations must be done
on a case-by-case basis and that it would be impossible to identify all instances
where Tier 2 notice would be more appropriate in the rule. As a result, the rule
gives primacy agencies the authority to elevate any monitoring violation to Tier 2
based on potential health effects or persistence of the violation. EPA also
disagrees that the rule should distinguish major monitoring and testing procedure
violations from other monitoring and testing procedure violations - this would
make the PN rule overly complex; again, primacy agencies have discretion under
the rule to elevate monitoring and testing procedure violations to Tier 2 if they see
a need to do so.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): The almost cavalier approach taken to
monitoring violations in this document is troublesome, While some monitoring violations are the
onetime violations soon rectified, referred to by the author, as a group monitoring violations do

117

-------
pose a direct threat to the public health and need to be treated as such. Since 1994, Missouri
DNR has systematically listed PWSs with chronic major monitoring violations of the total
coliform rule on statewide news releases (most recent enclosed). This takes a major commitment
of time and resources, involves sending out letters by certified mail warning PWSs with 3 major
monitoring violations they will be so listed if they do not begin and continue to monitor
faithfully, and requires additional violation tracking for the timeliness necessary in issuing a
news release. The effort is worth it, as the systems listed on these news releases have a rate of
acute violations for fecal coliform/E. coli 2.5 times higher than that of all public water systems in
the state. That rate would be even higher, of course, if samples had been submitted as required.

EPA seems oblivious of the correlation between monitoring violations and systems with major
bacteriological problems. A system that conscientiously submits samples and occasionally ends
up with an MCL violation does not usually pose near the public health problem of a system that
chronically fails to monitor. Indeed an MCL violation can be the first step in correcting a
problem: that of identifying it. With chronic monitoring failure, bacteriological problems remain
unidentified, therefore more of a threat to the public health. A well run system may end up with
an MCL violation when a pump is struck by lighting or other situations truly out of the operator's
control. In one instance a total coliform. MCL violation resulted from a drunk driver hitting a
well house. The important thing is to do the necessary monitoring to identify and correct the
problem. Chronic monitoring violations, however, are entirely within the control of the water
system and are contemptuous of both public health and drinking water regulations. A few
systems apparently refuse to monitor because they have major bacteriological problems.

The proposed public notice rule caters to these negligent systems, allowing them up to a year to
account for their neglect, and can give them an alarmingly unfair advantage over systems that
conscientiously comply with all monitoring requirements. While allowing the primacy agency
discretion to make chronic violators perform public notice in a more timely manner, this is
another time-consuming step in the process. It would be preferable to leave the federal
regulations for monitoring violations at "as soon as possible, but in no case later than 3 months
after the violation-"

Consider the possible effect of this rule change in a hypothetical situation of two competing
resorts across the road from each other, each with their own well and therefore TWSs. One
system has a perfect record of no monitoring or MCL violations until they replace the pump;
they immediately shock chlorinate and flush the system, but since this was the first time it was
necessary, they didn't do a perfect job of it and end up with an MCL for total coliform. They
dutifully post the public notice until they've shocked and flushed the system again and
subsequently received total coliform absent results from the lab. The owner of the resort across
the road, however, decides monitoring the drinking water is too much of a pain because 3 of the
samples he mailed in last season arrived too late at the lab to be tested. He doesn't want to pay
the extra dollar each month to send 114 samples priority mail and it's DNR's fault the samples
got there late anyway. He also thought it was too much trouble to seal the wellhead properly as
instructed by DNR staff just before closing for the season last year. Over the winter a family of
mice nested on the wellhead and their droppings went straight into the well. The month after he

118

-------
opened this year, he got a monitoring violation notice from DNR. It just made him laugh because
the only consequence of this violation is that he has to post a notice within a year and heck, he'll
have the place sold by then!

Now imagine that you're an 80 year-old retiree recovering from the last round chemotherapy that
hopefully you'll need to beat cancer. Your white cell counts are back up and your doctor gives
you the go-ahead to leave on a brief getaway, but she reminds you to take it easy and watch what
you eat and drink. You've always been thrifty so you decide to price resorts before checking into
one. Those two across the road from each other look promising, so you inquire about prices at
the first one, but see the public notice for the total coliform MCL violation and are concerned.
The resort across the road costs the exact same amount and since there's no notice posted, the
water here must be fine. The next day you and your spouse are so stricken with diarrhea, neither
of you can leave the resort. You call your daughter to please come get both of you. She takes you
immediately to the hospital where you stay for a month. In the meantime, your spouse calls the
state primacy agency and requests the drinking water results for the resort you stayed at, but there
are no results on file for the system this year, only monitoring violations. Being thorough, your
spouse finds out that this unscrupulous resort owner failed to monitor, but had up to a year to
notify the public, while the resort across the road had a much less severe bacteriological problem,
but a much more strict time-frame on performing public notice. This make no logical sense to
your spouse who wonders how the regulations got that crazy.

For public notice for monitoring violations to have any meaning at a TWS, these systems must
be instructed in their first violation notice to post the notice immediately and keep the notice
posted until they have received good sample results from the lab. The "stick" of negative
publicity of the public notice and "carrot" of getting to take the notice down when good sample
results have been received, are necessary enforcement tools for dealing with these systems. It is
also not reasonable for the primacy agency to have to wait over a year before being able to cite a
system for failure to perform public notice. . . .

For monitoring violations, the requirements of Tier 2 would be better than those currently listed
as Tier 3 (annually). However rather than bumping monitoring violations up to Tier 2, it would
be much more manageable to allow only 3 months for most Tier 3 violations.

Response: EPA has decided to keep all monitoring and testing procedure
violations in Tier 3, except for those already in Tier 1, unless the primacy agency
decides to elevate them. EPA believes that Tier 3 notice is appropriate because
most monitoring and testing procedure violations pose no ongoing risk to public
health, and annual notice meets the public's right to know about these violations.

While some monitoring and testing procedure violations may have the potential
for serious adverse health effects, many others may not. EPA believes that the
appropriate tiering for monitoring and testing procedure violations must be done
on a case-by-case basis and that it would be impossible to identify all instances
where Tier 2 notice would be more appropriate in the rule. As a result, the rule
gives primacy agencies the authority to elevate any monitoring violation to Tier 2

119

-------
based on potential health effects or persistence of the violation. EPA also
disagrees that transient non-community systems should be required to post
immediately. The Tier 3 requirements do not parallel the language for other tiers
by requiring notice "as soon as possible" so as not to hinder the effectiveness of
other more immediate notices.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports the flexibility for the primacy
agency to move a M/R violation up to a Tier 2, but it should not be a federally mandated
requirement.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): It is appropriate that the public notice for all monitoring
and testing procedure violations follow the Tier 3 annual notice requirements, unless the
primacy agency determines on a case-by-case basis that the more stringent Tier 2 notice is
necessary. This is compatible with the CCR requirements, and will help avoid confusion.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): Major Monitoring Violations . . . EPA recognizes
that persistent monitoring violations can disguise significant health threats. Chronic, repeated
failure to test or to take samples at scheduled times and locations for microbial indicators or
regulated contaminants, however, exposes the public to potentially significant adverse health
effects. Nevertheless, the agency is proposing these violations generally be categorized and
subject only to Tier Three annual notice requirements, while allowing the primacy agency to
classify violations as Tier One or Tier Two if they deem it necessary. We feel this runs afoul of
the statutory intent to protect public health and provide timely notice to consumers of potentially
serious health risks. We urge EPA to recognize the importance of reporting a major monitoring
violations to the served population in a timely fashion, and urge that the final rule list specific
serious and chronic monitoring violations as major monitoring violations requiring Tier Two
notice.

Minor Monitoring and Reporting Violations . . . The proposed rule classifies all remaining
violations and situations requiring public notice not included in Tier One and Tier Two: major or
minor monitoring violations; failure to comply with an established treatment procedure;
operation under a variance or exemption; or other violations as determined by the primacy
agency. This classification is essentially a catch-all for all remaining unclassified violation. In
accordance with our urging that the agency classify major monitoring violations as Tier Two
violations, we urge the agency to classify all minor monitoring violations as Tier Three thereby
specifically setting forth all reporting requirements.

Response: EPA has decided to keep all monitoring and testing procedure
violations in Tier 3, except for those already in Tier 1, unless the primacy agency
decides to elevate them. EPA believes that Tier 3 notice is appropriate because

120

-------
most monitoring and testing procedure violations pose no ongoing risk to public
health, and annual notice meets the public's right to know about these violations.

While some monitoring and testing procedure violations may have the potential
for serious adverse health effects, many others may not. EPA believes that the
appropriate tiering for monitoring and testing procedure violations must be done
on a case-by-case basis and that it would be impossible to identify all instances
where Tier 2 notice would be more appropriate in the rule. As a result, the rule
gives primacy agencies the authority to elevate any monitoring violation to Tier 2
based on potential health effects or persistence of the violation. EPA also
disagrees that the rule should distinguish major monitoring and testing procedure
violations from other monitoring and testing procedure violations - this would
make the PN rule overly complex; again, primacy agencies have discretion under
the rule to elevate monitoring and testing procedure violations to Tier 2 if they see
a need to do so.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): While it is recognized that in
most cases a public water system ("PWS") with a good monitoring history could forget to
monitor during one monitoring period and the health risk is minimal. However, PWSs with
MCL violations may deliberately choose not to monitor if the punishment for non-monitoring is
the annual issuance of public notice. This is definitely a less severe consequence even though
the risk to public health is probably known.

Pennsylvania recommends designating all monitoring violations as Tier 2 with the state option to
by rule or on a case-by-case basis to reduce some or all to Tier 3 as it would be easier for states
that cannot be more stringent that EPA to implement that type of option. In addition, it would
allow a state to require faster notice than annually at a transient noncommunity water system
(NTNCWSs) that missed monitoring for total coliform or nitrate/nitrite. Different types of PWSs
may need to be separated out since a single missed quarterly sample for total coliforms at a
TNCWS may have more significance than a single sample for the same contaminant at a CWS or
NTNCWS. This could be done with the case-by-case model.

Pennsylvania recommends that EPA classify monitoring and testing procedure violations as Tier
2 with the option to designate by state rule making, which may allow a case-by-case option,
those that can be considered Tier 3. This would allow Pennsylvania the option to require
TNCWSs to post PN more quickly than 12 months after the fact. The possibility of a case-by-
case determination to move from Tier 2 to Tier 3 may be useful where a PWS makes a
compelling case to the state for such a change.

Response: EPA has decided to keep all monitoring and testing procedure
violations in Tier 3, except for those already in Tier 1, unless the primacy agency
decides to elevate them. EPA believes that Tier 3 notice is appropriate because
most monitoring and testing procedure violations pose no ongoing risk to public
health, and annual notice meets the public's right to know about these violations.

While some monitoring and testing procedure violations may have the potential

121

-------
for serious adverse health effects, many others may not. EPA believes that the
appropriate tiering for monitoring and testing procedure violations must be done
on a case-by-case basis and that it would be impossible to identify all instances
where Tier 2 notice would be more appropriate in the rule. As a result, the rule
gives primacy agencies the authority to elevate any monitoring violation to Tier 2
based on potential health effects or persistence of the violation.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): In the preamble to this proposed rule, it seemed
as though monitoring violations were considered to be less serious in consequence than other
violations (MCL, TT, variance and exemption). If a system does not conduct the required
monitoring, the system will never violate the MCL or TT standards. Just because the monitoring
is not conducted does not mean the water meets the MCL or TT standards. For contaminants
which can cause acute health effects (bacteria, nitrate, nitrite, chlorine dioxide, and SWTR
parameters), failure to monitor should be a Tier 2 violation, with the 30-day notice period. This
would especially apply to bacteria repeat sampling requirements. For those contaminants with
chronic health effects (inorganics, organics, disinfection byproducts other than chlorine dioxide,
and radionuclides), the 365-day notice of the Tier 3 violation is more acceptable, although also
seems excessively lengthy (see next comment). The IDNR supports the change of violations for
failure to monitor for contaminants that cause an acute health effect from Tier 3 to Tier 2
violations. . . .

Annual repeat notice should only be available for as long as a variance, exemption or other
situation exists - and not for a monitoring violation. The system should have collected the sample
within the year time-period, since the clock starts running when the PWS learns of the violation
and not when they actually missed the sample. If they failed to collect the sample, further
administrative action (such as a court order) should be in progress, and any additional public
notice requirement could fall in the "other situation" category. The IDNR recommends the
removal of repeat monitoring violations from this section. . . .

Microbiological contaminants: All violations of these contaminants. . . should be increased to
Tier 1 MCL/MRDL/TT violations, and Tier 2 monitoring violations. The IDNR strongly urges
such a change in violation classification.

While some monitoring and testing procedure violations may have the potential
for serious adverse health effects, many others may not. The PN rule elevates
certain monitoring and testing procedure violations to Tier 1, including failure to
check for fecal or E. coli when repeat samples for coliform are positive, failure to
take repeat samples in the distribution system for chlorine dioxide, and failure to
take a confirmation sample for nitrate. EPA believes that the appropriate tiering

122

-------
for monitoring and testing procedure violations must be done on a case-by-case
basis and that it would be impossible to identify in the rule all instances where
Tier 2 notice would be more appropriate. As a result, the rule gives primacy
agencies the authority to elevate any monitoring violation to Tier 2 based on
potential health effects or persistence of the violation. Regarding the
commenter's argument about serious monitoring and testing procedure violations,
all enforcement actions have a public participation component. If a primacy
agency finds that a monitoring violation is serious enough to warrant formal
enforcement action, it is likely that the violation would be elevated to Tier 2.

City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): CWD believes that
nearly all monitoring and testing procedure violations do not risk the health of customers and it is
therefore appropriate that these violations default to Tier 3 public notice. However, if the
primacy agency does decide that a particular violation results in a danger to customers, then Tier

2	notice can be required on a case-by-case basis.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

American Water Works Service Co., Inc. (1.46): A monitoring violation for nitrate is proposed
as Tier 3, however due to the acute health effects, we believe this should be Tier 2.

Response: In the final rule, EPA has added situations when a water system fails
to take a confirmation sample within 24 hours of the system's receipt of the first
sample showing exceedance of the nitrate or nitrite MCL to the list of situations
requiring Tier 1 notice. Where a system has persistent monitoring and testing
procedure violations or where such violations pose a health risk, primacy agencies
may elevate any monitoring violation to Tier 2.

Akron (OH) Public Utilities Bureau (2.4): APUB agrees with the rule as proposed including . . .
to make Tier 3 the default public notice tier for monitoring and testing procedure violations. The
vast majority of the monitoring and testing procedure violations would appropriately follow Tier

3	public notification. The preamble allows the primacy agency to assign Tier 2 in the rare cases
where appropriate.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Adrianna Quintero, Natural Resources Defense Council (at DC meeting) (E.2): The rule should
make major monitoring violations Tier 2 if that is how some states will be implementing it
anyway. Then states will not have to worry about deadlines and will be able to focus on the
important violations.

Response: EPA has decided to keep all monitoring and testing procedure
violations in Tier 3, except for those already in Tier 1, unless the primacy agency
decides to elevate them. EPA believes that Tier 3 notice is appropriate because

123

-------
most monitoring and testing procedure violations pose no ongoing risk to public
health, and annual notice meets the public's right to know about these violations.

While some monitoring and testing procedure violations may have the potential
for serious adverse health effects, many others may not. EPA believes that the
appropriate tiering for monitoring and testing procedure violations must be done
on a case-by-case basis and that it would be impossible to identify all instances
where Tier 2 notice would be more appropriate in the rule. As a result, the rule
gives primacy agencies the authority to elevate any monitoring violation to Tier 2
based on potential health effects or persistence of the violation. Finally, EPA
does not agree that the rule should distinguish major monitoring and testing
procedure violations from other monitoring and testing procedure violations - this
would make the PN rule overly complex; again, primacy agencies have discretion
under the rule to elevate monitoring and testing procedure violations to Tier 2 if
they see a need to do so.

Unidentified participant at DC meeting (E.2): It makes sense to combine reporting of monitoring
violations rather than sending out one notice at a time for minor violations. However, if tests are
not done, consumers do not know whether they were at greater risk. Does the proposal allow for
elevating those violations?

Response: The proposed rule allows primacy agencies to elevate monitoring and
testing procedure violations to Tier 2 based on potential health impacts and
persistence of the violations. It also allows them to elevate to Tier 1 any other
violations or situations with significant potential to cause serious health effects as
a result of short term exposure.

124

-------
Topic 12: 141.204 (b) When is the Tier 3 public notice to be provided?

EPA is requesting comment on the proposed Tier 3 public notice requirements, in
particular on the option to allow public water systems to provide an annual report of
violations in lieu of individual notices twelve months after each violation. (64 FR 25977)

Comments:

Mike Mecke (1.01): Minor violations (definition?) may be grouped into quarterly reports
delivered in similar manner as above. With an Executive Summary, [sic]

Annual Report made available easily to all customers, local libraries, environmental and
water-related organizations and universities within their service areas. With and [sic] Executive
Summary outlining fully the significant violations, [sic]

Response: EPA is not specifically recommending quarterly reporting of Tier 3
notices. The PN rule specifies a minimum timeframe for Tier 3 notice that EPA
feels is necessary; systems are free to prepare more frequent notices if they prefer
to do so.

Consumer Federation of America (1.11): We agree that it is acceptable for the public to be
notified of Tier 3 violations once a year in one annual mailing as long as the Major Monitoring
Violations are defined as requiring a Tier 2 public notification. ... the annual Tier 3 Public
Notice to all customers should be made in a separate document either in its own mailing or as an
enclosure in the mailing of the Consumer Confidence Report.

Response: EPA will allow the use of an annual report or the CCR for all
monitoring and testing procedure violations not elevated to Tier 2 or not
automatically placed in Tier 1. EPA encourages systems to make use of the CCR
or an annual report to distribute Tier 3 notices. PNs and CCRs provide similar
information, although their messages are different. Combining the two
documents can be more efficient for the water system without reducing the
effectiveness of either. If the PN is included in the CCR, EPA will allow the
system to decide how the information can best be presented. PNs may be
included in the CCR provided the PN content and delivery requirements are met.
EPA disagrees that the rule should distinguish major monitoring and testing
procedure violations from other monitoring and testing procedure violations - this
would make the PN rule overly complex; again, primacy agencies have discretion
under the rule to elevate monitoring and testing procedure violations to Tier 2 if
they see a need to do so.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): "New customers" are not the same at
community and noncommunity systems. Particularly at TWSs, an annual notice of violation is
particularly inadequate.

125

-------
The proposed public notice rule caters to these negligent systems, allowing them up to a year to
account for their neglect, and can give them an alarmingly unfair advantage over systems that
conscientiously comply with all monitoring requirements. While allowing the primacy agency
discretion to make chronic violators perform public notice in a more timely manner, this is
another time-consuming step in the process. It would be preferable to leave the federal
regulations for monitoring violations at "as soon as possible, but in no case later than 3 months
after the violation." . . .

For violations that fall into the third tier, public notice should be required to be performed as
soon as possible, but in no case later than 3 months after the violation. Since an entire
compliance period passes before a monitoring violation occurs, some time lag for public notice is
unavoidable and acceptable. . .

Annual notice is appropriate only for a small number of violations. For example, if an other-wise
well run system has a major monitoring violation the same month the operator dies of a heart
attack, the city clerk has gall bladder surgery, and the mayor resigns, some latitude may be
appropriate. A system could have no more than two major monitoring violations of the Total
Coliform Rule and still be worthy of this flexibility. This would be a logical candidate for
performing the public notice in the CCR. At noncommunity systems, however, allowing up to a
year to perform public notice, means public notice will not be done. DNR provides all systems
with the appropriate public notice forms when violation notices are issued. All a TWS has to do
would be to provide a pencil and a thumb tack. . .

DNR takes exception to the sentence: "EPA strongly recommends that public water systems
make use of the annual notice option." Rather, why would not EPA strongly recommend that
systems perform public notice as soon as possible? . . . EPA seems oblivious that requiring a
system to post a public notice for as long as the monitoring violation exists may actually
motivate a system to collect samples in a timely manner, so they can take down the notice.
Rewarding monitoring violators with lax public notice requirements sets an extremely bad
precedent. Meanwhile, for those systems that conscientiously meet all monitoring requirements,
but get a Tier I violation, EPA cut the time allowed by 67%.

As long as Tier 3 defaults to annual public notice, it is unacceptable.

Response: EPA disagrees with the proposal to require Tier 3 notice "as soon as
possible but. . ." EPA believes that requiring notice as soon as possible is
appropriate for the more serious violations in Tiers 1 and 2. The Tier 3
requirements do not parallel the language for other tiers requiring notice "as soon
as possible" so as not to hinder the effectiveness of other more immediate notices.
EPA also disagrees that annual notice is appropriate for a small number of
violations. The commenter's point that requiring notice as soon as possible would
motivate systems to return to compliance more quickly is well taken; however,
EPA believes there are more compelling reasons to retain annual notice. EPA
notes that promoting compliance with monitoring requirements should be part of

126

-------
the primacy agency's overall compliance strategy - certainly PN could be used to
further this purpose.

The violations and situations in Tier 3 are non-serious violations. EPA believes that Tier
3 notification is more a right-to-know issue than a public health concern. EPA
acknowledges that some monitoring and testing procedure violations have the potential to
mask potentially serious situations. Rather than attempt to address every case where this
may happen, it is more efficient to provide primacy agencies the authority to elevate
monitoring and testing procedure violations to Tier 2 or even Tier 1 if they believe the
need exists.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): We agree with the agency's proposal that Tier Three
violations be reported once a year in an annual mailing so long as major monitoring violations
are defined as Tier Two violations. We nevertheless urge the agency to require that notices for
Tier Three violations be provided to customers and distributed to all others served as soon as
possible.

Response: EPA will allow the use of an annual report or the CCR for all
monitoring and testing procedure violations not elevated to Tier 2 or not
automatically placed in Tier 1. EPA encourages systems to make use of the CCR
or an annual report to distribute Tier 3 notices. PNs and CCRs provide similar
information, although their messages are different. Combining the two
documents can be more efficient for the water system without reducing the
effectiveness of either. If the PN is included in the CCR, EPA will allow the
system to decide how the information can best be presented. PNs may be
included in the CCR provided the PN content and delivery requirements are met.
EPA disagrees that the rule should distinguish major monitoring and testing
procedure violations from other monitoring and testing procedure violations - this
would make the PN rule overly complex; again, primacy agencies have discretion
under the rule to elevate monitoring and testing procedure violations to Tier 2 if
they see a need to do so.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania objects to the
language in Sections 141.202(b), 141.203(b), and 141.204(b) that deals with issuing a Tier 1, 2,
or 3 PN, respectively, "after the system learns of the violation." The proposed language in each
case is imprecise and subject to various interpretations as to when a system constructively
"learned" of a violation. . .[A] year later it may be very difficult to track down when the system
was notified to ensure that PN was issued within the prescribed time limit. Pennsylvania
recommends, for consistency, changing the wording in all three sections to ". . . after the system
is notified by their analytical laboratory or otherwise learns of the violation." This allows a state
that does not personally collect and analyze a system's samples to more precisely determine
when a supplier had constructive knowledge of the violation. For Tier 3, this would help to
identify testing procedure violations as well as reporting violations, but would not be of much
help for monitoring violations. . . .

127

-------
Pennsylvania is concerned thatNTNCWSs serving schools, which lose students through
promotion or graduation every year may not notify those individuals if a once every 12 month
report is all that is required. In addition, TNCWSs should report a failure to perform total
coliform or nitrate/nitrite monitoring within a short time period after the violation to help
customers assess their risk of consuming the systems water. This would be handled easily if all
current Tier 3 violations were reclassified as Tier 2 with the state option to change them back to
tier 3 by contaminant or by system type.

[M]ore frequent than every 12 month PN is needed where non-monitoring can be shown to be a
serious risk to public health based on prior monitoring results at a specific PWS. In such cases,
waiting for the system to do the next round of monitoring and receive the results may result in a
unnecessary health risk. This is another situation in which site specific knowledge and a
requirement for emergency public notice come together.

Response: EPA disagrees with the proposed change to the rule regarding the
trigger point for the Tier 3 deadline. It is important to hold the PWS responsible
for learning about a violation and the actions it is required to take. Accounting in
the rule for every way in which a system could learn of a violation would make
the rule overly complicated. EPA would interpret "learns" to include situations
where the system refused to "learn" of the violation by ignoring mail or telephone
messages.

EPA acknowledges the commenter's point that at transient NCWS, consumers who leave
the area and never return would not be aware of a monitoring violation. However, EPA
does not feel that this relatively uncommon situation justifies requiring all Tier 3 notice to
be as soon as possible. EPA believes the Tier 3 requirements should not parallel the
language for other tiers requiring notice "as soon as possible" so as not to hinder the
effectiveness of other more immediate notices. The risk associated with monitoring and
testing procedure violations ends when the required monitoring is performed and drinking
water is found to meet appropriate standards. If a violation is discovered, Tier 2 or Tier 1
notice would be appropriate. The rule gives primacy agencies the authority to elevate any
monitoring violation to Tier 2 based on potential health effects or persistence of the
violation, and this should address the commenter's concern that notice more frequent than
12 months is needed where non-monitoring is a serious public health risk.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (1.28): Although we can see the benefits
of a three tier notification process, we do not agree that water systems should be given up to a
year to report what is currently defined as tier three violations (such as monitoring and reporting
violations (M/Rs)). Our program spends a great deal of time stressing the importance of
monitoring on a timely basis and working with systems to avoid M/R violations. We feel that
allowing up to a year to report a monitoring error undermines our efforts. Also, by requiring a
quick turnaround time for M/R public notice (such as required under Tier 2 notification (30
days)), we believe that it helps us achieve better monitoring compliance. Many systems are
motivated to sample on time if they know that public notice will be required promptly if

128

-------
compliance doesn't occur. We believe that our enforcement tracking abilities will suffer if a year
is allowed to elapse between violation and notice. Also we believe that consumers should be
notified promptly when an error has occurred so that proper measures can be taken immediately
to rectify the situation.

