$£2 lu I v (, ... »J I ! * \ i ,v ftmf J.L, ./ 'A '/ * \ m rv / / w 1 I' annual report 2 0 0 2 1 ------- Safe Drinking Water HAtline Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report October 2001 - September 2002 ------- Table of Contents Executive Summary i Technical Response 1 Annual Trends 5 Questions and Answers 8 Federal Register Summaries 20 Technical Response, Appendix 1 24 Meeting EPA's Customer Service Standards 26 Ensuring Cost Effective Response and Support 33 Providing Outreach Assistance For EPA's Office of Water 34 Safe Drinking Water Hotline National Toll-free No.: (800) 426-4791 or (877) EPAWATER See past monthly reports at http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/hotline For More Information Contact: Harriet Hubbard, EPA Project Officer (202) 564-4621 Operated by Booz Allen Hamilton Under Contract #GS-10F-0090J EPA DISCLAIMER Answers to questions in the Safe Drinking Water Hotline monthly report are intended to be purely informational and are based on SDWA provisions, EPA regulations, guidance, and established policy effective at the time of publication. The answers given reflect EPA staffs best judgment at the time and do not represent a final or official EPA interpretation. This report does not substitute for the applicable provisions of statutes and regulations, guidance, etc., nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States, or the regulated community. An answer to a question in this report may be revised at any time to reflect EPA's revisions to existing regulations, changes in EPA's approach to interpreting its regulations or statutory authority, or for other reasons. EPA may provide a different answer to a question in this report in the future. Also, an answer provided in this report may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. Any decisions regarding a particular case will be made based on the applicable statutes and regulations. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the appropriateness of the application of an answer in this report to a particular situation, and EPA will consider whether or not the recommendations or interpretations in the answer are accurate and appropriate in that situation. The information in this report is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. ------- Annual Report Executive Summary The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect human health and safeguard the environment. In meeting its mission, EPA provides communities, businesses, and state, local, and tribal governments with access to accurate information necessary for managing environmental and human health risks. EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) ensures safe drinking water and protects ground water through implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is the national law safeguarding tap water in America. The Safe Drinking Water (SDW) Hotline, operated by Booz Allen Hamilton, assists OGWDW with its outreach efforts to provide information about federal drinking water standards and local drinking water. In Fiscal Year 2002 (FY 2002), the Hotline responded to over 25,300 phone