Response: The violations and situations in Tier 3 are non-serious violations. EPA
believes that Tier 3 notification is more a right-to-know issue than a public health
concern. EPA acknowledges that some monitoring and testing procedure
violations have the potential to mask potentially serious situations. Rather than
attempt to address every case where this may happen, it is more efficient to
provide primacy agencies the authority to elevate monitoring and testing
procedure violations to Tier 2 or even Tier 1 if they believe the need exists. The
commenter's point that requiring notice as soon as possible would motivate
systems to return to compliance more quickly is well taken; however, EPA
believes there are compelling reasons to retain annual notice. EPA notes that
promoting compliance with monitoring requirements should be part of the
primacy agency's overall compliance strategy - certainly PN could be used to
further this purpose.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): The proposal to allow an annual report of violations
makes good sense for all the reasons stated in the rule preamble, page 25977.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): The 365-day time period for Tier 3 notices seems
to be excessively lengthy to notify the public of these violation types. If the purpose of the public
notification is to keep the consumers informed of their water system's activities, this year-long
period doesn't seem to serve that purpose. . . The IDNR suggests that the period be shortened to a
90-day period, similar to the existing rule, and that no exception be made for solely publishing it
in the CCR as a means to notify the public. . .

Response: EPA disagrees that the deadline for Tier 3 notification should be 90
days. The violations and situations in Tier 3 are non-serious violations. EPA
believes that Tier 3 notification is more a right-to-know issue than a public health
concern. EPA acknowledges that some monitoring and testing procedure
violations have the potential to mask potentially serious situations. Rather than
attempt to address every case where this may happen, it is more efficient to
provide primacy agencies the authority to elevate monitoring and testing
procedure violations to Tier 2 or even Tier 1 if they believe the need exists.

Utah DEQ, Division of Drinking Water (1.31): Utah supports the longer time frame for public
notice for monitoring violations.

129

-------
Response: EPA agrees and has retained the annual reporting requirement in the
final rule.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): EPA requested comment on allowing all Tier
3 to be provided in an annual report. This would be appropriate for CWS, and should be allowed.
If an annual notice is allowed for NC systems, the systems may elect to delay testing. It would
make it simpler to require NC systems to issue notices within three months of the violation. It is
unclear if the deadline is the end of the calendar year, or one year after the violation date.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that in some cases, annual reports
may be appropriate for NCWS as well. To the commenter's point about systems
possibly delaying testing to avoid a Tier 2 violation, EPA believes that, in most
cases, this would not be the outcome of allowing annual notification. EPA
believe that such negligent systems are the exception rather than the rule, and such
systems would be targets of greater scrutiny by primacy agencies, who would
likely elevate monitoring and testing procedure violations at such systems to a
higher tier.

EPA wishes to clarify that the deadline for Tier 3 notification is one year after the system
learns of the violation, not at the end of the calendar year. This deadline applies, whether
the PN is published in a separate notice, an annual report, or the CCR.

Akron (OH) Public Utilities Bureau (2.4): APUB agrees with the rule as written including the
option to allow public water systems to provide an annual report of Tier 3 violations in lieu of
individual notices twelve months after each violation. . .

Response: EPA agrees and has retained the annual reporting requirement in the
final rule.

130

-------
Topic 13: 141.204 (c) What is the form and manner of the Tier 3 public

notice?

Finally, comments are requested on the revised requirements for the method of delivery
of the Tier 3 notices. (64 FR 25977)

Comments:

Note: Several commenters addressed Tier 2 and Tier 3 form, manner, and delivery requirements
together in their comments. The text of these comments is provided under Topic 10, and are not
repeated here. These commenters include: City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department; Des
Moines Water Works; Coalition for Health, Environment and Economic Rights, et al.; Missouri
Department of Natural Resources; American Water Works Association; Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority; Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc.; Virginia Department of
Health; and United States Postal Service. Comments unique to Tier 3 delivery issues are
provided below.

Consumer Federation of America (1.11): . . .In order to reach non-customers who are served by
the water utility with the Tier 3 notice the language proposed in the rule for Tier 2 and 3 seems
adequate for Tier 3 notices:

Use any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons regularly served by
the system if they would not normally be reached by the mail or direct delivery
requirement (e. g, newspaper, posting in public places, delivery to community
organizations, etc.)

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this language in the final rule.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): [A] minimum specific method seems reasonable.

Response: EPA agrees and has selected this approach to give systems some
flexibility in delivering notices to their consumers but at the same time have an
objective and easily enforceable minimum requirement.

Carroll County (MD) Health Department Bureau of Environmental Health (1.27): Another tier 3
condition is a system that operates under a variance or exception. Should all of these be posted,
including those with a "Bottled Water System" classification? Current postings do not meet the
content requirements of this proposal. Does this type of notice apply in a situation where a tanker
for potable water is authorized for temporary periods? Those facilities are probably already
posted for some other violation. Would we post 2 notices or just keep up the other notices?

Response: Public notice is required for all variances or exemptions granted under
Section 1415 and 1416 of the SDWA. If a system is required by a state or EPA to

131

-------
provide bottled water under enforcement or other authority, public notice is
required under the PN rule for the violation, not separately for the bottled water.

Lehigh County (PA) Authority (1.38): The Proposed Rule does not provide specific guidance to
utilities regarding proper public notification procedures for monitoring violations (Tier 3) which
involve several contaminants.

For example, if a water utility fails to monitor for volatile organic contaminants (VOCs), for
which one sample is normally taken to complete testing for several contaminants, the Proposed
Rule does not specify whether the utility must provide: a separate public notice for each
contaminant; one general public notice regarding the monitoring violation; or one public notice
with each VOC listed therein. The draft handbook, however, suggests that each contaminant
must be listed. The Rule should be clarified, and the handbook should reflect the requirement.

Response: A separate notice is not needed for each contaminant. EPA is
changing the first of the ten content elements (section 141.205(a)(1)) to read
"description of the violation, including the contaminant(s) of concern" to clarify
the agency's intent. This is also explained in the Public Notification Handbook.

EPA also notes that systems can use annual reports to notify the public of multiple
Tier 3 violations; the same formatting requirements would apply.

United States Postal Service (2.6): The Postal Service often delivers bulk mailings to each postal
customer within a zip code or area specified by the mailer. A bulk mailing would reach more
persons than those limited to receiving a bill from the public water system, including all residents
within an apartment complex or mobile home park that have an individual address but do not
receive an individual monthly water bill. The local Postmaster is available to assist the public
water system owner operator by providing the correct number of postal service addresses within
a specified geographical area.

Response: EPA agrees that delivering notices to billing customers only would not
be sufficient. EPA is changing the rule language at 141.202(c)(l)(i) to read "mail
or other direct delivery to each customer receiving a bill and to other service
connections." EPA believes this clarifies the rule. In some cases, mail to postal
patrons may be appropriate; however this approach may not work for every
system that must do public notification. Where mail to postal patrons is the most
efficient way to reach all service connections, EPA agrees that it should be used.

Adrianna Quintero, NRDC (at DC meeting) (E.2): Mail is often the only practical way to reach
everybody served; not everybody is connected to the Internet or watches TV.

Response: EPA believes that the method of delivery requirements for Tier 3
notices will ensure that notices announcing violation of drinking water
requirements are communicated earlier and more effectively than under the
current rule to a wider range of the people served by the water system. At a

132

-------
minimum, those people reached by mail or direct delivery would receive the
notice early enough to make informed choices about their drinking water.

133

-------
Topic 14: 141.204 (d) In what situations may the Consumer Confidence
Report be used to meet the Tier 3 public notice requirements?

EPA is requesting comment on the proposed Tier 3 public notice requirements, in
particular on the option to allow public water systems to provide an annual report of
violations in lieu of individual notices twelve months after each violation. Comments are
also requested on the use of the Consumer Confidence Report to meet the Tier 3 public
notification requirements. Finally, comments are requested on the revised requirements
for the method of delivery of the Tier 3 notices. (64 FR 25977)

Comments:

Dave Van Fleet (1.03): I agree that... the "Public Notice" could be part of the annual
Consumer Confidence Report.

Response: EPA agrees and has continued to provide for this option in the final
rule.

Indiana DEM (1.04): We believe that notification of the Tier 3 violations on an annual basis in
one notification (or possibly in the Consumer Confidence Report) would be sufficient for most
violations that fall in this category. By providing these notices in the Consumer Confidence
Report (for community water systems), there is a better chance that they will be seen than if they
are published in the Legal Notice section of a newspaper. Since they will have a better chance of
being seen, there is also a better chance that they will be read. In addition, since other water
quality information will also be available in the same document, the information may mean more
to the consumer than if published or distributed as an individual notice.

Response: EPA agrees and has continued to provide for this option in the final
rule.

City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department (1.05): Since the proposed rule requires that
public water systems provide the Tier 3 notice to all customers served no later one year after the
system learns of the violation, the Department supports the proposal for an annual summary of
violations to be included in the Consumer Confidence Report. Using an annual summary report
instead of individual notices for each violation could significantly reduce notification cost. In
fact, one of the requirements of the Consumer Confidence Report is to report any compliance
violation that the water system had in the calendar year.

Response: EPA agrees and has continued to provide for this option in the final
rule.

Washington State Department of Health, Division of Drinking Water (1.06): We fully support
the use of the Consumer Confidence Report for Tier 3 PN reporting. We are concerned,

134

-------
however, that a PWS could be confused by the offset of the CCR's calendar-year reporting
period versus the PN 12-month reporting period. The two reporting periods do not coincide. We
anticipate some PWS will report violations in the CCR that pre-date the 12-month Tier 3
reporting period. It is critical that the PN rule and PN Handbook clearly differentiate the off-set
reporting dates and explain that the CCR may be used for Tier 3 reporting only for PN violations
that occurred during the last 12 months relative to the CCR publication date.

Response: The final rule gives water systems the option of providing an annual
notice summarizing all Tier 3 violations; the rule also gives community water
systems the option to use the CCR to give initial public notice for violations
occurring during the previous twelve months, provided the CCR meets the timing,
content, and distribution requirements for public notification. The Public
Notification Handbook will provide system operators with suggestions on how to
coordinate Tier 3 notices with the CCR.

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): DMWW agrees with EPA's proposed approach to allow a
public water system to use the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) to list annual Tier 3
violations and situations. This method of public notification allows a public water system to
reduce the costs of providing notification and provides an adequate measure to do so. In our
opinion, many of the violations a public water system incurs would be classified as a Tier 3
violation or situation. To allow a CCR to fulfill public notification requirements for these
violations and situations lessens the burden on public water systems.

Response: EPA agrees and has continued to provide for this option in the final
rule.

Massachusetts DEP (1.08): If a water system is going to use its CCR as the reporting mechanism
for Tier 3 violations, it must distribute the CCR through direct mail or use another means of
direct delivery. Water systems with mailing waivers shouldn't be allowed to use their CCRs as
the public notice of a Tier 3 violation. Although good faith efforts are supposed to ensure that
those consumers who don't receive a CCR through direct delivery see a copy of the report,
public notices should be treated differently. Tier 3 violations, although they don't pose an acute
health risk, should be distributed through public notice requirements. If the CCR option is used,
the primacy agency must insure that those public water systems directly deliver their CCRs.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter. The rule and Public Notification
Handbook will clarify that CCRs may only be used for public notification if
public notification delivery requirements are met.

Commission of Public Works, City of Spartanburg, SC (1.10): Proposed requirements for Tier 3
Public Notice (141.204), Special Notice of Data Availability for Unregulated Contaminants
(141.207), and Special Notice for Exceedance of the SMCL for Fluoride (141.208) have much in
common with requirements of the Consumer Confidence Report Rule. The situations proposed to
require notification in these three classes carry a low risk of adverse effects on human health.

135

-------
While SWS strongly supports the consumer's right to know any pertinent information about
drinking water quality, SWS believes the items included in these classes of notification are
already adequately addressed, and the consumer's right to know adequately protected, by the
Consumer Confidence Report Rule which already requires annual reporting of items covered by
these three classes of notification. The proposed Public Notification Rule requirements will result
in unnecessary duplication of effort and redundancy of reporting, without significantly improving
protection of the water consumer's health. SWS therefore recommends that proposed
requirements for Tier 3 Public Notice, Special Notice of Data Availability for Unregulated
Contaminants, and Special Notice for Exceedance of the SMCL for Fluoride be modified so that
inclusion of these items in the earliest Consumer Confidence Report following the time the water
system learns of a situation requiring one of these three notices will satisfy the requirements of
the Public Notification Rule.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that notices of data availability for
unregulated contaminants, and special notice for exceedance of the SMCL for
fluoride could be included in the CCR, as long as the timing and content
requirements of the PN rule are met. However, notice must be provided within
one year- this is the deadline specified in Section 1414 of SDWA. EPA
encourages systems to do what they can to coordinate Tier 3 notices with their
CCRs, and intends to provide guidance on how to accomplish this in the Public
Notification Handbook.

Consumer Federation of America (1.11): We do not support including that annual notification in
the text of the CCR. The large number of less serious monitoring violations to be reported would
crowd and confuse the "big picture" Consumer Confidence Report. Instead, the annual Tier 3
Public Notice to all customers should be made in a separate document either in its own mailing
or as an enclosure in the mailing of the Consumer Confidence Report.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The Agency encourages systems
to make use of the CCR or an annual report to distribute Tier 3 notices. EPA
believes the two documents can be combined because PNs and CCRs provide
similar information, although their messages are different. Combining the two
documents can be more efficient for the water system without reducing the
effectiveness of either. EPA notes that the CCR can be used only where doing so
would meet the timing, content, and delivery requirements for public notification.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): For the relatively few deserving community
systems for which annual notice in the CCR is sufficient, please keep it simple and allow a Tier 3
violation to be listed this way even if more than 12 months lapses. This way a system with a
January monitoring violation would be allowed the same latitude as a system with a violation
later in the calendar year. No more than 18-months could lapse since the CCR's will be due out
by July 1 following the calendar year in question. If public notification truly can wait 12 months,
another 6 months will not hurt. Also tracking would be most tedious if this flexibility is not
allowed.

136

-------
Use of an annual notice summarizing all Tier 3 violations must be at the discretion of the state
agency instead [of] an option allowed to systems. For example, as part of a bilateral compliance
agreement, public notice for multiple months would be allowed.

Response: EPA considered extending the deadline for Tier 3 notices to 18 months
but has decided to stay with the proposed 12-month deadline. EPA believes the
one-year deadline is justified because the violations and situations in Tier 3 are
non-serious. EPA believes that notification of these violations or situations is
more a right-to-know issue than a public health concern. EPA rejected extending
the Tier 3 deadline to 18 months because the SDWA Amendments specify a
deadline of no more than one year and this is sufficient time to make this
information available. EPA notes that nothing precludes a system operator from
publishing the CCR before July 1 to allow inclusion of public notices of
violations that occur in the second half of the previous calendar year. In response
to the commenter's request that use of annual notices be at the primacy agency's
discretion, EPA notes that the primacy agency has authority to elevate any
violation to Tier 2 or Tier 1. Primacy agencies would be able to track compliance
with Tier 3 public notification via the system's certification that the PN
requirements have been met.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports the use of an annual report of
violations rather than individual notices twelve months after each violation. An entire series of
notices dilutes the importance of these violations. AWWA also supports the use of the Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR) to meet the Tier 3 annual requirements.

Response: EPA agrees and has continued to provide for this in the final rule.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): This will not work when a violation occurs
in the months of January through June. Beginning in the year 2000, the CCR will be due
annually in July. If you wait until then to report the violation that occurred in the months of
January through June of the previous year, you will violate this rule. When a violation occurs in
the months of January through June, would a water system have to provide a public notice within
12 months AND report the violation in the CCR, OR provide a public notice, only? We would
recommend that the water system report Tier 3 violations within 12 months of occurrence, and
include it in the CCR for that year.

Response: EPA acknowledges that there are some difficulties in using the CCR to
distribute some public notices. However, where the timing of violations allows it,
EPA does recommend using the CCR because doing so would be less costly for
the water system. Furthermore, annual notices would be less redundant and be
more likely to get consumers' attention. EPA also notes that there is nothing
preventing a system from including a violation that occurs between January and
July in the CCR, even if it is not from the calendar year covered by the report. If
a violation occurs between January and July, a system would have to provide a

137

-------
public notice within 12 months (possibly by including it in the CCR issued in July
for the previous calendar year), but it would still have to be included in the CCR
again the following year. The Public Notification Handbook will provide system
operators with suggestions on how to coordinate Tier 3 notices with the CCR.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): This is a logical way to meet Tier 3 requirements, and helps
align the PNR with CCR requirements. However, the rule is somewhat confusing in
coordinating "annual" notice for Tier 3 with CCR reporting. For example, water systems
shouldn't be penalized if the CCR is published more than 12 months after a violation because of
the timing of the CCR .... Annual Report in Lieu of individual notices - An excellent way to
effectively implement the requirement. Too many notices on different frequencies will only
cause confusion. Community water systems can use the CCR, and an annual report could be
used by other systems.

Response: The CCR may not be used for PN unless the Tier 3 violation included
in it occurred within the 12 months prior to publishing of the CCR. This is
because Section 1414 of SDWA provides a 12-month deadline for PN reporting.

The rule and Public Notification Handbook will clarify this issue. EPA agrees
with the commenter concerning annual notice instead of individual notices.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (1.22): Due to the logistics of preparing and
distributing the annual CCR, it is possible that Tier 3 violations that occur early in the calendar
year may not be communicated to the public within the proposed 12-month period since the CCR
deadline is July of the following year (up to 18 months later). While the SFPUC agrees with
EPA that the CCR is the most appropriate document to present Tier 3 public notices, the SFPUC
urges the EPA to consider extending the Tier 3 deadline to 18 months to allow such violations to
be included in the annual CCR.

Response: EPA considered extending the deadline for Tier 3 notices to 18 months
but has decided to stay with the proposed 12-month deadline. This is the deadline
specified in Section 1414 of SDWA. The final rule gives water systems the
option of using the CCR to give initial public notice for violations occurring
during the previous twelve months, provided the CCR meets the timing, content,
and distribution requirements for public notification. The advantages of using the
CCR or an annual notice instead of individual notices for every violation are
compelling, both in terms of reduced cost and in terms of effective
communication with the consumers. EPA strongly recommends that public water
systems make use of the annual notice option. The Public Notification Handbook
will provide system operators with suggestions on how to coordinate Tier 3
notices with the CCR.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): ASDWA is concerned that use of
the CCR as the recommended method of delivery for Tier 3 notices will cause significant
confusion for many systems because of the conflicting time frames. ASDWA offers two options

138

-------
to alleviate this situation: 1) Allow Tier 3 notices to be reported within 18 months, thus allowing
systems to include the information in their CCRs without violating the 12 month versus annual
requirements; or 2) Allow systems to use an annual reporting clock (versus a 12 month clock)
for Tier 3 violations to coincide with the annual requirement for the CCR. ASDWA considers
either of these options to be preferable to that recommended in the proposal.

Response: EPA considered extending the deadline for Tier 3 notices to 18 months
but has decided to stay with the proposed 12-month deadline. This is the deadline
specified in Section 1414 of SDWA. The final rule gives water systems the
option of using the CCR to give initial public notice for violations occurring
during the previous twelve months, provided the CCR meets the timing, content,
and distribution requirements for public notification. The advantages of using the
CCR or an annual notice instead of individual notices for every violation are
compelling, both in terms of reduced cost and in terms of effective
communication with the consumers. EPA strongly recommends that public water
systems make use of the annual notice option. The Public Notification Handbook
will provide system operators with suggestions on how to coordinate Tier 3
notices with the CCR.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): The provision encouraging systems to include their
public notices in their annual RTK Report (CCRs) rather than as stand alone, distinct documents,
ignores the differences between the two documents. The Right to Know Reports are only
required to go to PWS customers (with certain requirements to make good faith efforts to reach
non-bill paying consumers) and are intended to report the annual state of the system that serves.
In these, the system must report any contaminants in the water, possible sources of these, and any
variances and exemptions. They contain information on a range of issues including the water
source, and can contain any other information the system wishes to include.

The notices required in the Public Notification rule serve a much narrower and important
purpose. They are intended to capture the readers attention, specifically and simply describe the
existing (or recently existing if now corrected) problem, warn of risks and possible health effects,
and inform all persons served by the system directly or indirectly of what the system has done to
or will do to correct the problem. These reports should not be buried among the information
contained in the CCRs. Consumers need timely information prominently presented that they can
readily understand.

In addition, it should be noted that in amending this section of the SDWA, Congress explicitly
adopted two separate, freestanding annual reporting requirements on the PN requirement, the
other the RTK Report requirement. If Congress had wished to have PN and RTK reports, which
are required by the same section of the SDWA, consolidated, Congress could and would have
said so. Instead, the separate purposes behind these two provisions (general versus very specific)
lead to the separate, important requirements. . . .

139

-------
RTK Reports are only mailed to water system customers (with certain good faith efforts to reach
non-bill paying consumers who are not customers), whereas the PN provision of the Safe
Drinking Water Act requires notice be provided to all persons served. Mailing PNs in the RTK
Reports to customers would not achieve the required statutory end. Similarly, we urge the agency
to reject the mailing of Tier Three notices as bill stuffers as we are concerned these important
notices may be overlooked.

Response: PNs and CCRs provide similar information, although their messages
are different. Combining the two documents can be more efficient for the water
system without reducing the effectiveness of either. Congress did not prohibit the
combination of the PN and CCR, and EPA believes that it has discretion to allow
this. EPA notes that the CCR can be used only where doing so would meet the
timing, content, and delivery requirements for public notification. The Public
Notification Handbook will provide system operators with suggestions on how to
effectively coordinate Tier 3 notices with the CCR. Regarding the commenter's
concern that bill stuffers would not draw adequate attention, EPA notes that part
141.205(c)(2)(iii) requires that notices not be formatted in a way that defeats the
purpose of the notice.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania agrees that an
annual report and/or a consumer confidence report are suitable ways to give annual notice of any
Tier 3 violations at CWSs and some NTNCWSs.

Response: EPA gives community water systems the option to use the CCR to
give initial public notice for violations occurring during the previous twelve
months, provided the CCR meets the timing, content, and distribution
requirements for public notification. The advantages of using the CCR or an
annual notice instead of individual notices for every violation are compelling,
both in terms of reduced cost and in terms of effective communication with the
consumers. EPA strongly recommends that public water systems make use of the
annual notice option.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (1.28): Although we can see the benefits
of a three tier notification process, we do not agree that water systems should be given up to a
year to report what is currently defined as tier three violations (such as monitoring and reporting
violations (M/Rs)). Our program spends a great deal of time stressing the importance of
monitoring on a timely basis and working with systems to avoid M/R violations. We feel that
allowing up to a year to report a monitoring error undermines our efforts. Also, by requiring a
quick turnaround time for M/R public notice (such as required under Tier 2 notification (30
days)), we believe that it helps us achieve better monitoring compliance. Many systems are
motivated to sample on time if they know that public notice will be required promptly if
compliance doesn't occur. We believe that our enforcement tracking abilities will suffer if a year
is allowed to elapse between violation and notice. Also we believe that consumers should be
notified promptly when an error has occurred so that proper measures can be taken immediately

140

-------
to rectify the situation. . .Based on these same reasons, we are also not in favor of using the
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) as a vehicle to notify for initial violations.

Response: EPA considered extending the deadline for Tier 3 notices to 18 months
but has decided to stay with the proposed 12-month deadline. EPA believes the
one-year deadline is justified because the violations and situations in Tier 3 are
non-serious. EPA believes that notification of these violations or situations is
more a right-to-know issue than a public health concern. EPA rejected extending
the Tier 3 deadline to 18 months because the SDWA Amendments specify a
deadline of no more than one year and this is sufficient time to make this
information available. EPA notes that nothing precludes a system operator from
publishing the CCR before July 1 to allow inclusion of public notices of
violations that occur in the first half of the previous calendar year.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): [W]e support the use of the CCR for meeting PN
requirements for all Tier 3 violations that occurred in the previous calendar year rather than just
within 12 months of CCR publication. This would mean that PN might be given up to 18 months
after some Tier 3 violations had occurred. The difference between 12 months and 18 months is
insignificant.

Response: EPA considered extending the deadline for Tier 3 notices to 18 months
but has decided to stay with the proposed 12-month deadline. This is the deadline
specified in Section 1414 of SDWA. The final rule gives water systems the
option of using the CCR to give initial public notice for violations occurring
during the previous twelve months, provided the CCR meets the timing, content,
and distribution requirements for public notification. The advantages of using the
CCR or an annual notice instead of individual notices for every violation are
compelling, both in terms of reduced cost and in terms of effective
communication with the consumers. EPA strongly recommends that public water
systems make use of the annual notice option. The Public Notification Handbook
will provide system operators with suggestions on how to coordinate Tier 3
notices with the CCR.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): Inclusion of the violation into the CCR and thus
meeting the public notification requirement through that mechanism, will only work for
violations incurred from July 1 - December 31 each year, since the CCR is supposed to contain
data from the reporting year and up to nine years previous to the reporting year. It is not
supposed to contain violations that occur after the CCR calendar year reporting period and before
the CCR is published (which is by July 1st of the year following the calendar year reporting
period). Violations that occur between January 1st and whenever the PWS publishes its CCR
(July 1st at the latest) would not be solely published in the CCR in order to meet the 12-month
deadline. The IDNR suggests that the period be shortened to a 90-day period, similar to the
existing rule, and that no exception be made for solely publishing it in the CCR as a means to
notify the public. Additionally, it will make tracking the public notice response difficult for the

141

-------
primacy agency if they are required to read the CCR of every CWS with a single violation in
order to determine compliance with the public notice rules. EPA has made no provisions to the
primacy agencies for this added requirement.

In light of the previously made comments about inclusion of the public notice in the CCR,
provision should be made in the CCR rules under subpart O that mailing waivers for systems less
than 10,000 and 500 in population are not available to any system which has incurred a violation
under subpart Q. It should also be reiterated in 141.204(d) that the CCR mailing waivers are not
available for any CWS that has had a Tier 3 violation. In Iowa, we do not allow CCR mailing
waivers for any CWS with a Tier 1 or 2 violation. It does not serve the intent by Congress of the
new public notification/awareness initiatives to allow mailing waivers for systems in violation
with the NPDWR. . . .

If a CWS uses the CCR to provide the Tier 3 public notice, and no CCR is distributed, what
actions are required of the PWS?

Response: EPA believes the one-year deadline is justified because the violations
and situations in Tier 3 are non-serious. EPA believes that notification of these
violations or situations is more a right-to-know issue than a public health concern.

There is nothing preventing a system from including a violation that occurs
between January and July in the CCR, even if it is not from the calendar year
covered by the report. If a violation occurs between January and July, a system
would have to provide a public notice within 12 months (possibly by including it
in the CCR issued in July for the previous calendar year), but it would still have to
be included in the CCR again the following year. The PN rule does not allow the
use of the CCR for public notification unless public notification delivery
requirements are met. Systems which want to make use of mailing waivers may
not include public notices in their CCRs. Primacy agencies would be able to track
compliance with Tier 3 public notification via the system's certification that the
PN requirements have been met.

Utah DEQ, Division of Drinking Water (1.31): Utah supports the longer time frame for public
notice for monitoring violations. In fact if it is EPA intention to consolidate Tier 3 public notice
with the CCR, the CCR may not be sent out for up to 18 months. . .Utah recommends that EPA
extend the time frame for public notice for Tier 3 violations to 18 months for community water
systems to allow the notice to be included in the CCR.

Response: EPA considered extending the deadline for Tier 3 notices to 18 months
but has decided to stay with the proposed 12-month deadline. This is the deadline
specified in Section 1414 of SDWA. The final rule gives water systems the
option of using the CCR to give initial public notice for violations occurring
during the previous twelve months, provided the CCR meets the timing, content,
and distribution requirements for public notification. The advantages of using the
CCR or an annual notice instead of individual notices for every violation are

142

-------
compelling, both in terms of reduced cost and in terms of effective
communication with the consumers. EPA strongly recommends that public water
systems make use of the annual notice option. The Public Notification Handbook
will provide system operators with suggestions on how to coordinate Tier 3
notices with the CCR.

City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): CWD believes that
the Consumer Confidence Report should be used to issue the notice to customers for those
violations that are not immediately dangerous to life and health. This rule requires that violations
be included, so why should a duplicate list be created and sent to customers separately?

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and is recommending that systems
use the CCR to distribute Tier 3 public notices wherever possible. EPA believes
the two documents can be combined because they provide similar information,
although their messages are different. EPA also believes that this approach is
more efficient for water systems. EPA notes that the CCR can be used only where
doing so would meet the timing, content, and delivery requirements for public
notification.

Minnesota Department of Health (1.40): The proposed public notification rule allows Consumer
Confidence Reports (CCR) to be used to summarize Tier 3 violations; however, the restrictions
attached to this option means that a CCR may be used to summarize Tier 3 violations in some,
but not all, situations. This creates the potential for confusion among water systems. We feel it
would be better either to remove the restrictions so that a CCR can be used to summarize all Tier
3 violations or to eliminate this as an option altogether.

First, under the proposed rule, the CCR will have to be mailed or hand-delivered to persons
served for it to satisfy public notification requirements. All systems serving fewer than 10,000
people (which, in Minnesota, comprises nearly 95 percent of the community water systems) have
other distribution options for the CCR beyond mailing or hand delivery. Although they will
satisfy CCR requirements if they use alternative distribution options, they will not have complied
with public notification requirements if they use the CCR to summarize Tier 3 violations.

In addition, the proposed rule states that the CCR can be used to summarize only Tier 3
violations which have occurred within 12 months of distribution. This means that only Tier 3
violations occurring after a certain point in the year (realistically, from some point between April
and July) could be summarized in the CCR.

If the intent is for the CCR to be a primary means of notification of Tier 3 violations, the rule
should be written to allow it to include all Tier 3 violations (not just those that occur after a
certain point in the year) -and through all types of allowable distribution of the CCR. Otherwise,
we recommend not allowing the CCR to be used at all to summarize Tier 3 violations; rather, the
current manner of notification for monitoring and reporting violations should remain in place.

143

-------
To allow the CCR to be used for Tier 3 violations—but only under certain conditions-will cause
great confusion among community water systems, and will lead to less, rather than greater,
compliance with the Public Notification Rule as many systems will mistakenly use the CCR and
be under the belief that they have satisfied the requirements for notification when, in fact, they
have not due to timing or distribution considerations.

In addition to the confusion this will cause, we are concerned about how difficult and
complicated it will make the tracking of notifications of Tier 3 violations for our compliance
officers. Under the current rule, they merely have to ensure that such notification was performed
within a specified period of the violation. Under the proposed rule, if the notification is done
through the CCR, we will have to take into account the date of the Tier 3 violation, the date that
the CCR was distributed to the system's customers, and also, the type of distribution that was
done.

Either allow all CCRs to be used for summarizing all Tier 3 violations from the preceding year-
regardless of the exact timing or type of distribution—or don't allow the CCRs to be used for this
purpose at all. To do it in such a halfway manner will only cause great confusion and create a
record keeping nightmare for our compliance staff.

Response: EPA intends to continue recommending that systems use the CCR to
distribute Tier 3 notices wherever possible. EPA believes the two documents can
be combined because they provide similar information, although their messages
are different. EPA also believes that this approach is more efficient for water
systems. However, if operators find combining the documents to be confusing,
nothing in the rule prevents them from issuing separate documents. EPA cannot
extend the Tier 3 deadline to 18 months because the SDWA Amendments specify
a deadline of no more than one year. EPA notes that the CCR can be used only
where doing so would meet the timing, content, and delivery requirements for
public notification. Primacy agencies would be able to track compliance with
Tier 3 public notification via the system's certification that the PN requirements
have been met.

City of Chandler (AZ), Office of the City Attorney (1.41): The one (1) year time period for Tier
3 Public Notice (see Section 141.204(b) and (d)) is not always practicable if such notice is to be
included in the CCR. Tier 3 violations that occur in the first or second quarter of a year may be
out of sync with the CCR calendar year reporting period since the CCR is published before July
1 following that calendar year. The rule should be set up to encourage the use of the CCR to
provide such notices. Extending this time period to 15 or 18 months for Tier 3 violations would
ensure the viability of using the CCR as the mechanism of choice for providing such notices.
Unnecessarily adding separate notices only serves to dilute the impact of the notices received by
water customers.

Response: EPA considered extending the deadline for Tier 3 notices to 18 months
but has decided to stay with the proposed 12-month deadline. This is the deadline

144

-------
specified in Section 1414 of SDWA. The final rule gives water systems the
option of using the CCR to give initial public notice for violations occurring
during the previous twelve months, provided the CCR meets the timing, content,
and distribution requirements for public notification. The advantages of using the
CCR or an annual notice instead of individual notices for every violation are
compelling, both in terms of reduced cost and in terms of effective
communication with the consumers. EPA strongly recommends that public water
systems make use of the annual notice option. The Public Notification Handbook
will provide system operators with suggestions on how to coordinate Tier 3
notices with the CCR.

Akron (OH) Public Utilities Bureau (2.4): APUB agrees with the rule as written including . . .
the option to allow public water systems to provide an annual report of Tier 3 violations in lieu
of individual notices twelve months after each violation [and] ... the use of the Consumer
Confidence Report to meet the Tier 3 public notification requirements for the method of delivery
of the Tier 3 notices

Response: EPA agrees and has continued to provide for this in the final rule.

Adrianna Quintero, Natural Resources Defense Council (at DC meeting) (E.2): CCRs should not
be used for reporting Tier 3 violations. CCRs contain so much other distracting information that
consumers would not pay attention to the monitoring violations. Isn't the idea of the public
notification rule that the notice be accessible and quick and easy to read, no matter what tier the
violation falls into?

Response: EPA disagrees that the CCR would distract consumers from
information on violations. The CCR gives consumers a context for the
information in a public notice and is easy to read. EPA is recommending that
systems use the CCR to distribute Tier 3 notices wherever possible. EPA believes
the two documents can be combined because they provide similar information,
although their messages are different. The violations and situations in Tier 3 are
non-serious violations, and the CCR is an effective way to communicate public
notice for these violations or situations. EPA notes that the CCR can be used only
where doing so would meet the timing, content, and delivery requirements for
public notification.

Phyllis Rowe, Arizona Consumers Council (at Phoenix meeting) (E.4): The CCR should be in a
table format and be simple to read. Including monitoring violations would make the CCR more
confusing. Monitoring violations should be in a separate notice, since they make up 90 percent
of all violations.

Response: EPA notes that any monitoring and testing procedure violations that
occur during the year are required to be included in CCRs, regardless of whether
the CCR is used for PN. Monitoring and testing procedure violations included in

145

-------
the CCR are not required to be in tabular format, although systems may do so if
they choose. Standard language for monitoring and testing procedure violations
must still be included, however.

Unidentified participant at Phoenix meeting (E.4): Recommending use of the CCRs to distribute
Tier 3 notices may encourage a violation if the timing of the CCR would exceed the 12-month
deadline. Can the CCR deadline be changed?

Response: EPA considered extending the deadline for Tier 3 notices to 18 months
but has decided to stay with the proposed 12-month deadline. EPA rejected
extending the Tier 3 deadline to 18 months because the SDWA Amendments
specify a deadline of no more than one year and this is sufficient time to make this
information available. EPA notes that nothing precludes a system operator from
publishing the CCR before July 1 to allow inclusion of public notices of
violations that occur in the first half of the previous calendar year.

146

-------
Topic 15: 141.205 (a) What elements must be included in the public notice
for violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR),
including the monitoring and testing procedure requirements?

Comments are requested on the list of elements in the proposal, the four performance
standards identifiedfor how the notices must be presented, and the more specific
requirement for public water systems to communicate with large non-English speaking
populations about the importance of the public notice when violations occur. (26 FR
25978)

Comments:

Oregon Health Division (1.20): These seem reasonable.

Response: EPA has retained this approach in the final rule.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): ASDWA requests that the "required
ten elements" for public notification be clarified to reflect the fact that, as described, all ten
cannot be included in most Tier 3 notices. ASDWA suggests that a separate paragraph be
included to note the special needs of these notices in identifying and describing appropriate
health effects such as for failure to monitor and how to address populations at risk from, for
example, late reporting of a testing procedure.

Response: The ten elements specified in the PN rule apply to all National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations, and are to be addressed as appropriate. If, for example,
there is no population at risk, the notice should state this. EPA has designed the rule to
give systems the flexibility to create an accurate and understandable notice.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): There is also a change from the existing
mandatory public notice language where typical sources of contamination are no longer listed in
this new public notice language. While those sources are listed in the annual CCR, it would seem
beneficial to the public in learning about these possible sources in the public notice rather than
solely in the CCR. Noncommunities do not publish a CCR, and so that affected public would
never be told of these sources. The IDNR supports the reinstatement of the possible causes of the
contaminant back into the mandatory public notice language, whether in a different table or as
part of the health effects language.

Response: EPA is not requiring systems to list possible or known sources of
contamination. The purpose of a public notice is to alert consumers to problems
with their drinking water; the focus of the notice is the health effects from
drinking water violations. Public notices cover only the most essential issues
necessary to give people the information they need to protect their health.

Operators are free to add other information to their notices, including possible or

147

-------
known sources of contamination. Information on the source water could also be
included in the description of what the system is doing to remedy the violation.
EPA believes that this information is more appropriate in the CCR.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Maryland supports the ten elements of the
notice.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained the ten elements in the final rule.

University of Florida, Soil and Water Science Department (2.1): The required elements of a
public notice need to be relaxed for templates prepared for low-literacy audiences. In the rewrite
of the fecal coliform template that I gave you at the public hearing, I left out some of the
"required elements" because they would only confuse adult poor readers.

Response: Except for the health effects language, which may not be altered, the
text describing the ten elements may be tailored to any audience; however, EPA
believes that each of the ten required elements must be addressed in some manner.

Unidentified participant at DC meeting (E.2): Notices should include the source of the
contamination.

Response: EPA is not requiring systems to list possible or known sources of
contamination. The purpose of a public notice is to alert consumers to problems
with their drinking water; the focus of the notice is the health effects from
drinking water violations. Public notices cover only the most essential issues
necessary to give people the information they need to protect their health.

Operators are free to add other information to their notices, including possible or
known sources of contamination. Information on the source water could also be
included in the description of what the system is doing to remedy the violation.
EPA believes that this information is more appropriate in the CCR.

141.205 (a)(1) A description of the violation

Comments:

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania has reviewed the
request for comments found at the end of this section. We find the requirement to include the
contaminant level when it is applicable, such as with an MCL violation, to have merit. However,
there is concern that no direction is given to suppliers regarding the unit of measurement to use.
Currently, suppliers must report compliance sample results in mg/L while in the CCR, suppliers
must report in CCR values, which may be less than mg/L. Since only one contaminant is usually
involved in a Tier 1 or Tier 2 PN, it is strongly recommended that the supplier be required to use
the compliance reporting value in mg/L. This would reduce the risk of math conversion errors
and provide consistency with the compliance determination process.

148

-------
Response: EPA has not required the use of specific units in public notices.

Systems or states that want to require whole numbers may do so on their own.

EPA's intent is that public notices and CCRs be as consistent as possible.

Carroll County (MD) Health Department Bureau of Environmental Health (1.27): First, actual
contaminant levels will have to be included in the notices for all M.C.L. violations. Currently,
that is not done for coliform/fecal coliform notices.

Response: The standard for coliform/fecal coliform violations specifies a
minimum number of allowable samples that can test positive in a given month.
The sample notices in the Public Notification Handbook describe these violations
in this manner.

Lehigh County (PA) Authority (1.38): The Consumer Confidence Report regulation requires
utilities to convert MCLS, MCLGS and detected contaminant levels into whole numbers, but the
Proposed Public Notification Rule does not. The two rules should be consistent to ensure proper
public education.

Response: Although EPA has not required the use of specific units in public
notices, systems may use whole numbers and states may require this. EPA
recommends consistency between public notices and other communications
issued by water systems. If operators feel that communicating in a way that is
different from that in the CCR is more effective, they are free to do so.

University of Florida, Soil and Water Science Department (2.1): . . .maximum contaminant level
(MCL) would mean nothing to low-literacy audiences and may not mean anything to good
readers, either.

Response: A PWS is free to define the term maximum contaminant level or MCL
in the notice. EPA is using this term to maintain consistency.

141.205 (a)(2) When the violation occurred

Comments: None.

141.205 (a)(3) Health effects language

EPA is requesting comment on the proposal to use the CCR standard health
effects language to meet the public notification requirement. In particular, EPA is
soliciting comment on specific situations or violations where the CCR language is
believed to be inappropriate or incomplete. Recommendations for alternative
language for such situations would also be helpful. (64 FR 25978)

149

-------
Note: comments related to mandatory health effects language are included under Section
141.205 (d)(1).

141.205 (a)(4) The population at risk
Comments:

Mike Mecke (1.01): Education & warnings should be made mandatory regarding any
possibilities of AIDS, chemotherapy patients, or other immune-deficient persons becoming
exposed to crypto or other dangerous pathogens. Information should be made readily available
at all times (and updated) providing info [sic] on infection prevention for these persons. All
systems.

Response: Public notices are required to include information on populations at
risk from the violation, including chemotherapy patients, or other
immune-deficient persons, where appropriate. EPA agrees that additional
information might be useful to the public; however, public notices are not the
appropriate forum for providing broad public education concerning the risks faced
by these populations. In the Public Notification Handbook, EPA plans to
recommend to operators that they inform public health agencies of violations.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): We believe this phrase can be interpreted in
various ways. For example, some have interpreted the phrase in its broadest way, meaning all
persons who receive drinking water from the system, while other have interpreted it in the
narrowest way, meaning only those persons within the system likely to be affected. It is our
opinion that an interpretation closer to the latter, more narrow approach, should be specified. Our
reason is based on the fact that the city of Phoenix has a number of water treatment plants. Each
generally serves a specific area of the city. We also have wells which supplement only a small
portion of be area served by a treatment plant. If a contaminant were found at a well, it would
have no effect of the vast majority of customers. Thus, it is logical that the notification should be
targeted for those customers at risk and not others. We propose that the rule say: "The
population at risk [those directly affected by the violation if it is limited to a specific identifiable
portion of the water system's area], including subpopulations ..."

Response: EPA disagrees that this requirement should be changed. By
population at risk, EPA does not mean the population affected, rather those people
who may experience more severe effects if exposed to the contaminant than the
rest of the population. For example, infants are more likely to be affected by
elevated nitrate levels. In the Public Notification Handbook, the population at
risk is listed in the templates, where applicable.

City of Chandler (AZ), Office of the City Attorney (1.41): It is inappropriate to require public
water systems to develop language regarding the notice content requirements set forth in
Sections 141.205(a)(3)-(6) and, as such, those requirements should be eliminated. If there are

150

-------
potential health effects on populations at risk etc. that EPA thinks should be discussed, why
doesn't EPA include such language in the "standard language" that EPA requires to be in the
notice. Presumably, EPA has already studied these effects when establishing mcl's. Water
systems should not have to make this determination on a parameter by parameter basis only to
open themselves up to second guessing by EPA as to the determinations made.

Response: EPA disagrees that requirements at 141.205(a)(3)-(6) should be
eliminated. Standard health effects language is provided in Appendix B to
Subpart Q. For some contaminants, this standard language identifies portions of
the population who are particularly susceptible to the health effects of a
contaminant (e.g., infants or the elderly). The templates in the Public Notification
Handbook provide suggested language for system to use, including the elements
the commenter mentions, e.g., the need to use alternative water supplies and
actions consumers should take.

Unidentified participant at Phoenix meeting (E.4): The requirement for identifying the
population at risk should not apply to Tier 3 notices.

Response: This element is required in the SDWA for all notices. The PWS
should describe the population at risk based on the specific violation and the
seriousness of the violation. If there is no population at risk due to the violation,
the notice should state this.

141.205 (a)(5) Whether alternative water supplies should be used

Comments: See comment from the City of Chandler under 141.205(a)(4).

141.205 (a)(6) What actions consumers should take

Comments: See comment from the City of Chandler under 141.205(a)(4).

141.205 (a)(7) What the system is doing to correct the violation

Comments: None.

141.205 (a)(8) When the water system expects to return to compliance
Comments:

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): We believe there are cases when it is
impossible to make a specific statement. For example, if there has been an E. Coli violation, tests
must be conducted to learn the cause/source of the bacteria. Almost always studies conducted to
determine the cause take longer than the 24 hours within which notice must be given, so no
estimate can be made about how long it will take to correct the situation. In many other cases, the

151

-------
source cannot be found, but repeated testing shows there is no longer any bacteria in the water
system. Consequently, when such cases arise, we recommend the following language be
substituted: "When the water system expects to return to compliance, or, if such an estimate
cannot be made, that the water system state that testing is underway to determine the cause of the
problem and determine action needed to return to compliance, and that customers will be notified
when compliance is achieved."

Response: EPA proposed that notices include an estimated return to compliance
to give consumers an idea of how long it might take to solve the problem. A
specific date is not necessary but an estimated time span is. For instance,
coliform violations could take a week or more, while chemical violations could
take months. EPA encourages but does not require systems to actually tell their
consumers when they do return to compliance. EPA's regulations do not hold
water system operators accountable if they do not return to compliance by the date
they cite on the notice. "Return to compliance" is not specifically defined in the
rule because states might have varying standards on when systems have returned
to compliance. In the Public Notification Handbook, EPA encourages systems to
call their primacy agencies for a determination of whether they are back in
compliance.

Carroll County (MD) Health Department Bureau of Environmental Health (1.27): Notices must
include "when the system expects to return to compliance". Often predicting this is difficult if not
impossible, especially when investigations of groundwater contamination are lengthy. Putting
this estimate in the notice would lead to the expectation that compliance would be achieved by
that date. This may place pressure on the system to do a "quick fix" and not really address the
problem.

Response: EPA proposed that notices include an estimated return to compliance
to give consumers an idea of how long it might take to solve the problem. A
specific date is not necessary but an estimated time span is. For instance,
coliform violations could take a week or more, while chemical violations could
take months. EPA encourages but does not require systems to actually tell their
consumers when they do return to compliance. EPA's regulations do not hold
water system operators accountable if they do not return to compliance by the date
they cite on the notice. "Return to compliance" is not specifically defined in the
rule because states might have varying standards on when systems have returned
to compliance. In the Public Notification Handbook, EPA encourages systems to
call their primacy agencies for a determination of whether they are back in
compliance.

Renee Hall, Virginia Department of Health (at DC meeting) (E.2): How can a system know
when it will be compliant again when it has an outbreak and it is doing additional testing? The
notice could say "in a few weeks." But what if the problem is still going on in a few weeks?

152

-------
Response: EPA proposed that notices include an estimated return to compliance
to give consumers an idea of how long it might take to solve the problem. A
specific date is not necessary but an estimated time span is. For instance,
coliform violations could take a week or more, while chemical violations could
take months. EPA encourages but does not require systems to actually tell their
consumers when they do return to compliance or if there is a delay in returning to
compliance. EPA's regulations do not hold water system operators accountable if
they do not return to compliance by the date they cite on the notice. "Return to
compliance" is not specifically defined in the rule because states might have
varying standards on when systems have returned to compliance. In the Public
Notification Handbook, EPA encourages systems to call their primacy agencies
for a determination of whether they are back in compliance.

Unidentified participant at Phoenix meeting (E.4): Systems probably will not know within 24
hours how long it will take to fix the problem. It is not a good idea to include an estimate,
because consumers may start drinking the water on that date whether the problem is corrected or
not.

Response: EPA proposed that notices include an estimated return to compliance
to give consumers an idea of how long it might take to solve the problem. A
specific date is not necessary but an estimated time span is. For instance,
coliform violations could take a week or more, while chemical violations could
take months. EPA encourages but does not require systems to actually tell their
consumers when they do return to compliance. EPA's regulations do not hold
water system operators accountable if they do not return to compliance by the date
they cite on the notice. "Return to compliance" is not specifically defined in the
rule because states might have varying standards on when systems have returned
to compliance. In the Public Notification Handbook, EPA encourages systems to
call their primacy agencies for a determination of whether they are back in
compliance.

141.205 (a)(9) Water system contact

Comments:

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): In addition to the phone number of the water
system designee, it would be advisable to require the phone number of the primacy agency also
be given. A lot of the public may not be aware, for example, that DNR regulates public water
systems rather than the Department of Health. On the public notice forms we send out, we give
the phone number of the DNR regional office that serves the system, which hopefully would not
mean a long-distance phone call for customers, and also the phone number of the Public
Drinking Water Program in Jefferson City.

153

-------
Response: EPA disagrees that public notices should include the phone number of
the primacy agency. Unlike Missouri DNR, many primacy agencies object to
having their telephone number on a public notice since this could result in
numerous calls about a violation and a great burden to the primacy agency.

Rather, EPA believes that the focus of a public notice for water quality violations
should be the system.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): The name of the owner/operator should be
added to the ninth element of the notice.

Response: EPA agrees that it would be beneficial to require the system name and
address and name of the operator or designee (such as customer service). This
would help consumers who write a letter to the operator instead of contacting the
system by telephone. EPA has added the name, business address, and phone
number of the water system owner, operator, or designee to the rule language at
141.205(a)(9).

141.205 (a)(10) A statement to encourage distribution of the
notice

Note: comments related to the standard language to encourage distribution are included under
Section 141.205(d)(3).

154

-------
Topic 16: 141.205 (b) What elements must be included in the public notice
for public water systems operating under a variance or exemption?

Comments:

Carroll County (MD) Health Department Bureau of Environmental Health (1.27): Another tier 3
condition is a system that operates under a variance or exception [sic]. Should all of these be
posted, including those with a "Bottled Water System" classification? Current postings do not
meet the content requirements of this proposal. Does this type of notice apply in a situation
where a tanker for potable water is authorized for temporary periods? Those facilities are
probably already posted for some other violation. Would we post 2 notices or just keep up the
other notices?

Response: This type of notice would apply in the water tanker situation the
commenter describes. Public notice is required for all variances or exemptions
granted under Section 1415 and 1416 of the SDWA. If a system is required by a
state or EPA to provide bottled water under enforcement or other authority, public
notice is required under the PN rule for the violation, not separately for the bottled
water.

155

-------
Topic 17: 141.205 (c) How is the public notice to be presented?

Comments:

Indiana DEM (1.04): In addition, the performance standards will also be useful to systems trying
to draft a notice and to primacy agencies trying to determine the completeness and adequacy of a
public notice.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained these standards in the final rule. EPA's
Public Notification Handbook will provide further guidance to systems as they
prepare public notices.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): [The] Four Performance Standards [are] Also reasonable.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained these standards in the final rule.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Maryland supports the four performance
standards. [However, for (1), "displayed in a conspicuous place;"] the system should be allowed
to describe the means of display in correspondence to the State.

Response: EPA feels that the phrase "must be displayed conspicuously (where
applicable)" is unclear, i.e., does it apply to newspapers or posted notices?

Therefore, the Agency has decided to change "where applicable" to "when printed
or posted" to clarify the intent of this requirement. The system may describe the
means of displaying the notice in its correspondence to the State.

City of Chandler (AZ) Office of the City Attorney (1.41): There are several somewhat vague
provisions that leave public water systems at risk. For example, Section 141.205(c)(l)(ii)
provides that the notice "must not contain overly technical language or very small print." The
subject matter, however, is technical in nature and it is difficult to determine at what point an
accurate description is "overly technical." Similarly, if the concern is "very small print" why not
just set forth a minimum print size?

Response: EPA agrees that communicating a message that is somewhat technical
in nature poses a challenge to systems. The Public Notification Handbook
provides guidance to water systems on how to present the message in a clear and
understandable way that meets all the requirements of the PN rule. Violation-
specific templates provide guidelines on layout of the notices.

156

-------
141.205 (c)(2)

Multilingual Requirements

Comments:

Indiana DEM (1.04): It is also useful to require at a minimum a statement in any language
spoken (or read) by a significant portion of the population of a water system that the information
is important and that they should have someone help them understand what is being
communicated (by translation or having someone who can answer their questions about the
drinking water in their language).

Response: EPA agrees. Appendix C of the Public Notification Handbook
contains statements in several languages relating to the importance of the message
in a public notice. EPA invites anyone who has additional translations to submit
them to the Agency.

Washington State Department of Health, Division of Drinking Water (1.06): The proposed rule
requires primacy agencies to determine for public water systems what constitutes a large
proportion of non-English speaking populations. As with the Consumer Confidence Report
regulation, this determination makes it difficult for states to honor the Civil Rights Act while not
overburdening water systems that must provide translations that address the importance of the
notice. The proposed rule states that the draft Public Notification (PN) Handbook contains
sample language regarding the importance of the notice and that Tier 1 notices are provided in
Spanish. We feel that EPA should provide numerous sample statements in a variety of languages
in the PN Handbook for use by purveyors regardless of the proportion of non-English speaking
populations served.

Response: The final rule requires that public water systems serving a large proportion of
non-English speaking consumers include in their notices, in the appropriate languages,
information on the importance of the notice or a telephone number or address where
persons served may contact the water system to obtain a translated copy of the notice or
to request assistance in the appropriate language. The multilingual requirement in the
final rule is identical to the multilingual provision in the CCR rule. It requires systems
serving a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, as determined by the
primacy agency, to provide multilingual notices. Where the primacy agency has not
determined what constitutes a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, the
public water system must make its own determination and must provide this information
in the public notice as appropriate to reach non-English speaking persons served by the
water system. EPA encourages water systems to go beyond the minimum multilingual
requirements in this rule, particularly for Tier 1 notice situations, and provide a fully
translated copy of the notice on request or offer telephone assistance in the appropriate
language. EPA is aware that many systems currently go beyond the multilingual notice
requirements of the PN rule, and the Agency encourages these systems to continue to do
so. The Public Notification Handbook will contain sample language regarding the
importance of the notice in various languages as well as complete sample Tier 1 public

157

-------
notices in Spanish. EPA offers its Web site as a clearing house for translated public
notices and invites anyone who has additional translations to submit them to the Agency.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): Will the primacy agency determine what is
a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers (what percent is considered a large
proportion)? Will the agency inform the water systems what other languages to provide in the
public notice, besides English, or is it up to the water system to determine the percentage of the
non-English speaking consumers?

Response: The final rule requires that public water systems serving a large proportion of
non-English speaking consumers include in their notices, in the appropriate languages,
information on the importance of the notice or a telephone number or address where
persons served may contact the water system to obtain a translated copy of the notice or
to request assistance in the appropriate language. The multilingual requirement in the
final rule is identical to the multilingual provision in the CCR rule. It requires systems
serving a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, as determined by the
primacy agency, to provide multilingual notices. Where the primacy agency has not
determined what constitutes a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, the
public water system must make this determination and must provide this information in
the public notice as appropriate to reach non-English speaking persons served by the
water system. EPA encourages water systems to go beyond the minimum multilingual
requirements in this rule, particularly for Tier 1 notice situations, and provide a fully
translated copy of the notice on request or offer telephone assistance in the appropriate
language. EPA is aware that many systems currently go beyond the multilingual notice
requirements of the PN rule, and the Agency encourages these systems to continue to do
so. The Public Notification Handbook will contain sample language regarding the
importance of the notice in various languages as well as complete sample Tier 1 public
notices in Spanish. EPA offers its Web site as a clearing house for translated public
notices and invites anyone who has additional translations to submit them to the Agency.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): This provision seems overly complicated and will be difficult
for States to implement.

Response: The final rule requires that public water systems serving a large proportion of
non-English speaking consumers include in their notices, in the appropriate languages,
information on the importance of the notice or a telephone number or address where
persons served may contact the water system to obtain a translated copy of the notice or
to request assistance in the appropriate language. The multilingual requirement in the
final rule is identical to the multilingual provision in the CCR rule. It requires systems
serving a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, as determined by the
primacy agency, to provide multilingual notices. Where the primacy agency has not
determined what constitutes a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, the
public water system must make this determination and provide this information in the
public notice as appropriate to reach non-English speaking persons served by the water

158

-------
system. EPA encourages water systems to go beyond the minimum multilingual
requirements in this rule, particularly for Tier 1 notice situations, and provide a fully
translated copy of the notice on request or offer telephone assistance in the appropriate
language. EPA is aware that many systems currently go beyond the multilingual notice
requirements of the PN rule, and the Agency encourages these systems to continue to do
so. The Public Notification Handbook will contain sample language regarding the
importance of the notice in various languages as well as complete sample Tier 1 public
notices in Spanish. EPA offers its Web site as a clearing house for translated public
notices and invites anyone who has additional translations to submit them to the Agency.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): EPA has continued to use the phrase "large
proportion of non-English speaking consumers," as was used in the CCR rules, and offers no
guidance to the states as to what is meant by that phrase. The IDNR requests that guidance be
provided in this issue as to when the PWS should be required to provide the translated public
notice and CCR into the non-English language.

Response: The final rule requires that public water systems serving a large proportion of
non-English speaking consumers include in their notices, in the appropriate languages,
information on the importance of the notice or a telephone number or address where
persons served may contact the water system to obtain a translated copy of the notice or
to request assistance in the appropriate language. The multilingual requirement in the
final rule is identical to the multilingual provision in the CCR rule. It requires systems
serving a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, as determined by the
primacy agency, to provide multilingual notices. Where the primacy agency has not
determined what constitutes a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, the
public water system must make this determination and provide this information in the
public notice as appropriate to reach non-English speaking persons served by the water
system. EPA encourages water systems to go beyond the minimum multilingual
requirements in this rule, particularly for Tier 1 notice situations, and provide a fully
translated copy of the notice on request or offer telephone assistance in the appropriate
language. EPA is aware that many systems currently go beyond the multilingual notice
requirements of the PN rule, and the Agency encourages these systems to continue to do
so. The Public Notification Handbook will contain sample language regarding the
importance of the notice in various languages as well as complete sample Tier 1 public
notices in Spanish. EPA offers its Web site as a clearing house for translated public
notices and invites anyone who has additional translations to submit them to the Agency.

Unidentified participant at DC meeting (E.2): What are the population criteria for requiring
multilingual notices?

Response: The final rule requires that public water systems serving a large proportion of
non-English speaking consumers include in their notices, in the appropriate languages,
information on the importance of the notice or a telephone number or address where
persons served may contact the water system to obtain a translated copy of the notice or

159

-------
to request assistance in the appropriate language. The multilingual requirement in the
final rule is identical to the multilingual provision in the CCR rule. It requires systems
serving a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, as determined by the
primacy agency, to provide multilingual notices. Where the primacy agency has not
determined what constitutes a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, the
public water system must make this determination and provide this information in the
public notice as appropriate to reach non-English speaking persons served by the water
system. EPA encourages water systems to go beyond the minimum multilingual
requirements in this rule, particularly for Tier 1 notice situations, and provide a fully
translated copy of the notice on request or offer telephone assistance in the appropriate
language. EPA is aware that many systems currently go beyond the multilingual notice
requirements of the PN rule, and the Agency encourages these systems to continue to do
so. The Public Notification Handbook will contain sample language regarding the
importance of the notice in various languages as well as complete sample Tier 1 public
notices in Spanish. EPA offers its Web site as a clearing house for translated public
notices and invites anyone who has additional translations to submit them to the Agency.

Adrianna Quintero, NRDC (at DC meeting) (E.2): Multilingual notices should be there for
everyone who needs one; this is the only way to meet the requirement to reach all persons served.
The decision on what languages need to be used would be an implementation issue.

Response: The final rule requires that public water systems serving a large proportion of
non-English speaking consumers include in their notices, in the appropriate languages,
information on the importance of the notice or a telephone number or address where
persons served may contact the water system to obtain a translated copy of the notice or
to request assistance in the appropriate language. The multilingual requirement in the
final rule is identical to the multilingual provision in the CCR rule. It requires systems
serving a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, as determined by the
primacy agency, to provide multilingual notices. Where the primacy agency has not
determined what constitutes a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, the
public water system must make this determination and provide this information in the
public notice as appropriate to reach non-English speaking persons served by the water
system. EPA encourages water systems to go beyond the minimum multilingual
requirements in this rule, particularly for Tier 1 notice situations, and provide a fully
translated copy of the notice on request or offer telephone assistance in the appropriate
language. EPA is aware that many systems currently go beyond the multilingual notice
requirements of the PN rule, and the Agency encourages these systems to continue to do
so. The Public Notification Handbook will contain sample language regarding the
importance of the notice in various languages as well as complete sample Tier 1 public
notices in Spanish. EPA offers its Web site as a clearing house for translated public
notices and invites anyone who has additional translations to submit them to the Agency.

160

-------
Unidentified participant at Phoenix meeting (E.4): Given the rapid turnaround for issuing a Tier
1 notice and the fact that notices must be approved by water system management (including legal
counsel), approval of translations into Spanish makes 24-hour notification hard.

Response: Appendix C of the Public Notification Handbook contains statements
in several languages relating to the importance of the message in a public notice.
In addition, the handbook includes templates for notices of fecal coliform IE. coli
or nitrate violations that have been translated into Spanish. EPA offers its Web
site as a clearing house for translated public notices and invites anyone who has
additional translations to submit them to the Agency.

William Randell, Valle Verde Water Company (at Phoenix meeting) (E.4): Many consumers do
not read English, and something needs to be done to translate notices for these people.

Response: Appendix C of the Public Notification Handbook contains statements
in several languages relating to the importance of the message in a public notice.

The final rule requires that public water systems serving a large proportion of
non-English speaking consumers include in their notices, in the appropriate
languages, information on the importance of the notice or a telephone number or
address where persons served may contact the water system to obtain a translated
copy of the notice or to request assistance in the appropriate language. The
multilingual requirement in the final rule is identical to the multilingual provision
in the CCR rule. It requires systems serving a large proportion of non-English
speaking consumers, as determined by the primacy agency, to provide
multilingual notices. Where the primacy agency has not determined what
constitutes a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, the public
water system must make this determination and provide this information in the
public notice as appropriate to reach non-English speaking persons served by the
water system. EPA encourages water systems to go beyond the minimum
multilingual requirements in this rule, particularly for Tier 1 notice situations, and
provide a fully translated copy of the notice on request or offer telephone
assistance in the appropriate language. EPA is aware that many systems currently
go beyond the multilingual notice requirements of the PN rule, and the Agency
encourages these systems to continue to do so. The Public Notification Handbook
will contain sample language regarding the importance of the notice in various
languages as well as complete sample Tier 1 public notices in Spanish. EPA
offers its Web site as a clearing house for translated public notices and invites
anyone who has additional translations to submit them to the Agency.

161

-------
Topic 18: 141.205 (d) What standard language must public water systems

include in their public notice?

Comments:

University of Florida, Soil and Water Sciences Department (2.1): My comments relate to the
"standard language" mandatory in the Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 public notices. For a large part
of the U.S. population, as I pointed out during my testimony at the public hearing in Washington,
D.C. on June 3rd, this language is useless. I think the regulations should be changed to say the
language is mandatory except in notifications prepared for low-literacy audiences. This
exception is necessary to allow water entities to prepare notifications in very simple language
and even to omit some of the mandatory information that would only confuse and overwhelm
low-literacy audiences. . .

Response: EPA disagrees that the standard language would confuse readers. EPA
has field-tested the language in the public notices, and believes that it is
understandable. Public notices include information on whom to contact for
additional information; in the Public Notification Handbook, EPA will encourage
operators to use these contacts as a vehicle for explaining the public notice to
consumers who do not understand it, in the same way that information would be
translated for people who do not read or understand English. The text
surrounding the standard language may be tailored to any audience; however the
standard language is required, and EPA believes that it must be included in the
notice.

141.205 (d)(1) Standard health effects language
Comments:

Indiana DEM (1.04): Regarding the ten elements required in a public notice for violations of the
NPDWR, there are some instances where failure to collect a sample may not have a specific
health effect (i.e., large water systems (serving > 50,000) monitoring for water quality parameters
under the Lead and Copper rule may not have ever exceeded the lead or copper action levels,
however failure to collect the samples may require health effects language for lead and or
copper). . .

It is a very good idea to use the same health effects language in the public notification (PN) rule
as is used in the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) rule. You could probably use the same
reference in both rules and avoid having identical language in two locations in your rule. In
addition, this would allow for only having to change one Appendix instead of two when new
rules are promulgated. EPA would need to determine which format to provide this Appendix in
also. The current CCR rule lists the health effects and the proposed PN rule has them in table
format. The table format is probably easier for the general public to read and understand. The

162

-------
current regulations for the CCR rule do not contain the information in 80-86 of the proposed PN
rule, nor were they promulgated with the final Disinfection By-Products rule.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support, and has decided to keep the
language consistent with the health effects language in the CCR. EPA intends to
amend the CCR rule to include health effects language for contaminants
associated with the final Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts rule. In response
to the commenter's first point, EPA wishes to clarify that no health effects
language is required in public notices for monitoring and testing procedure
violations; however, there is standard language specifically for monitoring and
testing procedure violations.

Washington State Department of Health, Division of Drinking Water (1.06): The proposed
standard health effects language satisfies the intent of the Consumer Confidence Report
regulation, but falls short of the intent of the PN rule. At the same time, we acknowledge that it
is desirable to have one set of health effects language for both PN and CCR applications.

Response: EPA has decided to keep the health effects language consistent with
that used in the CCR, because the Agency believes it does not make sense to
require standard health effects language different from the CCR language unless
there is a compelling reason specific to the public notice situation. Although EPA
recognizes that the CCR and public notice may be given at different times and
may be intended to meet different objectives, EPA believes that the benefit of
using identical core health effects language outweighs the value of tailoring the
language to the unique objectives of the public notice. EPA expects that public
water systems will supplement the mandatory health effects language or otherwise
put the language in the context of the overall notice to meet the unique purposes
of the specific public notice.

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): DMWW supports EPA's approach to use the health effects
language for MCL or MRDL violations (as required in the CCR) to meet public notification
requirements, provided that EPA allows for a public water system to tailor its language to
supplement the context of the specific public notice. The language EPA is proposing provides
clear and consistent language, thereby helping to increase public understanding.

Response: EPA has decided to keep the health effects language consistent with
that used in the CCR. EPA notes that states have the option to change health
effects language if they see a need to do so. EPA also notes that nothing in the
rule precludes a state or PWS from supplementing the standard language so long
as it does not contain language that nullifies the purpose of the notice. EPA
believes that the standard language will be most effective where the water system
supplements it with a clear explanation of what the violation meant and how it
was rectified.

163

-------
Massachusetts DEP (1.08): It is imperative that the proposed rule retains the requirement that
public notices for MCL and treatment technique violations use mandatory health effects language
to explain any health risks posed by the violation. Although the Consumer Confidence Report
(CCR) will contain this information, the CCR is an annual report. The public notices will
provide immediate violation information and should always contain the appropriate health effects
language.

Response: EPA agrees and is planning to keep the health effects language
consistent with that used in the CCR. EPA also notes that nothing in the rule
precludes a state or PWS from supplementing the standard language so long as it
does not contain language that nullifies the purpose of the notice. EPA believes
that the standard language will be most effective where the water system
supplements it with a clear explanation of what the violation meant and how it
was rectified.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): EPA's emphasis on aligning the mandatory
language required in the public notice to that of the CCR again shows how little attention has
been focused on noncommunity systems, for whom a CCR is not required.

For the contaminants that are Group A carcinogens, the language is too lax for an exceedence of
the MCL.

Response: EPA has decided to require the same health effects language as is used
in the CCR. This language indicates that there is a probability for the contaminant
causing cancer and is appropriate for both Group A and Group B carcinogens.

EPA also notes that states have the option to change health effects language if
they see a need to do so. EPA wishes to note that the fact that CCR language does
not apply to NCWS does not mean that the language is inappropriate.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports using the CCR health effects
language in the notices. This language was debated at length during the negotiations for the CCR
regulation. This language represents a balanced perspective and does not need to be modified at
this time. . .

AWWA commends EPA for matching up the proposed regulation with the CCR in the six areas
listed. Specifically, AWWA recommends using the CCR health effects language in the public
notices. This language was debated at length during the negotiations for the CCR regulation.

This language represents a balanced perspective and does not need to be modified at this time.

Response: EPA agrees and has decided to require the same health effects
language as is used in the CCR.

Association of California Water Agencies (1.16): Although individual species of
trihalomethanes and trihaloaetic acids are not included in the Tier 2 violation reporting

164

-------
requirements, it is not clear why they are in Appendices A and B. . . EPA should clarify what, if
any, public notification requirements apply to disinfection by-product species, and remove them
from the Appendices if there are no notification requirements, because their presence may be
confusing to state regulatory agencies and drinking water agencies.

EPA should commit to establishing a process for the routine review and update of the health
effects language of Appendix B to reflect the most current scientific consensus on these
contaminants.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter on the need for review of the health
effects language and intends to periodically review the health effects language and
update it if necessary. In the process of proposing the CCR rule, EPA reviewed
the health effects in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is a
peer-reviewed compilation of the latest health information regarding
contaminants. The Agency made some changes based on this information. It
should be noted, however, that health effects language does not, and is not
intended to, catalog all possible health effects for each contaminant. Rather, it is
intended to inform consumers of the most significant and probable health effects
associated with the contaminant in drinking water.

Chemical Manufacturers Association (1.17): [Note: CMA submitted over 100 pages of comments
on di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate (DEHA) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). The following
comments are from CMA's executive summary.] The Panel believes that the draft health effects
statements mischaracterize the potential health risks of DEHA and DEHP, and should be
modified to avoid unnecessary concern among drinking water consumers. . .

It is important that the health effects statements provide consumers with sufficient information
about potential adverse health effects related to drinking water so that they can make reasonably
informed decisions about protecting their health in the face of current (or recent) violations.

It is also important that the health effects statements not overstate risks and thereby cause
unnecessary and unfounded concern among drinking water consumers, especially since one or a
few violations of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) within a year are extremely unlikely to
cause adverse health effects.

The Panel supports including in the health effects statements the language "people who drink
water containing [compound] in excess of the MCL over many years," as this language helps put
the hazards associated with isolated exceedances in proper perspective. However, the Panel
believes the health effects statements for DEHA and DEHP also should continue to acknowledge
that adverse effects have been observed only in rodents exposed to very high doses of the
chemical.

165

-------
The draft health effects statements for DEHA and DEHP mischaracterize the health risks of these
chemicals in drinking water in other respects, and they should be revised to avoid misleading
consumers of drinking water and causing undue alarm.

For DEHA, the health effects statement should not refer to "reproductive difficulties," and the
reference to "general toxic effects" should be qualified so that consumers will know that only
relatively mild effects (e.g., reductions in body weight) have been observed in rodents at very
high doses. The health effects statement for DEHA should be consistent with EPA's prior
determination under EPCRA that "several chronic and subchronic feeding studies in rats and
mice show that DEHA is not highly toxic," and this specific statement should be included in the
health effects statement to give consumers accurate and helpful information.

For DEHP, the health effects statement should not include cancer as a possible effect,
notwithstanding EPA's outdated cancer classification for DEHP, as reported in IRIS. Extensive
scientific evidence has been developed since EPA's classification in 1987, and numerous
independent scientists have concluded that DEHP is highly unlikely to cause cancer in humans at
anticipated exposure levels. Statements by EPA scientists support this conclusion for DEHP. The
Panel believes the reference to a possible cancer hazard should be removed from the health
effects statement for DEHP. At the very least, EPA should tell consumers what the scientific
evidence clearly shows and what EPA scientists and other independent scientists have expressly
stated in journal articles and other written documents: the relevance of liver tumors observed in
rats and mice at high doses for human health hazard assessment is "questionable," and a human
cancer hazard under anticipated exposure levels is "highly unlikely."

Response: The health effects language for DEHA and DEHP is consistent with
the most recent Agency Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), document for
each chemical. Early in the process of developing the health effects language for
the Consumer Confidence Rule, EPA's Office of Water decided that IRIS
documents are the best standard to use in developing the health effects language
for drinking water contaminants because they represent Agency consensus. EPA
does intend to periodically review the health effects language for consumer
confidence reports. If there is a change in the IRIS documentation for either
DEHA or DEHP at the time of the next review, the language for one or both
contaminants can be modified to reflect a new IRIS assessment.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): It is important for the PNR and CCR to be consistent. If
situations are discovered where CCR language is incomplete or inappropriate, the States should
be able to deal with it case-by-case, rather than prescribing more language in the PNR.

Response: EPA agrees and has decided to keep the health effects language in the
CCR and public notification rules consistent. EPA also notes that states have the
option to change health effects language if they see a need to do so.

166

-------
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): ASDWA suggests that EPA clarify
and emphasize that states have the flexibility to consider alternate health effects language such as
that currently utilized for public notification. While the language used for the CCR is certainly
easy to understand, some states are concerned that it may not effectively convey the seriousness
of the contaminant being discussed.

Response: The rule does allow states to modify the language if they see a need to
do so, as long as their language provides the same type and amount of
information.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1.24): We object to the EPA using the overly cursory
language from the RTK [Right to Know] Reports as the sole warning language for public notices
of violations. The very brief RTK Report health effects language was developed taking into
account space and other limitations that were integral to the adoption of the RTK rule. This
cursory treatment of the adverse effects of contaminants found at levels that violate EPA health
standards is simply inadequate to fully inform the public of potential health risks. We propose
that EPA amend the language as suggested below. Indeed, the SDWA speaks of two types of
health effects language: A brief statement in plain language regarding the health concerns that
resulted in regulation of such contaminant for RTK Reports, and a clear and readily
understandable explanation of the potential adverse effects on human health for PNs. This
language suggests that a brief summary of the health issues that caused EPA to regulate a
contaminant is adequate for a RTK report, but a lengthier full disclosure of potential health
effects is required for the PN. We recommend changes to the proposed health effects language in
the attached appendix.

EPA also needs to be sure that the likely source of the contamination which is required to
mentioned in the current PN rules at 40 CFR 141.32(c) is mentioned in the current PN rules.
EPA was careful to assure that this occurs in Right to Know reports. This information is even
more important in the case of Public Notification. Only when the public is informed as to the
source of the contaminant can they bring public pressure to bear on the source of the pollution to
solve the problem. EPA should provide default language on the likely sources of contaminants if
the system operator does not know the likely source. EPA could simply cross reference the
language in the RTK rule on likely contaminant sources. . .

Total coNform ('olilbniis arc bacteria thai mav he present (olilbrm bacteria are usually
found in drinkinu water as a result of problems with treatment or with the pipes that deli\er
water Colilbrms were found in our water in more samples than allowed This means that vour
water could he contaminated with uerms that miuhl cause disease Symptoms could include
diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, and latiuuc There mav he a special health risk lor infants,
vouim children, and people with sc\crcl\ compromised immune systems Of course, drinkinu
water is not the only source of uerms that can cause these symptoms Colit'orms were fount! in
more samples than allowed and this was a warning of potential problems.

167

-------
EPA's proposed total coliform language is absolutely unacceptable in failing to mention
specifically any potential health threat or the possible sources of the TC. This is a serious
weakening of current regulations. The proposed language fails even to mention as do the current
PN rules that while not necessarily harmful themselves, TC may indicate the presence of disease
carrying organisms, and that disease symptoms may include diarrhea, cramps, nausea, etc.

Turbidity: Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and
provide a medium for microbial growth place for harmful germs to grow. Our water had too
much turbidity in it, a sign of water treatment problems. Turbidity may indicate the presence of
disease-causing organisms germs. These organisms germs may include bacteria, viruses, and
parasites that can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea and associated headaches.

Arsenic: Arsenic causes cancer in people who drink it in their water for several years. Some
people who drink water containing arsenic in excess of the MCL over many years also could
experience get skin damage or problems with their circulatory system. [Mention likely source of
contamination to the best knowledge of the operator], and may have an increased risk of getting
cancer. . .

EPA's proposed language on arsenic fails to recognize that Arsenic is a known human
carcinogen, and that exposure to arsenic by definition does increase the "risk" of getting cancer.
The word risk indicates uncertainty as to outcome but higher probability than zero. Addition of
the word "may" to increase the risk is unjustified, particularly for a known carcinogen.

[For all inorganics except copper, volatile organic, and synthetic organic contaminants, and for
total coliform, acrylamide, and epichlorohydrin, add]: [Mention likely source of contamination to
the best knowledge of the operator.]

[For all contaminants which mention the term "MCL," except for antimony, arsenic, vinyl
chloride, beta/photon emitters, alpha emitters, and combined radium, change "MCL" to "EPA
standard."]

Asbestos: Some pPeople who drink water . . .

Barium: . . .over many years could experience an increase in their get high blood pressure.

Beryllium: . . .over many years could develop intestinal lesions problems with their intestines.

Cadmium: Some people who drink water containing cadmium more in excess of the MCL
cadmium than allowed by the EPA standard could experience get. . .

Fluoride:. . .Children may get mottled teeth brown spots on their teeth. . .

Mercury: . . .over many years could experience get kidney damage. . .

168

-------
Lead: . . .could develop kidney problems or high blood pressure l.ead in drinkinu water usually
comes from corrosive water leaching lead from water lines or from household plumbing

Copper: . . .People with Wilson's disease are at special risk and should consult their personal
doctor or health care provider. Copper usually gets into the water from corrosive water leaching
copper from water lines or household plumbing.

Alachlor: . . .experience anemia, or may and have an increased risk of cancer. . .

Atrazine: . . .or reproductive difficulties. Atrazine has also been shown to cause breast cancer in
lab animals exposed to high doses of this pesticide. . . .

Benzo(a)pyrene: . . .may experience reproductive difficulties or may and have an increased
risk. . .

Endothall: . . . problems with their stomach or intestines and other problems with their endocrine
system. . . .

Pentachlorophenol: . . . could experience problems with their liver or kidneys, and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.

Benzene: licn/ene is known to cause cancer in people who are exposed to it lor main years
Some people who drink water containing benzene in excess of the MCL EPA standard over
many years could experience anemia or decrease in blood platelets, and may have an increased
risk of getting cancer. . . .

EPA must acknowledge that benzene is a known human carcinogen and that exposure at any
level (not just at levels over the EPA standard) poses a cancer risk.

Vinyl chloride: Vinly [sic] chloride is known to cause cancer in people who are exposed to it for
many years. Some people who drink water containing vinyl chloride in excess of the MCL over
many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer. . . .

EPA must acknowledge that these radionuclides are known human carcinogens, and that any
exposure (not just exposure to levels over the MCL) poses a cancer risk.

Beta/photon emitters: Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit forms of radiation known as
photons and beta radiation. These beta and photon emitters can cause cancer in people who are
exposed for many years. Some people who drink water containing beta and photon emitters in
excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

Alpha emitters: Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known as
alpha radiation. They can cause cancer in people exposed to them for many years. Some people

169

-------
who drink water containing alpha emitters in excess of the MCL over many years may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.

Combined radium (226& 228): Some Radium can cause cancer in people who drink water
containing radium 22G or 228 in excess of the MCL over many years, may have an increased risk
of getting cancer.

Total trihalomethanes: . . .and may have an increased risk of getting cancer. I'lv^iiani women
may also be at risk of having a miscarriage or a child with birth defects when exposed to some of
these chemicals.

Haloacetic acids: . . .may have an increased risk of developing cancer. Pregnant women may
also be at risk of having a miscarriage or a child with birth defects.

Control of DBP precursors (TOC): . . .However, total organic carbon provides a medium for the
formation increases the levels of disinfection byproducts. . .

Response: EPA has decided to keep the health effects language consistent with
that used in the CCR, because the Agency believes it does not make sense to
require standard health effects language different from the CCR language, unless
there is a compelling reason specific to the public notice situation. Although EPA
recognizes that the CCR and public notice may be given at different times and
may be intended to meet different objectives, EPA believes that the benefit of
using identical core health effects language outweighs the value of tailoring the
language to the unique objectives of the public notice. EPA expects that public
water systems will supplement the mandatory health effects language or otherwise
put the language in the context of the overall notice to meet the unique purposes
of the specific public notice. Regarding the commenter's suggestion to list the
source of the contamination, EPA is not requiring systems to include this. The
purpose of the public notices is to alert consumers to problems with their drinking
water. Public notices cover only the most essential issues necessary to give
people the information they need to protect their health. Operators are free to add
this to their notices if they wish.

The commenter has offered many changes to the health effects language for various
contaminants. In response to similar comments raised during the proposal of the CCR
rule, EPA reviewed the health effects in its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),
which is a peer-reviewed compilation of the latest health information regarding
contaminants. The Agency made some changes based on this information. EPA hereby
incorporates by reference the CCR responses to comments on the health effects language.
In response to the comments on the proposed PN rule offering alternative health effects
language for specific violations, EPA undertook a systematic review of each comment to
determine, first, if the proposed public notification language (and the underlying CCR
rule language) was erroneous or misleading and, second, if there was a reason unique to

170

-------
the public notification objective for the language to be different from the CCR. EPA
started with the presumption that the CCR language and the public notification language
should be the same unless there were compelling reasons to be different. Based on this
review, EPA has concluded that there were no errors in the standard language in the
existing CCR rule justifying a change and no compelling reason for the core health
effects language in the final public notification rule to be different than what was already
in place in the CCR rule. In addition, EPA does plan to review the health effects
language periodically or in conjunction with development of new drinking water
standards or when new evidence becomes available and, if appropriate make any
necessary changes.

It should be noted, however, that health effects language does not, and is not intended to,
catalog all possible health effects for each contaminant. Rather, it is intended to inform
consumers of the most significant and probable health effects associated with the
contaminant in drinking water. Regarding the commenter's suggestion on the health
effects language for fluoride, EPA has revised the language for this contaminant. The
revised fluoride language now includes more specific information on the cosmetic effects
of exceedances, including staining of the teeth.

EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to include a list of symptoms associated
with total coliform violations (as was included for fecal, turbidity, and SWTR TT
violations) because, unlike these other violations, a Total Coliform Rule (TCR) violation
without a positive test for fecal coliform (i.e., a non-acute TCR violation) is not in itself a
reliable indicator that these disease-causing organisms may be present. Because the
negative finding of fecal coliforms for all the total coliform-positive is information
known along with the TCR non-acute violation, the presumption is that the particular
situation does not indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. At best, it is an
indicator of problems with disinfection, and is not in itself a health risk.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania concurs with
EPA's proposal to use the same standard health effects language for both PN and CCR. The
inclusion of the 10 required elements of PN found in 141.205(a) are more than adequate to
address site specific issues where the standard wording might be considered incomplete. In
addition, expanded wording can be included to clarify the required text if the site-specific
situation requires it.

Response: EPA agrees and has decided to keep the health effects language in the
CCR and public notification rules consistent. EPA also notes that states have the
option to change health effects language if they see a need to do so.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): We agree with the proposal to use the CCR language for
public notification. There are no federal restrictions on the state requiring, or the water system
including, additional information in the CCR or PN where warranted.

171

-------
Response: EPA agrees and has decided to keep the health effects language in the
CCR and public notification rules consistent. EPA also notes that states have the
option to change health effects language if they see a need to do so.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): Since all the SDWA microbiological
contaminants can cause gastrointestinal illness, it would seem prudent to notify the public of this
large target group of people in cases of potential microbiological contamination. The IDNR
supports the inclusion of the elderly in the affected populations for microbiological
contaminants.

The IDNR suggest [sic] the inclusion of the target population in the health effects, which is
identical to that listed in the fecal coliform language, including the elderly.

The IDNR strongly supports the addition of notification of the target population (pregnant
women) of this potential problem [nitrate, nitrite, nitrate+nitrite] in the interest of public health
protection.

This note applies to the entire appendix, and to the health effects language for the CCR, and is
one of our more significant concerns with the public notification rule: While it is important to
make the health effects understandable to the public, much of this language seems to further
confuse the reader by not telling them enough information as well as implying the risks are
minimal.

Listed below are additional comments about specific contaminants:

Total coliform: The language does not include any health effects, nor the affected population. A
non-acute total coliform MCL violation indicates that pathways are present for pathogenic
organisms in the water supply. These organisms may cause the same health effects in the same
affected population as the fecal/E. coli coliform contamination. The IDNR strongly urges the
inclusion of the potential health effects language (nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
headaches) and targeted population (infants, young children, and people with severely
compromised immune systems) in the total coliform health effects language.

All microbiological contaminants: It is commonly understood that elderly persons are a
population group which is more susceptible to severe health effects from gastrointestinal illness,
similarly to infants.

Turbidity and interim enhanced SWTR contaminants: The IDNR suggest the inclusion of the
target population in the health effects, which is identical to that listed in the fecal coliform
language, including the elderly.

General note: For the majority of the remaining inorganic, radionuclide, and organic
contaminants, the use of "Some people drinking water containing XX well in excess of the MCL
over many years" strongly implies that the chance of the average person having a problem is

172

-------
extremely remote - to the point of making one wonder why they're being told about it. The IDNR
does not have a suggestion to make for replacement language, other than to perhaps separate the
two ideas into two sentences: the remote possibility of getting ill from low level concentrations
of this chemical over a long period of time and the actual health effects.

Nitrate, Nitrite, and Nitrate-Nitrite:

(a)	The health effects language has been "simplified" to the point where it fails to adequately
inform the parent or caregiver of the infant under 6 months of age of the acute risk. The
health affects [sic] language in the existing rule is very understandable, tells the
parent/caregiver the mechanism for the problem, describes the symptoms, indicates the
short period in which the problems could occur, encourages the use of alternate water
sources, and recommends immediately seeking medical advice if warranted. The IDNR
strongly urges the replacement of this new language with the appropriate and much more
informative health affects [sic] language of the existing rule.

(b)	Furthermore, there is a very strong suspicion in the medical community, which may have
been substantiated to the EPA, National Institutes of Health, or Center for Disease
Control's satisfaction by now, that nitrates and nitrites above the MCL can cause
spontaneous abortions in pregnant women. As an aside, that effect is also noticed in
livestock (pigs, horses, etc.) which also would be of interest to the general public in a
farm state with elevated nitrates, such as Iowa.

A note on the general health effects language: When comparing the new language with the
existing rule language, it seems that non-cancerous health effects are sometimes eliminated.
While there may be more health information available now than when this rule was promulgated,
which caused the change in the language, it seems the existing language is more informative than
the proposed language. Listed below are just a few examples:

Diquat: Existing health effects language "This chemical has been shown to damage the liver,
kidney and gastrointestinal tract and causes cataract formation in laboratory animals." Proposed
health effects language eliminates the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract damage, and only
lists the cataract formation.

Beryllium: Existing health effects language: "Beryllium compounds have been associated with
damage to the bones and lungs and induction of cancer in laboratory animals such as rats and
mice when the animals are exposed at high levels over their lifetimes. There is limited evidence
to suggest that beryllium may pose a cancer risk via drinking water exposure. Therefore, EPA
based the health assessment on noncancer effects with an extra uncertainty factor to account for
possible carcinogenicity. Chemicals that cause cancer in laboratory animals also may increase the
risk of cancer in humans who are exposed over long periods of time." Proposed health effects
language only mentions the possibility of developing intestinal lesions.

Cyanide: Existing health effects language: "This chemical has been shown to damage the spleen,
brain and liver of humans fatally poisoned with cyanide." Proposed health effects language
mentions only nerve damage or thyroid problems.

173

-------
Endothall: Existing health effects language: "This chemical has been shown to damage the liver,
kidney, gastrointestinal tract and reproductive system of laboratory animals such as rats and mice
exposed at high levels over their lifetimes." Proposed health effects language mentions one could
experience problems with their stomach or intestines.

With regard to the use of the phrase "reproductive difficulties" in several health effects, the
IDNR supports the use of a phrase such as "difficulties with reproductive systems" so that the
reader would not make the assumption that the health effect of that contaminant is not solely
making conception or reproduction more difficult.

The IDNR supports the idea of making the technical language more understandable, but
questions whether EPA has gone too far in its simplification of this language in an effort to make
it less alarming to the public. The effect of this simplification is to circumvent the Congressional
intent of the consumer "right-to-know" initiatives. Quite a bit of the existing rule language could
be deleted as being extraneous, although we have not had indications from our public that it was
too difficult to understand. The IDNR also requests that EPA notify the primacy states of the
origin of these proposed health effects - was toxicological data reviewed by the appropriate
scientific staff/entities in determining these new health effects, especially when some appear to
have been deleted from previous public notification language?

Response: The commenter has offered many changes to the health effects
language for various contaminants. In response to similar comments raised
during the proposal of the CCR rule, EPA reviewed the health effects in its
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is a peer-reviewed compilation
of the latest health information regarding contaminants. The Agency made some
changes based on this information. EPA hereby incorporates by reference the
CCR responses to comments on the health effects language. In response to the
comments on the proposed PN rule offering alternative health effects language for
specific violations, EPA undertook a systematic review of each comment to
determine, first, if the proposed public notification language (and the underlying
CCR rule language) was erroneous or misleading and, second, if there was a
reason unique to the public notification objective for the language to be different
from the CCR. EPA started with the presumption that the CCR language and the
public notification language should be the same unless there were compelling
reasons to be different. Based on this review, EPA has concluded that there were
no errors in the standard language in the existing CCR rule justifying a change
and no compelling reason for the core health effects language in the final public
notification rule to be different than what was already in place in the CCR rule. In
addition, EPA does plan to review the health effects language periodically or in
conjunction with development of new drinking water standards or when new
evidence becomes available and, if appropriate, make any necessary changes.

It should be noted, however, that health effects language does not, and is not intended to,
catalog all possible health effects for each contaminant. Rather, it is intended to inform

174

-------
consumers of the most significant and probable health effects associated with the
contaminant in drinking water.

Regarding the comment on the health effects language for total coliform violations, EPA
disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to include a list of symptoms associated with
total coliform violations (as was included for fecal, turbidity, and SWTR TT violations)
because, unlike these other violations, a Total Coliform Rule (TCR) violation without a
positive test for fecal coliform (i.e., a non-acute TCR violation) is not in itself a reliable
indicator that these disease-causing organisms may be present. Because the negative
finding of fecal coliforms for all the total coliform-positive is information known along
with the TCR non-acute violation, the presumption is that the particular situation does not
indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. At best, it is an indicator of problems
with disinfection, and is not in itself a health risk.

The commenter also alleges that the health effects language for nitrate violations does not
adequately convey the risk to infants. The nitrate health effects language states that
infants who drink water containing nitrates "could become seriously ill and, if untreated,
may die " Regarding the health effects of nitrate exposure to pregnant women or fetuses,
the basis of EPA's standard for nitrate does not relate to evidence associated with
pregnant women. EPA is still researching this evidence.

The commenter suggests that the health effects language mention populations at risk from
some contaminants. EPA responds that the PN rule identifies the population at risk as
one of the ten elements required in a public notice. EPA also wishes to note that the
Public Notification Handbook provides information on the population at risk in templates
for nitrate, coliform, and surface water treatment violations. The commenter also asks for
information on the evidence underlying the health effects language. EPA notes that fact
sheets for every contaminant are available.

Utah DEQ, Division of Drinking Water (1.31): We commend EPA for consolidating the CCR
and public notification language as it will reduce the bulk of drinking water rules nationwide and
should improve the understanding of current health effects language. . . Utah recommends that
EPA proceed with the language in Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141 replace the old health
effects language in § 141.32(c). This would more clearly communicate the health risk to the
consumer when public notice is required by an exceedance of a water quality standard.

Response: EPA agrees and has decided to keep the health effects language in the
CCR and public notification rules consistent.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Maryland supports EPA's proposal to use
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) language for health effects. The current health effects
language is long, and it is not consumer friendly.

175

-------
Response: EPA agrees and has decided to keep the health effects language in the
CCR and public notification rules consistent. EPA also notes that states have the
option to change health effects language if they see a need to do so.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): AMWA strongly supports using the same
standard health effects language in public notifications as is used in the Consumer Confidence
Reports (CCR). It is not logical to have two different sets of health effects language for the same
contaminants.

Response: EPA agrees and has decided to keep the health effects language in the
CCR and public notification rules consistent. EPA also notes that states have the
option to change health effects language if they see a need to do so.

City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): The standard CCR
health effects language should be used. It will be less confusing for customers if they are given
the same message whenever the violation is mentioned.

Response: EPA agrees and has decided to keep the health effects language in the
CCR and public notification rules consistent. EPA also notes that states have the
option to change health effects language if they see a need to do so.

University of Florida, Soil and Water Department (2.1): This language needs to be greatly
simplified for low-literacy audiences and for good readers, too. For the former audience, the
proposed statements are too detailed. . .[PJeople don't have a lot of time these days-they won't
read complex things usually so the simpler the language, the more likely they will read the
notice.

Response: EPA notes that the health effects language developed for the CCR rule
and used for public notice, was targeted to a 6th to 8th grade reading level. It is
intended to be the most simplified possible that still communicates essential
health information.

Unidentified participant at Madison meeting (E.l): The health effects language for the fecal
coliform violation should include the elderly in the population at risk.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and will add "some elderly" to the
health effects language for fecal violations to make the language consistent with
the list of vulnerable populations for pathogens in drinking water in other
outreach materials.

Bob McElmurry, Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene (at Madison meeting) (E. 1): The rule health
effects language should explain the risk for gross alpha violations as well as the fact that gross
alpha MCLs are actually action levels.

176

-------
Response: The health effects language for the PN rule needs to be understandable
by both low-literacy audiences as well as good readers. Although there is a
certain level of risk associated with the alpha-emitting radionuclides, the audience
for notices prepared under the PN rule would not understand what that risk really
means. Also, although the MCL for gross alpha triggers other evaluations such as
levels of radium, this information again would not be of use for the PN audience.

141.205 (d)(2) Standard language for monitoring and testing procedure violations

EPA is soliciting comment on the proposed standard language and welcomes
recommendations on alternative language that would effectively inform consumers of the
significance of the monitoring violation. Another option would be not to require that any
specific language be included for all monitoring violations, but to set a performance
standard instead. The performance standard might be that all monitoring violations be
explained in a way that appropriately communicates the public health significance of the
violation. EPA also requests comment on this alternative approach. (64 FR 25978)

Comments:

Indiana DEM (1.04): Indiana agrees that there should be some requirements for what must be
included in a public notice for monitoring and reporting violations. A performance standard may
be sufficient, possibly with language that can be used, but is not required verbatim, instead of
prescribing exactly what the notice must say. This way water systems would have the choice of
using the rule language or their own language that meets the performance standards. This would
allow water systems to come up with their own alternative to "*** and we were unable to tell
whether your health was at risk during that time". For some contaminants, they may know that
there is not a health risk at this time (i.e., for samples required monthly, quarterly, or annually
which were collected, but may have been collected slightly late (a system which collected
samples in 1993-1997 for nitrate with samples below 5 ppm that missed 1998, but collected a
sample early in 1999 which was also below 5 ppm in this situation, it is not likely that the
consumers were actually exposed to nitrate). However, in order to leave this out of their notice,
the water system should be required to consult with the primacy agency so that the determination
as to whether there could have been or likely wasn't a risk to health can be made on a case-by-
case basis.

177

-------
health, EPA intends the standard language to prompt questions about the
significance of the specific monitoring violation. In routine circumstances, these
questions should be anticipated and answered in the full public notice. EPA's
intent is not to alarm consumers unnecessarily; rather, the information should help
inform consumers about the significance of the monitoring or testing procedure
violation. EPA disagrees that systems should be required to consult their primacy
agency on Tier 3 violations; such a requirement would be overly burdensome.

Bridgeport (CT) Hydraulic Company (1.12): [W]e believe that a different choice of words than
the language "we are unable to tell whether your health was at risk at that time." is needed, We
suggest: "Research has indicated that prolonged exposure to this contaminant may pose a health
risk. Since exposure was for a limited time, we do not believe a health risk is present. "

Response: EPA agrees that the standard language for monitoring and testing
procedure violations should be changed. The statement now reads as follows:

"We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific contaminants on a
regular basis. Results of regular monitoring are an indicator of whether or not
your drinking water meets health standards. During [compliance period], we ['did
not monitor or test' or 'did not complete all monitoring or testing'] for
[contaminant(s)], and therefore cannot be sure of the quality of your drinking
water during that time." EPA revised the language to speak of the potential health
effects of failure to monitor in more general terms. The purpose of the phrase is
to clearly and simply alert consumers that lack of monitoring may disguise a
potential risk to health and to raise questions about the significance of the specific
monitoring violation. EPA did not use the exact wording the commenter suggests
because EPA believes it is inappropriate to make any assumptions about the
duration of exposure to contaminants (if any) and whether public health was at
risk.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): Ironically, the proposed language for the
monitoring violations seems a bit strong, especially if it really can wait a year. Currently in
Missouri we use the following for TCR monitoring violations: "Bacteriologically-contaminated
water can cause a variety of disease symptoms and it is important that drinking water be
routinely tested to ensure its safety."

Response: EPA agrees that the standard language for monitoring and testing
procedure violations should be changed. The statement now reads as follows:

178

-------
to clearly and simply alert consumers that lack of monitoring may disguise a
potential risk to health and is intended to raise questions about the significance of
the specific monitoring violation. EPA did not use the exact wording the
commenter suggests; rather, it chose a more generic statement that can apply to all
contaminant monitoring. Like the suggested language, EPA's statement asserts
the importance of testing in protecting public health.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports the standard language for
monitoring & reporting violations, particularly the phrase "... we are unable to tell whether your
health was at risk at that time." The impacts from monitoring and reporting violations MAY OR
MAY NOT result in adverse health effects, and there is no need to alarm consumers
unnecessarily from this tier of violations. Again, the proposed language represents a balanced
perspective and does not need to be modified at this time.

Response: EPA did change the language slightly to be more general. However,
the language in the final rule still is consistent with the commenter's
recommendation.

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department (1.18): We understand the purpose of the section is
to address "stakeholder concerns that consumers may presume that because there is no reported
MCL, MRDL, or treatment technique violation that the drinking water provided by their water
system is safe." However, we find the required language could be misleading, unduly frightening
to some, and, with respect to the technical talents of personnel at EPA, primacy agencies and
most water systems, demeaning. To imply that highly trained and experienced personnel cannot
draw intelligent conclusions from available data is untrue. For example, if water from a well
never has showed [sic] a trace of a specific contaminant and a test is performed a week late, still
showing no trace of that contaminant, it is reasonable to assume the contaminant was not present
on the prescribed testing date. Saying "we do not know whether a contaminant was present..."
flies in the face of the basic procedure of testing at specific times rather than continuously. . . We
recommend that the language be modified to reflect the validity of periodic testing by using the
following: "Because we ['did not monitor or test' or 'failed to monitor or test completely'] during
[compliance period], we cannot be certain no contaminant was present in your drinking water
during the time period, but tests before and after the period in question showed ['no contaminant'
or 'safe levels of contaminant's named. Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude your health
was [not] at risk.

Response: EPA agrees that the standard language for monitoring and testing
procedure violations should be changed. The statement now reads as follows:

179

-------
effects of failure to monitor in more general terms. EPA agrees that, often
operators can be reasonably certain that no public health risk resulted from missed
testing, and the purpose of the phrase is to clearly and simply alert consumers that
lack of monitoring may disguise a potential risk to health and to raise questions
about the significance of the specific monitoring violation. EPA did not use the
exact wording the commenter suggests, however EPA's statement expresses the
commenter's point that operators cannot be certain of drinking water quality when
required samples are not taken.

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (1.19): The proposed rule would add mandatory
language informing consumers that because the Public Water Supplier ("PWS") did not monitor
during a specified compliance period or follow the required testing procedures during the
compliance period, the PWS is unable to say whether a particular contaminant was present in the
drinking water and is also unable to tell the consumer whether the consumer's health was at risk
during this time. MWRA is strongly opposed to the proposed standard language for notifying
the public of monitoring or testing procedure violations.

EPA notes that it does not intend, by the proposed mandatory language to alarm consumers
unnecessarily. However, we believe that the language, as proposed, will in fact unnecessarily
alarm consumers and will increase their anxiety and frustration. The proposed language raises a
potential health concern without providing consumers with adequate information to make an
informed decision about their actions.

MWRA strongly supports the alternative presented by EPA that sets a performance standard for
compliance. By requiring that all monitoring violations be explained in a manner that more
appropriately communicates the public health significance of the violation, we believe the PWS,
in consultation with the primacy agency and public health officials, can assess the effects of the
specific monitoring violation, consider the particular contaminant of concern, type of violation,
monitoring frequency, overall quality of the source water and other important variables. This
flexible approach is better adapted to the regulatory objectives for this section of meeting the
consumer's right-to-know. These notifications should note the importance of monitoring to
assess public health on an ongoing basis. The notice would provide the consumer with specific
information including the conditions under which the violation occurred, duration, and any
corrective action taken by the PWS. Where appropriate, the notice would also provide a
reasonable assessment of public health effects.

Response: EPA considered setting a performance standard rather than mandatory
standard language in the PN rule. EPA opted to retain standard language in the
final rule because the Agency believes that, in the absence of a reported MCL,

MRDL, or treatment technique violation, consumers may presume that the
drinking water provided by their water system is safe. This may not always be an
appropriate presumption. The standard language clearly and simply alerts
consumers that lack of monitoring may disguise a potential risk to health and to
raise questions about the significance of the specific monitoring violation, not to

180

-------
alarm consumers unnecessarily, as the commenter fears. EPA notes that operators
or primacy agencies are free to add to the standard language where information
unique to the system's situation is available.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania supports the
option to include standard language for monitoring and testing procedure violations.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained the standard language for monitoring and
testing procedure violations in the final rule, somewhat revised based on public
comment.

Metro Water District (Tucson, AZ) (1.26): Prefer Alternative Two [performance standard]. Can
health effects language be included as well? This seems essential.

Response: EPA considered setting a performance standard rather than requiring
mandatory standard language in the final rule. EPA opted to retain standard
language in the final rule because the Agency believes that, in the absence of a
reported MCL, MRDL, or treatment technique violation, consumers may presume
that the drinking water provided by their water system is safe. This may
sometimes not be an appropriate presumption. The standard language clearly and
simply alerts consumers that lack of monitoring in some cases may disguise a
potential risk to health. Although EPA believes that the vast majority of
monitoring violations are quickly resolved and do not disguise a potential risk to
health, EPA intends the standard language to prompt questions about the
significance of the specific monitoring violation. In routine circumstances, these
questions should be anticipated and answered in the full public notice. EPA's
intent is not to alarm consumers unnecessarily; rather, the information should help
inform consumers about the significance of the monitoring or testing procedure
violation. EPA cannot include health effects language for every potential
contaminant in the standard language monitoring and testing procedure violations;
however, operators are free to add the health effects language for a specific
contaminant if they are concerned.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (1.28): We would prefer that
standardized language be required instead of allowing a performance standard.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained the standard language for monitoring and
testing procedure violations in the final rule, somewhat revised based on public
comment.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): Standard language for monitoring/testing violations — We
strongly object to the proposed language because the last part of the sentence (... unable to tell
whether your health was at risk ...) is not true in all cases. There are other factors to be
considered that may indicate there was no risk whatsoever. Even under perfect monitoring

181

-------
compliance conditions there are time gaps, some short and some long, between sample results.
We suggest a performance standard in this case since there are so many different monitoring
violation scenarios.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Maryland supports the EPA proposal for
inserting the phrase "and we are unable to tell whether your health was at risk during that time"
when there are violations related to initial monitoring for new standards, turbidity monitoring,
and bacteriological monitoring. States should be allowed flexibility in this area.

Response: In the final rule, EPA changed the language slightly to be more
general. However, the language in the final rule still is consistent with the
commenter's preference, stating that the operator "cannot be sure of the quality of
your drinking water during that time." Regarding state flexibility, EPA notes that
primacy agencies can require different standard language as long as it meets the
primacy condition of being no less stringent than the federal rule and is approved
by EPA.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): AMWA strongly urges EPA to revise the
mandatory monitoring and testing violation language. The phrase "...and we are unable to tell
whether your health was at risk during that time" is not necessarily true in all instances. Whether
or not a reasonable determination of potential risk can be made depends upon the type of
violation, the type of contaminant, the frequency of monitoring, the water source, and/or an
assessment of the watershed.

If the violation is because monitoring is a few days late but the monitoring results are negative,
the contaminant has chronic rather than acute effects, the contaminant has never been found in
the past the source is ground water not subject to rapid changes in contaminant levels or surface
water where a watershed assessment indicates no sources for the contaminant, a reasonable

182

-------
determination would be that the public was not at risk. The bottom line is that there are all sorts
of conditions where the statement would not be true and would be alarmist.

AMWA supports language along the lines of the following:

"Because we ['did not monitor or test' or 'failed to monitor or test completely'] during
[compliance period], we do not know whether the contaminant was present in your water during
the time period, ['and we are unable to tell whether your health was at risk during that time' or for
contaminants with chronic health effects only 'but based on (specify reason for being able to
reasonably conclude risk was not present) it is unlikely that your health was at risk during that
time"].

Response: EPA agrees that the standard language for monitoring and testing
procedure violations should be changed. The statement now reads as follows:

"We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific contaminants on a
regular basis. Results of regular monitoring are an indicator of whether or not
your drinking water meets health standards. During [compliance period], we ['did
not monitor or test' or 'did not complete all monitoring or testing'] for
[contaminant(s)], and therefore cannot be sure of the quality of your drinking
water during that time." EPA agrees with the commenter that it is sometimes
possible to determine whether the public's health was at risk during the time
samples were not taken. Therefore, EPA revised the language to speak of the
potential health effects of failure to monitor in more general terms. The purpose
of the phrase is to clearly and simply alert consumers that lack of monitoring may
disguise a potential risk to health and to raise questions about the significance of
the specific monitoring violation. EPA did not use the exact wording the
commenter suggests, however the language in the final rule still is consistent with
the commenter's recommendation.

City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): CWD favors the
performance standard. It should be left to the water system and the primacy agency who have all
the facts about the situation to determine the health significance, if any, imparted by the
violation. In some cases, historical monitoring data can be sited to show that the source does not
contain the contaminant in question. The proposed language is likely to be inflammatory and
misunderstood by customers.

183

-------
monitoring violations are quickly resolved and do not disguise a potential risk to
health, EPA intends the standard language to prompt questions about the
significance of the specific monitoring violation. In routine circumstances, these
questions should be anticipated and answered in the full public notice. EPA's
intent is not to alarm consumers unnecessarily; rather, the information should help
inform consumers about the significance of the monitoring or testing procedure
violation.

City of Chandler (AZ), Office of the City Attorney (1.41): The standard language for monitoring
and testing procedure violations (Section 141.205(d)(2)) is not always appropriate, particularly
when read in conjunction with Section 141.205(c)(l)(iv). The "purpose" of a notice should be to
accurately present the violation and the potential health risk posed by that violation. The purpose
should not be to unnecessarily scare the public by preventing the dissemination off all pertinent
information. If, for example, a sample was missed during a period but sampling for both the
period before and period after the missed period reflect compliance, and there were no known
system changes during the missed period, this type of information should be passed on to the
consumer. In fact, under these circumstances, the public water system should be entitled to state
its belief that, in light of prior and subsequent sampling there was probably not an elevated level
of the contaminant in the drinking water served and the "standard language" modified to read:
"However, because ... we do not conclusively know whether the contaminant was present in the
drinking water during that time period, we are unable to tell whether your health was at risk
during that time."

Response: EPA agrees that the standard language for monitoring and testing
procedure violations should be changed. The statement now reads as follows:

"We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific contaminants on a
regular basis. Results of regular monitoring are an indicator of whether or not
your drinking water meets health standards. During [compliance period], we ['did
not monitor or test' or 'did not complete all monitoring or testing'] for
[contaminant(s)], and therefore cannot be sure of the quality of your drinking
water during that time." EPA agrees with the commenter that it is sometimes
possible to determine whether the public's health was at risk during the time
samples were not taken, and revised the language to be more general. The
purpose of the phrase is to clearly and simply alert consumers that lack of
monitoring may disguise a potential risk to health and to raise questions about the
significance of the specific monitoring violation. EPA did not use the exact
wording the commenter suggests, however EPA's statement expresses the
commenter's point that operators cannot be certain of drinking water quality when
required samples are not taken.

American Water Works Service Co., Inc. (1.46): The mandatory language for Tier 3 violations
requires the statement that because of not monitoring properly, it is not possible to tell whether
the customer was at risk. We believe this is too prescriptive, and generally unfounded. Because
contaminants are routinely measured, missing one monitoring period or one sample out of many

184

-------
should not lead to the conclusion that health could be at risk. There should be some provision to
consider previous monitoring data in the evaluation. For example, only if the previous data
showed the levels to be over one half of the MCL should such health risk be implied.

Response: EPA agrees that the standard language for monitoring and testing procedure
violations should be changed. The statement now reads as follows: "We are required to
monitor your drinking water for specific contaminants on a regular basis. Results of
regular monitoring are an indicator of whether or not your drinking water meets health
standards. During [compliance period], we ['did not monitor or test' or 'did not complete
all monitoring or testing'] for [contaminant(s)], and therefore cannot be sure of the
quality of your drinking water during that time." EPA revised the language to speak of
the potential health effects of failure to monitor in more general terms. EPA agrees with
the commenter that, often, operators can be reasonably certain that no public health risk
resulted from missed testing, and the purpose of the phrase is to clearly and simply alert
consumers that lack of monitoring may disguise a potential risk to health and to raise
questions about the significance of the specific monitoring violation. EPA notes that
operators are free to add to the standard language any information to describe their
specific circumstances.

University of Florida, Soil and Water Science Department (2.1): Language for monitoring
violations. . . Must be greatly modified for low-literacy audiences. This applied also to the
wording for fluoride and unregulated contaminant monitoring.

Response: EPA believes that the slightly revised language in the final rule
appropriately conveys the message in a simple way while retaining the essential
content.

Unidentified participant at DC meeting (E.2): The standard monitoring language as written
opens the door for legal claims tying dates the system did not monitor to dates illnesses were
reported.

Response: EPA has revised the language to be more general. The purpose of the
standard language is to clearly and simply alert consumers that lack of monitoring
may disguise a potential risk to health and is intended to raise questions about the
significance of the specific monitoring violation. EPA believes that people should
know about missed monitoring and testing. EPA notes that legal claims (if any)
would be tied to the failure to monitor, not the public notice of that failure.

Peter Lukens, North Wales Water Authority (at Allentown meeting) (E.3): The standard
monitoring language is not always accurate; often systems do know that public health was not at
risk. For example, in the case of THMs where compliance is based on annual averages, one
missed sample would not impact the system's ability to assess whether consumers' health was at
risk.

185

-------
Response: EPA agrees that the standard language for monitoring and testing
procedure violations should be changed. The statement now reads as follows:

"We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific contaminants on a
regular basis. Results of regular monitoring are an indicator of whether or not
your drinking water meets health standards. During [compliance period], we ['did
not monitor or test' or 'did not complete all monitoring or testing'] for
[contaminant(s)], and therefore cannot be sure of the quality of your drinking
water during that time." EPA revised the language to speak of the potential health
effects of failure to monitor in more general terms. EPA agrees with the
commenter that, often, operators can be reasonably certain that no public health
risk resulted from missed testing, and the purpose of the phrase is to clearly and
simply alert consumers that lack of monitoring may disguise a potential risk to
health and to raise questions about the significance of the specific monitoring
violation. EPA notes that operators are free to add to the standard language any
information to describe their specific circumstances.

Breakout group participants at Phoenix meeting (E.4): The mandatory language does not work
well for multiple violations, especially those with different compliance periods. It would have to
say, "Because we did not monitor during 7/99, 10/99, 12/99, and 1/97-12/99, . . ." The dates are
confusing because there is some overlap for different contaminant monitoring schedules. The
language might have to be provided separately for each contaminant. Another possibility, which
the group agreed to use, was to refer to the chart, saying, "Because we did not monitor during the
compliance periods shown below. . ." There was some question as to whether this would be
considered a modification of the mandatory language. Some also suggested writing separate
notices for each contaminant.

Response: EPA agrees that notices of multiple violations with differing
compliance dates can be confusing. In the Public Notification Handbook, EPA
provides a template for notices of monitoring and testing procedure violations.

This template is in a table format, with columns for the required sampling
frequency, the number of samples taken, when the samples should have been
taken, and when the samples were or will be taken. EPA believes that the
standard language would still be appropriate.

Jean Melillo, Tucson Water District (at Phoenix meeting) (E.4): The standard language for
monitoring violations in the rule is detrimental: most monitoring violations are unlikely to affect
public health. The variety of potential monitoring violations calls for more than one uniform
statement. The primacy agency could require specific language as a default, or the water system
could write its own language with approval from the primacy agency. This would be consistent
with the rule's intention to give primacy agencies flexibility. In addition, for some monitoring
results, such as groundwater systems with monitoring violations for VOCs, risk can be inferred
during the time monitoring was not done if prior and subsequent results are available.

186

-------
Response: EPA agrees that the standard language for monitoring and testing
procedure violations should be changed. The statement now reads as follows:

"We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific contaminants on a
regular basis. Results of regular monitoring are an indicator of whether or not
your drinking water meets health standards. During [compliance period], we ['did
not monitor or test' or 'did not complete all monitoring or testing'] for
[contaminant(s)], and therefore cannot be sure of the quality of your drinking
water during that time." EPA revised the language to speak of the potential health
effects of failure to monitor in more general terms. EPA agrees with the
commenter that, often, operators can be reasonably certain that no public health
risk resulted from missed testing, and the purpose of the phrase is to clearly and
simply alert consumers that lack of monitoring may disguise a potential risk to
health and to raise questions about the significance of the specific monitoring
violation. EPA notes that operators are free to add to the standard language any
information to describe their specific circumstances.

141.205 (d)(3)	Standard language to encourage distribution

EPA requests comment on the proposed standard language and would welcome
alternative language that aids the water system in reaching all persons involved. (64 FR
25978)

Comments:

Dave Van Fleet (1.03): The word "customers" should be included. The required text should read,
If other people receive water from you, such as tenants, residents, patients, students, customers,
or employees, it is important that you provide this notice to them by posting it in a conspicuous
location or by direct hand or mail delivery.

Response: EPA has revised the standard language to encourage distribution to
read as follows: "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." EPA changed the language in response to comments it received. EPA
believes the new language is simpler and more generic and it would apply to more
situations and encourage wider distribution. EPA did not use the exact wording
the commenter suggests; however, EPA believes its statement encourages
distribution to "customers" by including businesses in the examples.

Indiana DEM (1.04): It may be useful to include or reference the language provided in the
Consumer Confidence Report rule at 40 CFR § 141.155(b) in the Public Notification rule
regarding ways the water system can make a good-faith effort to reach consumers who do not
receive water bills.

187

-------
Response: The PN rule requires systems to go beyond the good faith effort to
reach consumers who do not receive water bills required in the Consumer
Confidence Rule. The PN rule requires operators to use methods reasonably
calculated to reach all persons served by the water system. Many of the same
ideas for announcing the availability or expanding the distribution of CCRs are
also mentioned in the Public Notification Handbook.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): EPA's effort at reaching tenants, patients etc.
is much needed.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule. EPA
believes that this standard language is appropriate as a safety net and is necessary
to encourage those receiving the public notice to take steps to alert others of the
violations and potential risk from drinking water.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports the proposed language for
distribution of notices to consumers, i.e., those beyond the direct customers. The distinction
between customers and consumers is clear in both the regulation and the handbook, and the
distinction is consistent with the approach taken in the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR).
This consistency in the approach needs to be maintained in future regulatory actions.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule. EPA
believes that this standard language is appropriate as a safety net and is necessary
to encourage those receiving the public notice to take steps to alert others of the
violations and potential risk from drinking water.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): PN elements and performance standards — The elements
and performance standards are generally satisfactory, with the exception of element #10.
Requiring the mandatory statement that requests the recipient to distribute the notice is not
warranted and is not consistent with any other EPA public water supply requirement. On the
other hand, we would have no objection to the mandatory statement if its inclusion completely
satisfied the requirement to use other methods reasonably calculated to reach other persons
served.

Response: EPA disagrees that the standard language is not warranted. EPA
believes that it is appropriate as a safety net and is necessary to encourage those
receiving the public notice to take steps to alert others of the violations and
potential risk from drinking water. This includes encouraging wide distribution of
the notices by not only businesses and schools, etc. that are water system
customers providing drinking water access to employees and customers, but also
encouraging that the notice be made available to visitors in individual households.
Compliance with this requirement is one of, but not the only, "reasonably-
calculated steps" a public water system must take to reach other persons not
expected to receive the initial notice. The final rule gives the water system

188

-------
discretion not to include the distribution language when it determines such a
notice is not needed to meet the water system obligation to reach persons served
beyond those who receive the initial notice directly.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): The IDNR supports the addition of the standard
language to encourage provision of the notice to consumers who are not directly billed by the
PWS.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule. EPA
believes that this standard language is appropriate as a safety net and is necessary
to encourage those receiving the public notice to take steps to alert others of the
violations and potential risk from drinking water.

University of Florida, Soil and Water Sciences Department (2.1): The required statment [sic] "to
encourage distribution of the notice to all persons served" absolutely has to be changed for low-
literacy audiences and indeed it needs to be reworded even for people who can read. The
statement doesn't bear much resemblance to it's [sic] purpose as stated in the regulations.

Response: EPA notes that the language to which the commenter refers is in the
PN rule, and is not the text of the statement to be included on a public notice.

EPA has slightly revised the standard language in the proposed PN rule. EPA
believes the new language is simpler and more generic and it would apply to more
situations and encourage wider distribution. EPA has revised the standard
language to encourage distribution to read as follows: "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."

Breakout session participants at Madison meeting (E.l): The distribution language ("if other
people, such as tenants, residents, patients, students, or employees. . .") did not seem appropriate
for the situation, since the scenario is that the water system is a bar where presumably everyone
at the bar would see the notice in the bathroom or on the door or counter. If the language is
going to be mandatory for all notices, it should be modified, though the group offered no
alternate language.

Response: EPA has decided not to require the distribution language in all
situations. It will now be required where applicable. For instance, a notice posted
at a restaurant or gas station probably would not need to include the language.

Unidentified participant at Phoenix meeting (E.4): Add the word "customers" to the distribution
language and italicize the distribution language in the template so operators know that it is
mandatory.

189

-------
Response: EPA has revised the standard language to encourage distribution to
read as follows: "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." EPA changed the language in response to comments it received. EPA
believes the new language is simpler and more generic and it would apply to more
situations and encourage wider distribution. EPA did not use the exact wording
the commenter suggests, however EPA believes its statement encourages
distribution to "customers" by including businesses in the examples.

190

-------
Topic 19: 141.206 Notice to new billing units or new customers

EPA requests comment on the change to the current regulation extending the requirement
to cover ongoing monitoring and testing procedure violations and to require that the
notice be provided to new customers by both community and non-community water
systems. (64 FR 25979)

Comments:

Indiana DEM (1.04): It is a good idea, in principle, to require all water systems to inform all new
customers of all violations, however, it is extremely difficult to track this information, for both
the water systems and the primacy agencies. It may also be difficult to identify all new
customers, especially in transient noncommunity water systems.

Response: EPA is retaining the requirement for notice to new billing units for
ongoing monitoring and testing procedure violations. This provision ensures that
new customers of a public water system are made aware of ongoing violations and
will make notices more readily available to consumers who would not receive a
notice under the current regulation — EPA believes this is an important right-to-
know issue. EPA believes that tracking compliance with this requirement will not
be overly difficult for primacy agencies: EPA interprets the certification
requirement to mean that systems are also certifying that they will meet future
requirements for notifying new customers. EPA does not intend systems to create
a new public notice each time a new customer is hooked up to the distribution
system.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): Residents may move in and out of a
community system before ever being notified of monitoring violations. Six-month leases are
quite common in central Missouri. DNR feels these people also deserve to be notified of
violations, even if they do not reside at a CWS for a full year, particularly those that occur while
they are in residence. Public notification should not be left to chance of when a person moves in
or out. At noncommunity systems reaching persons present at the time of the violation is even
more difficult, but the sooner it is done, the more successful the notice will be. Given the
provisions of this section, customers who were present at the time of the violation can easily miss
out on the notification, while new customers who happen to arrive at the time a summary notice
is given receive grossly outdated information.

Response: EPA is retaining the requirement for notice to new billing units for
ongoing monitoring and testing procedure violations. This provision ensures that
new customers of a public water system are made aware of ongoing violations and
will make notices more readily available to consumers who would not receive a
notice under the current regulation. EPA notes that new customers will not
receive notice before other customers; this requirement means that new hookups

191

-------
would be receive notices of ongoing violations for which a notice had already
been sent.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA recommends that the additional notification
requirement for monitoring and reporting violations for new customers be a recommendation
rather than a mandated requirement. Developing a tracking systems [sic] for notification to new
customers will be an unnecessary burden for both the utilities and the primacy agencies.

Response: EPA is retaining the requirement for notice to new billing units for
ongoing monitoring and testing procedure violations. This provision ensures that
new customers of a public water system are made aware of ongoing violations and
will make notices more readily available to consumers who would not receive a
notice under the current regulation — EPA believes this is an important right-to-
know issue. EPA believes that tracking compliance with this requirement will not
be overly difficult for primacy agencies: EPA interprets the certification
requirement to mean that systems are also certifying that they will meet future
requirements for notifying new customers. EPA does not intend systems to create
a new public notice each time a new customer is hooked up to the distribution
system.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): These type of violations [ongoing monitoring and testing
procedure violations] do not warrant notification to new customers. These violations are
Tier 3, and therefore best addressed by the annual report or CCR. This is an unreasonable
proposal, and would be difficult for the States to monitor.

Response: EPA disagrees that notice to new billing customers is unwarranted-
the Agency sees this notification as an important right-to-know issue, and it is part
of the operator's obligation to reach all persons served, regardless of when they
move into the distribution area. EPA is retaining the requirement for notice to
new billing units for ongoing monitoring and testing procedure violations. This
provision ensures that new customers of a public water system are made aware of
ongoing violations and will make notices more readily available to consumers
who would not receive a notice under the current regulation. One option for
systems is to use the CCR for notifying new billing customers of ongoing Tier 3
violations. This would reduce the burden on water systems. EPA notes that new
customers will not receive notice before other customers; this requirement means
that new hookups would only receive notices of ongoing violations for which a
notice had already been issued.

EPA believes that tracking compliance with this requirement will not be overly difficult
for primacy agencies: EPA interprets the certification requirement to mean that systems
are also certifying that they will meet future requirements for notifying new customers.
EPA does not intend for systems to create a new public notice each time a new customer
is hooked up to the distribution system.

192

-------
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): ASDWA disagrees with the
proposal to require that new billing units receive public notification of ongoing monitoring and
testing violations. While this is excellent public policy, it is not a good regulatory requirement.
States are unable to provide the level of oversight that would allow them to know when systems
were not providing this information. States are not alerted when new billing units are placed on
or taken off a system's customer list. Additionally, because monitoring and testing violations
fall in Tier 3 (annual reporting), the reported information may be a year or more out of date.
Alternatively, because of the annual reporting requirement, new billing units may be the only
ones to learn of an ongoing violation in a timely fashion, while the rest of the community does
not learn of the problem until 12 months have passed since the incident took place. ASDWA
recommends that systems be encouraged rather than required by regulation to share such
information or that each new billing unit receive a copy of the system's Consumer Confidence
Report.

Response: EPA is retaining the requirement for notice to new billing units for
ongoing monitoring and testing procedure violations. This provision ensures that
new customers of a public water system are made aware of ongoing violations and
will make notices more readily available to consumers who would not receive a
notice under the current regulation. One option for systems is to use the CCR for
notifying new billing customers of ongoing Tier 3 violations. This would reduce
the burden on water systems. EPA believes that tracking compliance with this
requirement will not be overly difficult for primacy agencies: EPA interprets the
certification requirement to mean that systems are also certifying that they will
meet future requirements for notifying new customers. EPA does not intend
systems to create a new public notice each time a new customer is hooked up to
the distribution system. EPA notes that new customers will not receive notice
before other customers; this requirement means that new hookups would only
receive notices of ongoing violations for which a notice had already been issued.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): Is there any requirement of the PWS to provide
documentation to the primacy agency that they've fulfilled this requirement throughout the year?

Response: EPA does not intend systems to create a new public notice each time a
new customer is hooked up to the distribution system; EPA interprets the
certification requirement to mean that systems are also certifying that they will
meet future requirements for notifying new customers.

141.206 (a) What is the requirement for community water systems?

Comments:

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): DMWW supports the requirement that community water
systems "give a copy of the most recent public notice for any continuing violation or the

193

-------
existence of a variance or exemption to all new billing units or new hookups prior to or at the
time service begins."

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this provision in the final rule. This
provision ensures that new customers of a public water system are made aware of
ongoing violations and will make notices more readily available to consumers
who would not receive a notice under the current regulation.

141.206 (b) What is the requirement for non-community water systems?

Comments:

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): DMWW supports the requirement for non-community systems
to continuously post the violation notice; this will help to ensure that new customers view the
content of the notice. Posting increases the chances that a new customer will see the notice and
become aware of the violation.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this provision in the final rule. This
provision ensures that new customers of a public water system are made aware of
ongoing violations and will make notices more readily available to consumers
who would not have received or seen a notice that was initially delivered by hand
or posted out of sight of new consumers.

194

-------
Topic 20: 141.207 Special notice of the availability of unregulated
contaminant monitoring results

EPA requests comment on the proposed approach to meet the requirements under
Sections 1414(c)(2)(E) and 1445(a)(2)(E). EPA also requests comment on its
proposal to shift the reporting frequency announcing the results of unregulated
contaminant monitoring from three months to twelve months. (64 FR 25979)

Comments:

City of Chandler (AZ), Office of the City Attorney (1.41): Is/will Tier 3 Public Notice [sic]
mandated for failure to take a required sample of an unregulated constituent? If so, will the
"standard language" provisions be applicable for such a violation?

Response: Yes. The form and manner of the public notice of the availability of
monitoring results for unregulated contaminants must follow the requirements for
a Tier 3 public notice prescribed in §141.204. The notice must include all ten
required elements. EPA notes that the proposed standard language for monitoring
violations has been modified for the final rule. The language now states that the
system cannot be sure of the water quality during the period during which
monitoring was not done. This language is more applicable to failure to monitor
for unregulated contaminants than the proposed language.

141.207 (a) When is the special notice to be given?

Comments:

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): In this section, EPA proposes to change the reporting
frequency for unregulated contaminants from 12 months to three months [sic, 3 months to 12
months], A notice frequency of every three months will dilute the affect [sic] and purpose of the
notice. Unregulated contaminants might frequently appear in sampling, but they may not have
immediate adverse health effects. Customer receipt every three months of an unregulated
contaminant notice having no immediate adverse health affects [sic] may lead to customer apathy
with regard to the notice. A consumer will begin to disregard the notices, defeating the very
purpose for providing the notice. DMWW does not support the three-month frequency and
strongly encourages EPA to maintain the existing 12-month frequency.

Response: EPA wishes to clarify that the PN rule requires notice of the
availability of results of monitoring for unregulated contaminants within 12
months, not three as the commenter states.

Coalition for Health, Environment and Economic Rights, et al. (1.09): Given the reduced
frequency of monitoring for unregulated contaminants in recent years, and their unknown risks,

195

-------
OW should at least require that notice of detection of such contaminants be sent to PWS
consumers at all opportunities (i.e. add this to Tier 1 and Tier 2 reports, in addition to the
proposed annual Tier 3 reports).

Response: EPA disagrees that notice of the availability of results of monitoring
for unregulated contaminants should be included in Tier 1 or Tier 2 reports. EPA
sees this distribution of information as a right-to-know issue, with a different
message than the higher-tier notices. Time is not of the essence in informing
consumers that such data are available- this is why EPA has included these
notices in Tier 3. EPA wishes to add that nothing precludes an operator from
distributing notice of the availability of results of monitoring for unregulated
contaminants in less than one year. The final rule retains the requirement, as
proposed, to provide notice of the availability of unregulated contaminant
monitoring results within twelve months of the monitoring. The final rule makes
minor, clarifying changes to reference the new unregulated contaminant
monitoring rule (UCMR). The change in the timing of the public notice is to
allow water systems, at their option, to report the availability of all the results just
once during the year, reducing the number of notices from four to one.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports the change in the reporting
requirements of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) results from three
months to twelve months to better link to the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR).

Response: The final rule retains the requirement, as proposed, to provide notice
of the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results within twelve
months of the monitoring. The final rule makes minor, clarifying changes to
reference the new unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR). The change
in the timing of the public notice is to allow water systems, at their option, to
report the availability of all the results just once during the year, reducing the
number of notices from four to one.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania supports EPA's
proposal to reduce the reporting of the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results
from 3 to 12 months. In the event an unregulated contaminant is detected at an elevated level
which poses an immediate acute health risk, emergency PN would be appropriate.

Response: The final rule retains the requirement, as proposed, to provide notice
of the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results within twelve
months of the monitoring. The final rule makes minor, clarifying changes to
reference the new unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR). The change
in the timing of the public notice is to allow water systems, at their option, to
report the availability of all the results just once during the year, reducing the
number of notices from four to one.

196

-------
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (1.28): We prefer that the frequency of
announcement of unregulated contaminant monitoring results be shifted from 3 to 12 months.

Response: The final rule retains the requirement, as proposed, to provide notice
of the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results within twelve
months of the monitoring. The final rule makes minor, clarifying changes to
reference the new unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR). The change
in the timing of the public notice is to allow water systems, at their option, to
report the availability of all the results just once during the year, reducing the
number of notices from four to one.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Maryland supports the EPA proposal to
change the frequency of notice from three months to annual so that the notice can be coordinated
with the CCR. However, the regulations would need to allow up to 18 months because the CCR
deadline is July 1st If unregulated monitoring is performed in January or February of the
previous year, the data should be in the next year's CCR, and up to eighteen months would be
needed.

Response: The final rule retains the requirement, as proposed, to provide notice
of the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results within twelve
months of the monitoring. The final rule makes minor, clarifying changes to
reference the new unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR). The change
in the timing of the public notice is to allow water systems, at their option, to
report the availability of all the results just once during the year, reducing the
number of notices from four to one. EPA is requiring that this notice be
distributed within one year; this is required under the SDWA Amendments.

141.207 (b) What is the form and manner of the special notice?

Comments:

Oregon Health Division (1.20): Yes, annual reporting or CCR should be the method of this type
of public notice.

Response: In the final rule, the form and manner of the public notice must follow
the requirements for a Tier 3 public notice. EPA believes that the PN
requirements along with the requirement to include the results of such monitoring
(where detected) in the annual CCR, meet the public-right-to-know objective and
are protective of public health.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): ASDWA suggests that the notice of
availability for unregulated contaminant monitoring would be better positioned in the Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR) rather than required as a public notice. ASDWA believes that this

197

-------
situation does not warrant the level of concern engendered by the requirements of public
notification.

Response: Community water systems may include the notice of the availability of
the results in the CCR, which already must include unregulated contaminant
monitoring results when detected. EPA believes close coordination between the
public notification requirement and the CCR reporting requirement for this
information will be both more efficient and less confusing to the regulated
community and the public.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): Unregulated contaminant monitoring (UCM) — We
strongly believe that the Consumer Confidence Report can be appropriately utilized to report the
availability of UCM results for the previous calendar year for community systems. This would
mean that the public would be notified up to 18 months after the results are available, instead of
the 12 months required by the proposed rule.

Response: Community water systems may include the notice of the availability of
the results in the CCR, which already must include unregulated contaminant
monitoring results when detected. EPA believes close coordination between the
public notification requirement and the CCR reporting requirement for this
information will be both more efficient and less confusing to the regulated
community and the public. EPA is requiring that this notice be distributed within
one year; this is required under the SDWA Amendments.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): The CCR already requires CWS to include any
detectable levels of contaminants found in their water during the calendar year, which would
include any detected unregulated contaminants. The IDNR does not see the need to require
additional public notice other than the CCR for CWS for unregulated contaminants. We do not
require data of undetected regulated contaminants to be provided to the consumer - so why
would undetected unregulated contaminants (those which have yet to have met the criteria to
become regulated contaminants) data be required to be provided to the public? We see no public
health benefit in this requirement. In the interest of simplifying the public notice rules, the IDNR
supports the elimination of this section, or only apply it to non-transient non-community systems
- and allow the CCR to meet the public notice requirement for detected unregulated
contaminants.

Response: Community water systems may include the notice of the availability of
the results in the CCR, which already must include unregulated contaminant
monitoring results when detected. EPA believes close coordination between the
public notification requirement and the CCR reporting requirement for this
information will be both more efficient and less confusing to the regulated
community and the public. EPA adds that reporting of this information in public
notice is required under Section 1445 of SDWA.

198

-------
City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): CWD believes that
the CCR would be the appropriate vehicle for announcing the availability of these results. If any
unregulated contaminants were detected, they must be included in the report, so it seems logical
that this would be the appropriate place to inform customers how to receive a copy of the full
results.

Response: Community water systems may include the notice of the availability of
the results in the CCR, which already must include unregulated contaminant
monitoring results when detected. EPA believes close coordination between the
public notification requirement and the CCR reporting requirement for this
information will be both more efficient and less confusing to the regulated
community and the public.

199

-------
Topic 21: 141.208 Special notice for exceedance of the SMCL for fluoride

EPA requests comment on whether EPA should retain the special public notice
for exceedance of the fluoride SMCL and, if retained, whether retaining the
requirement allowing the public notice to be given 12 months after the
exceedance is known is sufficient. (64 FR 25980)

Comments:

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports the changes to the notification
requirements for the fluoride Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL).

Response: EPA agrees and has retained these changes in the final rule. The final
rule requires community water systems to provide the special notice when they
exceed the SMCL of 2 mg/1 but do not exceed the MCL of 4 mg/1. EPA believes
it is important to retain the existing fluoride SMCL notice requirement.

Consumers have a right to know about the cosmetic effects from dental fluorosis
that may occur in children from prolonged exposure to drinking water exceeding
the fluoride SMCL. EPA has revised the mandatory language to reflect recent
studies of the incidence and potential cosmetic effects of dental fluorosis and to
make other changes to better communicate the intended message.

Association of California Water Agencies (1.16): Although EPA's decision to retain reporting
requirements for exceedances of the fluoride secondary MCL may be justified, EPA should be
aware that this may intensify the national debate on the fluoridation of drinking water.

Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's concern; however the final rule
retains an existing requirement, with minor changes only. The final rule requires
community water systems to provide the special notice when they exceed the
SMCL of 2 mg/1 but do not exceed the MCL of 4 mg/1. EPA believes it is
important to retain the existing fluoride SMCL notice requirement. Consumers
have a right to know about the cosmetic effects from dental fluorosis that may
occur in children from prolonged exposure to drinking water exceeding the
fluoride SMCL.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (1.22): Short-term exceedance of the fluoride
secondary MCL (Section 141.208) poses no health risk unless the fluoride level is excessive.
The primacy agency needs the flexibility to exempt water agencies from the public notification
requirements when the fluoride level exceeds the secondary MCL for a short period of time.

Response: The final rule requires community water systems to provide the
special notice when they exceed the SMCL of 2 mg/1 but do not exceed the MCL
of 4 mg/1. EPA believes it is important to retain the existing fluoride SMCL
notice requirement. Consumers have a right to know about the cosmetic effects

200

-------
from dental fluorosis that may occur in children from prolonged exposure to
drinking water exceeding the fluoride SMCL. Regarding the commenter's point
about brief exceedances of the SMCL, EPA does not believe that an exemption
from this requirement is appropriate. Systems may explain in their notice the
nature of the exceedance and that the situation has been resolved and the risk
abated.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): Mandatory public notification for fluoride, a secondary
contaminant, should not be required at all. The water system can decide which, if any, secondary
contaminants need special notification to its customers based on system-specific conditions.

Response: The final rule requires community water systems to provide the
special notice when they exceed the SMCL of 2 mg/1 but do not exceed the MCL
of 4 mg/1. EPA believes it is important to retain and strengthen the existing
fluoride SMCL special notice requirement. Consumers have a right to know
about the cosmetic effects from dental fluorosis that may occur in children
resulting from exposure to drinking water exceeding the fluoride SMCL. The
current notice requirement for exceedance of the fluoride SMCL in §143.5 was
put in place when the fluoride national primary drinking water regulation
(NPDWR) was published in April 2, 1986 [50 FR 11396], The 1986 fluoride
NPDWR replaced the more stringent MCL in place as an interim standard since
the original SDWA in 1974. The interim MCL of 2 mg/1 became the SMCL when
the final primary standard was published on April 2, 1986. Part of the agreement
for reducing the stringency of the MCL from 2 mg/1 to 4 mg/1 was that the public
would continue to be notified of the potential for developing dental fluorosis from
exposure to their drinking water when the levels exceeded 2 mg/1.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Maryland supports the EPA proposal to allow
the notice to follow Tier 3 requirements, and to simplify the language. Regarding EPA's request
for comment on extending the fluoride notice requirements to non-transient noncommunity
systems (NTNC), a public notice requirement should not be required currently. A monitoring
requirement should be considered before a public notice decision is made. Most children on a
NTNC system may consume the water less than half the year (schools - 180 days/year).

Response: EPA has retained the special notice requirement in the final rule. The
final rule requires community water systems to provide the special notice when
they exceed the SMCL of 2 mg/1 but do not exceed the MCL of 4 mg/1. EPA also
restored in the final rule the language in §143.5 of the current rule (inadvertentl
left out of the proposal) requiring that the notice be distributed not only to persons
served, but also to new billing units and new customers and to the State health
officer. EPA believes it is important to retain the existing fluoride SMCL notice
requirement. Consumers have a right to know about the cosmetic effects from
dental fluorosis that may occur in children from prolonged exposure to drinking
water exceeding the fluoride SMCL. NTNCWS are not required to monitor for

201

-------
fluoride under EPA's current regulations, and therefore the EPA SMCL notice
requirement does not apply to them. However, EPA recommends that NTNCWS,
particularly schools and day care centers, provide the special SMCL notice to
persons they serve when they learn they are providing drinking water with
fluoride levels exceeding 2 mg/1.

141.208 (a) When is the special notice to be given?

EPA requests comment on whether EPA should retain the special public notice
for exceedance of the fluoride SMCL and, if retained, whether retaining the
requirement allowing the public notice to be given 12 months after the
exceedance is known is sufficient. (64 FR 25980)

Comments:

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): DMWW believes that requiring notice of fluoride exceedance
every twelve months is not a sufficient requirement. Fluoride testing results could vary
dramatically between 12 month reporting times. If violations were reported every three months,
customers would be aware of violations within a closer period of time to the occurrence.
DMWW suggests fluoride exceedance notices be required every three months.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the current requirement that the notice be
required as soon as practical but no later than 12 months from the date of the
exceedance. EPA is aware of recent studies that indicate possible risk of dental
fluorosis from short-term exposure to fluoride levels above the SMCL, but it has
not done a sufficient review of the various studies to consider changing the notice
timing from what was proposed. Review of the fluoride standard falls within the
required six year review of the existing national primary drinking water standards
under Section 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA, which is not due to be completed until
August 2002. Since some recent studies do indicate a possible risk of dental
fluorosis from short-term exposure in certain circumstances, EPA believes it is
prudent for a water system with continuous levels of fluoride above the SMCL to
work with the primacy agenc to determine when and how often the notice should
be given, based on the severity and persistence of the fluoride exceedance in the
specific situation. In the final rule, EPA also explicitly authorizes the primac
agency to require notice sooner and repeat notices more frequently if warranted b
the specific situation.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): Retain special public notice for fluoride SMCL - The
requirement should be retained. . . Notice to be given 12 months after exceedence - This would
be consistent with the CCR and other Tier 3 requirements and is sufficient.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained the special notice as a Tier 3 requirement
in the final rule.

202

-------
Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania supports EPAs
proposal to retain special public notice for exceeding the fluoride SMCL. Pennsylvania has
adopted the federal SMCL for fluoride as a primary MCL and would like it to be a tier 2
violation.

Response: EPA has decided to retain the current requirement that the notice be
required as soon as practical but no later than 12 months from the date of the
exceedance. EPA is aware of recent studies that indicate possible risk of dental
fluorosis from short-term exposure to fluoride levels above the SMCL, but it has
not done a sufficient review of the various studies to consider changing the notice
timing from what was proposed. Review of the fluoride standard falls within the
required six year review of the existing national primary drinking water standards
under Section 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA, which is not due to be completed until
August 2002. Since some recent studies do indicate a possible risk of dental
fluorosis from short-term exposure in certain circumstances, EPA believes it is
prudent for a water system with continuous levels of fluoride above the SMCL to
work with the primacy agenc to determine when and how often the notice should
be given, based on the severity and persistence of the fluoride exceedance in the
specific situation. In the final rule, EPA also explicitly authorizes the primac
agency to require notice sooner and repeat notices more frequently if warranted b
the specific situation.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): The secondary MCL (SMCL) specifically
pertains to children under the age of nine, whose teeth have yet to erupt from the gums. It is not
protective of public health to allow a PWS 12 months after an exceedance of the SMCL to
provide public notice to the parents and caregivers of these children, given the short time frame
in which the damage can occur. The IDNR supports a shorter time period for the notice - such as
90 days.

A fluoride SMCL exceedance should be a Tier 2 violation, due to the health affect [sic] and the
target population. The health effect may be cosmetic in nature, but it is definitely in the child's
best interest for their parents and caregivers to be informed of this situation in a timely manner.
The IDNR supports the change in classification to Tier 2.

203

-------
prudent for a water system with continuous levels of fluoride above the SMCL to
work with the primacy agenc to determine when and how often the notice should
be given, based on the severity and persistence of the fluoride exceedance in the
specific situation. In the final rule, EPA also explicitly authorizes the primac
agency to require notice sooner and repeat notices more frequently if warranted b
the specific situation.

141.208 (b) What is the form and manner of the special notice?

Comments:

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): Assuming that this requirement will remain in the rule,
we strongly believe that the Consumer Confidence Report can be appropriately utilized to report
any special information on fluoride SMCL exceedances occurring during the previous calendar
year for community systems. This would allow up to 18 months after the results are available,
instead of the 12 months required by the proposed rule. In addition we believe the mandatory
language should be shortened considerably.

Response: In the final rule, EPA has retained the 12-month deadline for notice of
fluoride SMCL exceedances. For most violations and situations, a one-year
deadline is mandated in the SDWA Amendments. EPA believes that extending
the deadline to 18 months for a few provisions would be complicated and
confusing. In the final rule, EPA encourages water system operators to use their
CCRs to report exceedances of the SMCL for fluoride, provided the timing,
content, and delivery requirements of the PN rule are met. EPA does not believe
that the mandatory language should be greatly shortened. The Agency reviewed
and asked for public comment on the language and as a result has determined that
its is appropriate. EPA has revised the standard language from that in the
proposal to reflect recent studies of the incidence and potential cosmetic effects of
dental fluorosis and to make other changes to better communicate the intended
message. EPA believes the mandatory language for exceedances of the SMCL for
fluoride is necessary to adequately communicate the cosmetic effects from dental
fluorosis that may occur in children from prolonged exposure to drinking water
exceeding the fluoride SMCL.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): Why is the CCR not expressly allowed for use in
this criteria, as it is in the Tier 3 violations of a similar duration?

Response: In the final rule, EPA encourages water system operators to use their
CCRs to report exceedances of the SMCL for fluoride.

141.208 (c) What mandatory language must be contained in the special
notice?

204

-------
EPA also requests comment on whether the revised mandatory language better
communicates the purpose of the notice and the cosmetic risks from drinking the
water. (64 FR 25980)

Comments:

Oregon Health Division (1.20): The revised language is clear in communicating the cosmetic
risk.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (1.28): We are in favor of keeping the
public notice requirements and language for fluoride as they currently are.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): The IDNR fully supports the use of this language
to inform parents and caregivers of children under the age of nine of the effect of elevated
fluoride levels on those children. However, this language should also be added - in its entirety -
to the MCL health effects language. It does a great disservice to the affected children to tell the

205

-------
public that "Children may get mottled teeth." from an MCL exceedance of >4 mg/L fluoride, and
yet provide this much more informative language for fluoride levels from between 2-4 mg/L.
Use of the phrase "mottled teeth" in the MCL language is questionable, when the more
descriptive "brown staining and/or pitting of the permanent teeth" is more easily understood by
the general population. The IDNR fully supports the use of this SMCL health effects language
for both SMCL and MCL fluoride exceedances.

Response: The final rule carries forward the proposed notice requirement for
exceedances of the SMCL basically unchanged. In response to comments,
however, EPA did make significant changes to the proposed mandatory notice
language to improve the effectiveness of the notice. In addition, EPA agreed with
commenters that the proposed standard language required for violations of the
fluoride MCL did not adequately cover the cosmetic effects from the violation.
Accordingly, EPA has modified in Appendix B of the final rule the standard
health effects language for violations of the fluoride MCL, to include more
complete information on the effects of dental fluorosis. The existing fluoride
language required in the CCR rule was amended as well. This change will ensure
that parents of the children most vulnerable to the cosmetic effects of fluoride
exceedances (i.e., children nine years old and under) receive information on both
the cosmetic and health effects from fluoride MCL violations. Consumers have a
right to know about the cosmetic effects from dental fluorosis that may occur in
children from prolonged exposure to drinking water exceeding the fluoride
SMCL. EPA has included an abbreviated version of the standard language to the
health effects language in Appendix B of the final rule. The health effects
language contains the same main points as the mandatory language. Both the
health effects language and the standard language refer to brown staining and
pitting of permanent teeth.

City of Chandler (AZ), Office of the City Attorney (1.41): The notice language and other
requirements mandated at 141.208(c) (as well as similar language in other areas of the proposed
rule) are based on the assumption that the violation is on-going. As such the language is
misleading if there is a one-time spike in a constituent level. For example, the fluoride special
notice language mandates the following: "The drinking water provided by [name of community
water system] has a fluoride concentration of. . ."

Thus the reader is left with the impression that water delivered by the public water system has a
fluoride concentration above 2 mg/1 on a continuous basis even when, as stated above, that level
may have simply been a one-time fluke. I assume that the special notice level was set with the
understanding that continue consumption of water with fluoride concentrations above 2 mg/1
could cause cosmetic dental issues. As an aside, are there required warnings for children using
fluoridated toothpaste, etc. on a daily basis?

Response: The final rule carries forward the proposed notice requirement for
exceedances of the SMCL basically unchanged. In response to comments,

206

-------
however, EPA did make significant changes to the proposed mandatory notice
language to improve the effectiveness of the notice. In addition, EPA agreed with
commenters that the proposed standard language required for violations of the
fluoride MCL did not adequately cover the cosmetic effects from the violation.
Accordingly, EPA has modified in Appendix B of the final rule the standard
health effects language for violations of the fluoride MCL, to include more
complete information on the effects of dental fluorosis. The existing fluoride
language required in the CCR rule was amended as well. This change will ensure
that parents of the children most vulnerable to the cosmetic effects of fluoride
exceedances (i.e., children nine years old and under) receive information on both
the cosmetic and health effects from fluoride MCL violations. Consumers have a
right to know about the cosmetic effects from dental fluorosis that may occur in
children from prolonged exposure to drinking water exceeding the fluoride
SMCL. Where fluoride violations are brief exceedances or "flukes," systems may
explain in their notice the nature of the exceedance and that the situation has been
resolved and the risk abated. In response to the commenter's question about
warnings for children using fluoridated toothpaste, EPA does not issue any
warnings- any such warnings would be requirements of the Food and Drug
Administration. However, the revised SMCL language encourages consumers to
consult their children's dentists about the use of products containing fluoride.

University of Florida, Soil and Water Science Department (2.1): "Language for monitoring
violations (including procedure violations), you must include the following language for all
monitoring and testing procedure violations. . . " Must be greatly modified for low-literacy
audiences. This applies also to the wording for fluoride and unregulated contaminant
monitoring.

Response: The language for fluoride SMCL exceedances is mandatory. However,
systems may add simplified language to the beginning or end of the notice if they
wish.

Unidentified participant at Phoenix meeting (E.4): Can the standard language for exceedances of
the secondary maximum contaminant level for fluoride be changed from units of mg/1 to ppm or
ppb, especially since this information might be included in the CCR?

Response: No, the language must be provided as written.

207

-------
Topic 22: 141.209 Notice by the primacy agency on behalf of the public

water system

EPA requests comment on the proposal to retain this provision. (64 FR 25980)
Comments:

Indiana DEM (1.04): It is important to leave the provision that the primacy agency (or even
EPA) may provide the public notice for the system so that if a situation warrants the notice and
the system refuses to provide it, there will be no legal problems involved in having the notice
provided by the primacy agency.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this requirement.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports maintaining the existing
conditions for the primacy agency giving the notification in lieu of the utility.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this requirement.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania supports EPA's
proposal to continue the provision that a primacy agency may issue PN on behalf of a PWS.

This is a powerful tool to encourage suppliers to comply as a state issued PN may make it appear
that the PWS is trying to hide something.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this requirement.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Maryland supports retaining the current rule
which allows the primacy agency to give notice on behalf of a system. Responsibility for the
notice should remain with the public water system. This is especially important for NC systems
where county agencies may draft and post notices at food facilities in response to a water quality
violation.

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this requirement.

City of Chandler (AZ) Office of the City Attorney (1.41): It is unclear how the provisions of
proposed Section 141.209 would be implemented. Does the primacy agency have the authority to
give notice on behalf of a public water system even when the public water system has, or has
stated that it will, provide such notice on its own? Is this provision intended to cover the scenario
when a primacy agency and public water system disagree on the form of notice (or
additional/repeat notices) to be provided? If the primacy agency takes it upon itself to provide
notice notwithstanding a public water systems willingness to provide notice (or if the parties
simply believe notice would be better served coming from the primacy agency), how will, and

208

-------
why should, the public water system "... remain legally responsible for insuring that the
requirements of this subpart are met."?

Response: In response to the commenter's first question, the PN rule does allow
the primacy agency to deliver a notice without the consent of or over the objection
of the water system; however, EPA expects that such a situation would be unusual
and would be a matter to be worked out between the water system and the
primacy agency. In response to the second question, this provision does not allow
the state to give the notice when the primacy agency and the water system
disagree on the form of the notice. In response to the last question, the PN
obligation does not shift to the state regardless of who gives the notice. The state
may fulfill the system's PN obligation by issuing the notice; however the system
would still be subject to enforcement actions should the requirements not be met.

141.209 (a) When may the primacy agency give the notice on behalf of the
public water system?

EPA is proposing to retain the provision in the current rule specifying under what
conditions the primacy agency may give notice on behalf of a public water system.

Under this provision, the primacy agency may give a public notice for the public
water system if all public notification requirements are met. (64 FR 25980)

Comments: None.

141.209 (b) What is the responsibility of the public water system when
notice is given by the primacy agency?

Comments: None.

Appendix A NPDWR Violations and Situations Requiring Public Notice

EPA is also asking for comment on its proposal to present in tabular form all the
situations requiring a public notice and its plans to update Appendix A as new
rules are promulgated. (64 FR 25972)

Comments:

Note: comments on violations to be included in Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 are included in Sections
141.202(a), 141.203(a), and 141.204(a), respectively.

Appendix B Standard Health Effects Language for Public Notification

EPA is requesting comment on the proposal to use the CCR standard health
effects language to meet the public notification requirement. In particular, EPA is

209

-------
soliciting comment on specific situations or violations where the CCR language is
believed to be inappropriate or incomplete. Recommendations for alternative
language for such situations would also be helpful. (64 FR 25978)

Comments:

Note: comments related to mandatory health effects language are included in Section 141.205
(d)(1).

Appendix C List of Acronyms Used in Public Notification Regulation
Comments: None.

210

-------
Topic 23: Part 141, Subpart D - Reporting and record keeping

141.31	Reporting requirements

EPA requests comment on the reporting and record-keeping proposal, including
the alternative to the proposal to set the retention periodfor records under the
public notification regulations to five years. (64 FR 25980)

Comments:

Dave Van Fleet (1.03): I am in favor of option 2, no change to reporting requirements, as stated
in the Preamble page 25980. Agencies would still have 10 days to report to their primacy agency.
A public agency can meet the public notification requirements if it sends a copy of the public
notice to the primacy agency. To require a certification statement on top of that, as option 1
states and is in §141.31, seems redundant.

Response: EPA has chosen to keep the certification requirement and reporting
deadline as proposed. EPA believes that a simple self-certification of compliance
by the public water system to the primacy agency (with copies of the notices)
shortly after the requirements are completed saves primacy agency resources and
allows better targeting of non-compliers. EPA also believes that maintaining the
existing 10-day requirement gives primacy agencies enough information to
immediately target non-complying water systems. The potential for such
immediate feedback where a certification is not received will increase voluntary
compliance.

Indiana DEM (1.04): The reporting deadline should be extended to 10 days after the end of the
month in which the public notification is required so that it is consistent with reporting
requirements for other NPDWR. It does not make sense to require, if a system has an MCL
violation for total coliform based on a sample collected on January 1 and repeat samples
collected on January 5 to have their public notice submitted by January 15 if the samples are not
even required to be submitted to the primacy agency until February 10. In addition, it would be
difficult to track 10 day deadlines if they are triggered constantly for different systems.

Response: EPA has decided to keep the reporting deadline at ten days as
proposed. Although sample results do not have to be submitted until ten days
after the end of the month, as the commenter says, total coliform MCL violations
must still be reported to the primacy agency by the end of the next business day as
part of the Total Coliform Rule. EPA believes that maintaining the 10-day
deadline gives primacy agencies enough information to immediately target non-
complying water systems. The potential for such immediate feedback where a
certification is not received will increase voluntary compliance.

211

-------
City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department (1.05): The Department does not support EPA's
proposed position on this issue. The Department contends that EPA should leave the existing
reporting provision unchanged. The Department believes that the current reporting provision is
adequate to keep the primacy agency fully informed that all notification requirements have been
met. The additional certification process will unnecessarily divert resources from both the
primacy agencies and public water systems that may be better utilized for other essential efforts.

Response: EPA will require operators to submit to their primacy agency within
10 days a certification that all public notice requirements were met, along with a
copy of the notice, as proposed. EPA believes that maintaining the 10-day
deadline is necessary to give primacy agencies enough information to
immediately target non-complying water systems. The potential for such
immediate feedback where a certification is not received will increase voluntary
compliance.

Washington State Department of Health, Division of Drinking Water (1.06): The requirement
that PWSs submit a certification to the state (within 10 days of completion of each public notice)
stating that all PN requirements have been met is redundant and unnecessary. This requirement
places an additional burden on the water system to comply with the PN rule and on the state to
track it for compliance purposes. The intent of revising the PN rule was to simplify the PN
process so as to "encourage" compliance. This additional written requirement serves to further
complicate the proposed process.

As an alternative, the water system should be required to send the state a copy of the same public
notice it used to notify water system users. This notice could include a certification "box" (to be
signed and dated) at the bottom of the notice that indicates the system complied with all of the
PN requirements. The draft PN Handbook templates could incorporate such a certification "box"
for the benefit of the PWS; thus, one notice and only one mailing to the state.

Response: EPA will require operators to submit to their primacy agency within
10 days a certification that all public notice requirements were met, along with a
copy of the notice, as proposed. EPA believes that maintaining the 10-day
deadline is necessary to give primacy agencies enough information to
immediately target non-complying water systems. The potential for such
immediate feedback where a certification is not received will increase voluntary
compliance. In response to the commenter's suggestion of a certification "box," a
properly worded box that indicates the system complied with all of the PN
requirements would meet the certification requirement.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): On reporting to the primacy agency it is
important that systems not only certify that the public notice requirement was met, but also to
explain how the requirement was met. Why does EPA consider this unnecessary? The notice
may have been posted, but was it posted in the lobby or on the back door of a broom closet? We

212

-------
also instruct systems to sign the certification for honesty and accountability. . . . The existing 10-
day requirement for systems to report public notice to the primacy agency should be maintained.

Response: EPA disagrees that primacy agencies would not have sufficient
information to determine how the PN requirements were met. The public water
system must include with its certification a representative copy of each type of
notice distributed, published, posted, and made available to the persons served by
the system and to the media. Oversight by primacy agencies can be done via
inspections if needed. EPA believes that the required certification method is
efficient, and that requiring more would be overly burdensome.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): This "self-certification" seems overly complicated and
bureaucratic. The water system should simply submit a copy of the public notice and how it was
delivered to the primacy agency. ... A submittal to the primacy agency of the public notice and
method of delivery is sufficient. "Self certification" seems like a vague requirement which
doesn't contribute anything but confusion to the process. Submittal within 10 days is reasonable.

Response: EPA will require operators to submit to their primacy agency within
10 days a certification that all public notice requirements were met, along with a
copy of the notice, as proposed. EPA believes that maintaining the 10-day
deadline gives primacy agencies enough information to immediately target non-
complying water systems. The potential for such immediate feedback where a
certification is not received will increase voluntary compliance. EPA disagrees
that the certification requirement is complicated. A sample certification statement
for PWSs to use is included in EPA's Public Notification Handbook.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (1.22): The 10-day PNR notification requirement in
Section 141.31 is inconsistent with the 60-day LCR notification requirement in Section
141.85(c)(2). Also, the 10-day PNR notification requirement is inconsistent with the 3 month
CCR certification requirement.

Response: The 60-day deadline in 141.85(c)(2) for the lead and copper rule is a
deadline for educating the public, not for certification or reporting to the primacy
agency. EPA will require operators to submit to their primacy agency within 10
days a certification that all public notice requirements were met, along with a
copy of the notice, as proposed. EPA believes that maintaining the 10-day
deadline gives primacy agencies enough information to immediately target non-
complying water systems. The potential for such immediate feedback where a
certification is not received will increase voluntary compliance.

Metro Water District (Tucson, AZ) (1.26): Please elaborate and clarify the word certification to
the primacy agency. It is not clear as to how that would work and is it necessary?

213

-------
Response: A certification is a statement from the owner or operator of the PWS
or their designee to the primacy agency indicating that all public notification
requirements have been met. A sample certification statement, included in EPA's
Public Notification Handbook, reads as follows: "The public water system
indicated above hereby affirms that public notice has been provided to consumers
in accordance with the delivery, content, and format requirements and deadlines
in [regulatory citation]." Certifications will be submitted by operators to primacy
agencies, along with a copy of the notice. The copy is necessary to allow the
primacy agency to determine compliance with the PN requirements without the
need for inspections or requesting additional information from the system. EPA
believes that the certification alone without copies of the notice, as the current rule
requires, does not provide the primacy agency with the information it needs to
determine compliance.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (1.28): We agree that it is a good
procedure to align the CCR and public notice requirements. In regards to the certification process
for public notice, we believe that more information should be required from the system, such as
how the notice was delivered, when it was delivered, and by whom. In this way, the states can
better respond to questions by consumers.

Response: EPA disagrees that primacy agencies would not have sufficient
information to determine how the PN requirements were met. The public water
system must include with its certification a representative copy of each type of
notice distributed, published, posted, and made available to the persons served by
the system and to the media. Oversight by primacy agencies can be done via
inspections if needed. EPA believes that the required certification method is
efficient, and that requiring more would be overly burdensome.

Utah DEQ, Division of Drinking Water (1.31): The certification letter seems to be an
unnecessary item which will be a burden and a common oversight for small water systems
(systems with the most violations). . . . Utah recommends that EPA eliminate the requirement
that a certification letter be submitted to the state primacy agent in conjunction with a copy of the
actual public notice.

Response: EPA will require operators to submit to their primacy agency within
10 days a certification that all public notice requirements were met, along with a
copy of the notice, as proposed. EPA believes that the certification requirement is
necessary to give primacy agencies enough information to immediately target
non-complying water systems. The potential for such immediate feedback where
a certification is not received will increase voluntary compliance.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Tracking submittals of certification would be
difficult for current programs which verify the posting by visiting the site.

214

-------
Response: EPA will require operators to submit to their primacy agency within
10 days a certification that all public notice requirements were met, along with a
copy of the notice, as proposed. EPA believes that the certification requirement
will make tracking compliance with the PN rule easier for states. Under this
requirement, the PWS affirms compliance on its own. EPA believes that
maintaining the 10-day deadline gives primacy agencies enough information to
immediately target non-complying water systems. The potential for such
immediate feedback where a certification is not received will increase voluntary
compliance.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): AMWA believes that the 10 day
requirement for reporting public notices to the State is unduly restrictive and provides little
benefit over a more reasonable 30 day period. AMWA therefore recommends that the period be
30 days.

Response: EPA will require operators to submit to their primacy agency within
10 days a certification that all public notice requirements were met, along with a
copy of the notice, as proposed. EPA believes that the 10-day deadline gives
primacy agencies enough information to immediately target non-complying water
systems. The potential for such immediate feedback where a certification is not
received will increase voluntary compliance. EPA feels that 30 days for reporting
is too long for a primacy agency to wait to receive a copy of the notice if the
notice is inaccurate or if consumers call with questions about the violation.

City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): A 10-day time
period for reporting to the primacy agency is not sufficient. When weekends and holidays come
into play, this may not be a realistic time frame. If the water system has been in touch with the
primacy agency, then the agency will know that the requirements are being met before they
receive the report. Thirty days would be more realistic to report to the primacy agency.

Response: EPA will require operators to submit to their primacy agency within
10 days a certification that all public notice requirements were met, along with a
copy of the notice, as proposed. EPA believes that the 10-day deadline gives
primacy agencies enough information to immediately target non-complying water
systems. The potential for such immediate feedback where a certification is not
received will increase voluntary compliance. EPA feels that 30 days for reporting
is too long for a primacy agency to wait to receive a copy of the notice if the
notice is inaccurate or if consumers call with questions about the violation.

Akron (OH) Public Utilities Bureau (2.4): APUB recommends the current Sec. 141.31 be
retained requiring public water systems to submit copies of all public notices to the primacy
agency within 10 days of completing each public notice. It would be overly burdensome to
require an additional certification that all requirements have been met. Requiring additional
certification could cause additional violations where systems properly notified the public,

215

-------
properly notified the primacy agency but failed to submit additional certifications to the primacy
agency. Additional public notices for the same violation would confuse, not assist the public.

Response: EPA will require operators to submit to their primacy agency within
10 days a certification that all public notice requirements were met, along with a
copy of the notice. EPA believes that the certification requirement is justified in
that it gives primacy agencies enough information to immediately target non-
complying water systems. The potential for such immediate feedback where a
certification is not received will increase voluntary compliance.

Unidentified participant at Madison meeting (E. 1): The certification requirements are vague.

Response: A certification is a statement from the owner or operator of the PWS
or their designee to the primacy agency indicating that all public notification
requirements have been met. A sample certification statement, included in EPA's
Public Notification Handbook, reads as follows: "The public water system
indicated above hereby affirms that public notice has been provided to consumers
in accordance with the delivery, content, and format requirements and deadlines
in [regulatory citation]."

Unidentified participant at Madison meeting (E. 1): The state should not have to wait ten days to
receive a notice. Consumers occasionally call the state about the notice, and states should be
able to refer to a copy in order to answer questions. In addition, for Tier 1 violations, systems
forget to send a copy of the notice to the state if they are allowed to wait ten days. The notice
should be sent to the state at the same time it is provided to consumers.

Response: EPA will require operators to submit to their primacy agency within
10 days a certification that all public notice requirements were met, along with a
copy of the notice. EPA believes that the 10-day deadline gives primacy agencies
enough information to immediately target non-complying water systems. The
potential for such immediate feedback where a certification is not received will
increase voluntary compliance. EPA disagrees that 10 days is too long a deadline
for certification. For Tier 1, the certification will not be the first contact the
primacy agency has with the system. Assuming the consultation occurs before the
notice is issued, the primacy agency may ask to see a copy of the notice. In
addition, EPA's Public Notification Handbook reminds systems to send in a copy
of the notice and a certification on in the instructions to each template.

Unidentified participant at Phoenix meeting (E.4): What is "certification?" Do systems need a
notary public for certification?

Response: A certification is a statement from the owner or operator of the PWS
or their designee to the primacy agency indicating that all public notification
requirements have been met. A sample certification statement, included in EPA's

216

-------
Public Notification Handbook, reads as follows: "The public water system
indicated above hereby affirms that public notice has been provided to consumers
in accordance with the delivery, content, and format requirements and deadlines
in [regulatory citation]." The certification does not need to be notarized.

141.32	Public notification
Comments: None.

141.33	Record maintenance

EPA requests comment on the reporting and record-keeping proposal, including
the alternative to the proposal to set the retention periodfor records under the
public notification regulations to five years. EPA also requests comment on
whether the record retention periods required under the related CCR regulations
should be adjusted to three years, if necessary to be consistent with the final
public notification retention requirements and Paperwork Reduction Act
regulations. (64 FR 25980)

Comments:

Dave Van Fleet (1.03): I recommend keeping the current requirement of 3 years. I see no need to
go to 5 years of retaining these records as discuss [sic] in the Preamble page 25980.

Response: In the final PN rule, EPA has decided to require that PN records be
retained for three years, and the CCR rule will be changed to require record
retention for three years. This will make the record retention requirement in the
PN rule consistent with Office of Management and Budget paperwork reduction
requirements.

Indiana DEM (1.04): We have no preference as to how long the public notification records
should be kept (3 years or 5 years), however the public notification and Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR) retention schedules should be the same, so if the retention schedule is set at 3
years, the CCR retention schedule should be revised.

Response: In the final PN rule, EPA has decided to require that PN records be
retained for three years, and the CCR rule will be changed to require record
retention for three years. This will make the record retention requirement in the
PN rule consistent with Office of Management and Budget paperwork reduction
requirements.

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): DMWW believes that retaining public notification records for
three years is a reasonable retention period. Other record retention regulations require a public
water system to maintain records for three years. To provide consistency, DMWW suggests that

217

-------
all record retention requirements be three years. Maintaining consistent record retention periods
will decrease confusion about what records need to be kept and how long to keep them.

Response: In the final PN rule, EPA has decided to require that PN records be
retained for three years, and the CCR rule will be changed to require record
retention for three years. This will make the record retention requirement in the
PN rule consistent with Office of Management and Budget paperwork reduction
requirements.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1.13): The 3-year record retention requirement
proposed for public notification records is probably adequate.

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports the proposed record-keeping
requirements of three years. Additionally, AWWA recommends that the CCR regulation be
revised to match this three year record keeping requirement for consistency and to comply with
Paperwork Reduction Act regulations.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): [The proposal to extend the recordkeeping period] is a logical
approach to be consistent with the CCR and other regulatory requirements.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): ASDWA endorses the concept that
record keeping requirements for public notification and CCRs should be compatible. However,
ASDWA prefers that the records be retained for five years. This period matches the longest
interval between sanitary surveys (when states would inspect a facility's records on-site). The
five year period also concurs with current requirements for CCRs. As well, there has been some
discussion that monitoring cycle frequency may change from three to five years.

218

-------
Response: In the final PN rule, EPA has decided to require that PN records be
retained for three years, and the CCR rule will be changed to require record
retention for three years. This will make the record retention requirement in the
PN rule consistent with Office of Management and Budget paperwork reduction
requirements.

Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management (1.25): Pennsylvania recommends
requiring PWSs to retain PN records for five years. Copies of a CCR used to distribute required
PN information should also be retained for five years.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): The record retention periods for CCRs and for public
notifications should be the same, whether 3 years or 5 years.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): The public notice record maintenance period is
proposed to be three years after issuance. We recommend this be changed to five years for three
reasons: the longest interval between sanitary surveys is five years and that would be the time
when the state would inspect the facility's on-site records; the consumer confidence report (CCR)
retention period is five years; and there has been discussion of changing the monitoring
frequency from a three-year cycle to a five-year cycle. For consistency with other requirements
alone, a five-year retention period is recommended.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (1.35): AMWA also supports retention of records
for 3 years since this is the retention period for the vast majority of records and is in line with the
Paperwork Reduction Act regulations. Additionally, AMWA supports adjusting the CCR rule
retention requirements to three years for the same reasons. The few cases where longer retention

219

-------
might make enforcement actions quicker and cheaper does not justify the added burden to the
total universe of systems.

Response: In the final PN rule, EPA has decided to require that PN records be
retained for three years, and the CCR rule will be changed to require record
retention for three years. This will make the record retention requirement in the
PN rule consistent with Office of Management and Budget paperwork reduction
requirements.

City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Water (1.39): The record retention
time frame does not need to be extended from three to five years. Three years is sufficient time
for water systems to keep records on hand.

Response: In the final PN rule, EPA has decided to require that PN records be
retained for three years, and the CCR rule will be changed to require record
retention for three years. This will make the record retention requirement in the
PN rule consistent with Office of Management and Budget paperwork reduction
requirements.

220

-------
Topic 24: Part 142, Subpart B - Primacy requirements

Comments:

American Water Works Association (1.14): AWWA supports the proposed primacy
requirements, i.e., that the primacy agencies have 2 years to adopt their own regulations.
However, AWWA would advise against any early implementation requirements. The primacy
agencies are swamped with new regulatory requirements, ranging from the source water
assessments to implementation of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(IESWTR). Any new early implementation requirements would place an unnecessary burden on
the primacy agencies.

Response: EPA has retained the two-year time frame in the final rule.

142.14 (f) Records kept by States

EPA is requesting comment on the proposed requirements States would have to
follow to develop the approved primacy program revision and on other changes
to the State record keeping and reporting requirements related to the public
notification rule. (64 FR 25981)

Comments:

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): The IDNR recommends that this be changed to a
five-year minimum retention period, to coincide with other records retention requirements and
the longest sanitary survey frequency, when agency records may need to be reviewed.

Response: The purpose of the recordkeeping requirements for state primacy
agencies is to allow EPA access to primacy agencies' records. EPA believe that
requiring records be kept for three years is adequate for this purpose. If a state
wishes to retain records for a longer period for internal purposes, nothing
precludes it from doing so.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Maryland prefers the current regulation for
record retention which has no specific time requirement. The EPA proposal to require PWS to
retain notices for 3 years should not be extended to the primacy agency. The enforcement actions
reported to EPA on public notifications issued should be considered sufficient documentation of
public notice preparation.

Response: In the final PN rule, EPA has set the recordkeeping requirements for
states at three years to be consistent with other recordkeeping requirements under
142.14.

221

-------
142.15 (a)(1) Reports by States

EPA is requesting comment on the proposed requirements States would have to
follow to develop the approved primacy program revision and on other changes
to the State record keeping and reporting requirements related to the public
notification rule. (64 FR 25981)

Comments:

Consumer Federation of America (1.11): EPA [should], (1) require states to submit to EPA
information on water systems' compliance with the public notification requirements so that the
information can be included in the agency's database for the drinking water program and (2)
emphasize to regional and state drinking water officials that violations of the public notification
requirements should be considered for enforcement actions, other than a routine letter, even when
the actions would not be included in a broader enforcement action involving other program
requirements.

We urge EPA to amend the rule to emphasize the responsibility of the primacy agency for
enforcing compliance with the Public Notification Rule. The primacy agencies should be
required to submit the compliance data to EPA. Using that data, independent audits, or both,
EPA should track water system compliance and report its findings in future annual National
Public Water Systems Compliance Reports.

Only when water systems are convinced by such attention to enforcement that the requirements
for timely public notification are to be taken seriously will full compliance with the Public
Notification rule be significantly increased.

Response: The final rule does require primacy agencies to report public
notification violations to EPA (142.15(a)(1)). EPA will address compliance
strategies in its guidance to primacy agencies on implementing the PN rule.

Frederick Loomis, Clean Water Action (at Allentown meeting) (E.3): The rule needs to include
a requirement for tracking compliance, as recommended in the General Accounting Office
(GAO) report.

Response: The final rule does require primacy agencies to report public
notification violations to EPA (142.15(a)(1)). EPA will address compliance
strategies in its guidance to primacy agencies on implementing the PN rule.

142.16 (a) Special primacy requirements

EPA is requesting comment on the proposed requirements States would have to
follow to develop the approved primacy program revision and on other changes
to the State record keeping and reporting requirements related to the public

222

-------
notification rule. EPA is also requesting comment on the proposed interpretation
of the primacy standard to be appliedfor review of State alternative programs.
(64 FR 25981)

Comments:

Des Moines Water Works (1.07): DMWW supports EPA's decision to allow alternative public
notification requirements that are "no less stringent" than EPA requirements. This rule allows
states to tailor requirements to their specific needs. However, it is important that at a minimum,
state programs meet EPA guidelines to ensure consistency from state to state.

Response: EPA agrees with the comment.

Bridgeport (CT) Hydraulic Company (1.12): We agree with AWWA's strong support of the need
for primary agency implementation and timing flexibility (page 25981).

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support and has retained this
flexibility in the final rule.

Chemical Manufacturers Association (1.17): EPA should develop clear criteria that allow the
primary agency to determine when Tier 1 (24-hour) notice is necessary.

Response: EPA will provide criteria in its guidance to primacy agencies on
implementing the PN rule.

Oregon Health Division (1.20): This sounds way too complicated. Why is it needed?

Response: Portions of the PN rule explicitly authorize primacy agencies to
augment or otherwise change the EPA requirements to build a more complete and
effective State public notification program. In some cases, the regulation enables
the State to be more tailored than the EPA requirements. In other cases, the
regulation supports the existing flexibility under primacy for the State to be more
stringent. Since the EPA regulation provides great flexibility for the States to
tailor their program to fit their unique situation, EPA is acutely interested in how
the flexibility is used and how EPA and the States can jointly implement and
enforce this tailored program. EPA believes it is important to know how States
are implementing this program, whether they choose to follow only the minimum
requirements or to adopt portions of the rule that specifically allow the State to
specify additional requirements. The Agency needs to be able to enforce State
regulations, and must have a means to review State regulations to ensure that they
are enforceable. EPA does not specify how States should implement their specific
requirements in the federal PN rule and simply wants to ensure that whatever
option the State selects is enforceable and meets the PN rule requirements.

223

-------
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (1.22): The third coordination issue is the absence of
a specified approval process for primacy agencies which modify the Federal rule or adopt their
own version. The two-year deadline for the primacy agency to implement the final rule will
provide a reasonable timetable. However, no discussion of an approval process, comment
period, or deadline to submit a draft rule to EPA was mentioned. It may be beneficial to include
a recommended approval procedure and schedule in the final regulation to facilitate the
implementation of this rule.

Response: The approval process is set forth in part 142.12. This would be
reviewed as part of a state's primacy revision package. EPA will discuss these
issues in its guidance to primacy agencies on implementing the PN rule.

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (1.23): ASDWA questions the level of
detail required by states should they wish to add to the minimum requirements. Section
142.16(a)(2)(v & vi) include the phrase "under specific circumstances defined in the State's
primacy program." The phrase, however, is not included in the other items in this section. Will
EPA accept a confirmation that the state has enforceable requirements and procedures or will the
state be subjected to a detailed review? ASDWA maintains that once a state has met the
minimum Federal requirements, no further review by EPA should be necessary.

Virginia Department of Health (1.29): How much information will EPA be requiring from the
State when the State wants to add to the minimum requirements as listed in Section
142.16(a)(2)? Items (v) and (vi) of that section contain the phrase "under specific circumstances
defined in the State's primacy program", which seems to be clear, but the other items do not
contain such a phrase. Will EPA simply accept a confirmation that the State has enforceable
requirements and procedures without subjecting the State to a detailed review of those

224

-------
requirements and procedures? Once a State has met the minimum federal requirements, further
review by EPA should not be necessary.

Response: Portions of the PN rule explicitly authorize primacy agencies to
augment or otherwise change the EPA requirements to build a more complete and
effective State public notification program. In some cases, the regulation enables
the State to be more tailored than the EPA requirements. In other cases, the
regulation supports the existing flexibility under primacy for the State to be more
stringent. Since the EPA regulation provides great flexibility for the States to
tailor their program to fit their unique situation, EPA is acutely interested in how
the flexibility is used and how EPA and the States can jointly implement and
enforce this tailored program. EPA believes it is important to know how States
are implementing this program, whether they choose to follow only the minimum
requirements or to adopt portions of the rule that specifically allow the State to
specify additional requirements. The Agency needs to be able to enforce State
regulations, and must have a means to review State regulations to ensure that they
are enforceable. EPA does not specify how States should implement their specific
requirements in the federal PN rule and simply wants to ensure that whatever
option the State selects is enforceable and meets the PN rule requirements.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1.30): In section I of the preamble, it states that Section
1414(c)(2)(B) enables States to establish alternate requirements with respect to the form and
content of the public notice, as long as the alternative requirement provides the same type and
amount of information as is required under the EPA regulations. Are the States allowed to
require more health effects information, for example, than is required under the EPA regulations,
if it is deemed by the State that the public health would be better protected by requiring that
information? It seems that rather than the "same" amount of information being required, it should
be the "minimum" amount of information as listed in the EPA regulations is required.

Response: The final rule does allow States to modify the health effects language,
provided the revised language meets the primacy requirements of being no less
stringent than the federal rule.

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Drinking Water (1.31): The
requirement to have states establish enforceable requirements for State specific decisions wh
[sic] are more stringent than the corresponding federal rule is overly burdensome and not
supportable by statute.

Utah recommends that EPA limit its primacy review to ensuring that the state has the regulatory
authority to enforce rules that are as stringent as those contained in the final federal rule.

Response: Portions of the PN rule explicitly authorize primacy agencies to
augment or otherwise change the EPA requirements to build a more complete and
effective State public notification program. In some cases, the regulation enables

225

-------
the State to be more tailored than the EPA requirements. In other cases, the
regulation supports the existing flexibility under primacy for the State to be more
stringent. Since the EPA regulation provides great flexibility for the States to
tailor their program to fit their unique situation, EPA is acutely interested in how
the flexibility is used and how EPA and the States can jointly implement and
enforce this tailored program. EPA believes it is important to know how States
are implementing this program, whether they choose to follow only the minimum
requirements or to adopt portions of the rule that specifically allow the State to
specify additional requirements. The Agency needs to be able to enforce State
regulations, and must have a means to review State regulations to ensure that they
are enforceable. EPA does not specify how States should implement their specific
requirements in the federal PN rule and simply wants to ensure that whatever
option the State selects is enforceable and meets the PN rule requirements.

Maryland Department of the Environment (1.34): Maryland supports that States may adopt an
alternative PN program if it is "no less stringent."

Response: EPA agrees and has retained this approach in the final rule.

New York Department of Health (1.36): In Section 142.16, we believe that States should not
have to establish enforceable requirements and procedures to qualify for primacy when a State
opts to add or strengthen the minimum requirements under (i) through (vii), as long as the state is
"at-least-as-stringent."

Response: Portions of the PN rule explicitly authorize primacy agencies to
augment or otherwise change the EPA requirements to build a more complete and
effective State public notification program. In some cases, the regulation enables
the State to be more tailored than the EPA requirements. In other cases, the
regulation supports the existing flexibility under primacy for the State to be more
stringent. Since the EPA regulation provides great flexibility for the States to
tailor their program to fit their unique situation, EPA is acutely interested in how
the flexibility is used and how EPA and the States can jointly implement and
enforce this tailored program. EPA believes it is important to know how States
are implementing this program, whether they choose to follow only the minimum
requirements or to adopt portions of the rule that specifically allow the State to
specify additional requirements. The Agency needs to be able to enforce State
regulations, and must have a means to review State regulations to ensure that they
are enforceable. EPA does not specify how States should implement their specific
requirements in the federal PN rule and simply wants to ensure that whatever
option the State selects is enforceable and meets the PN rule requirements.

226

-------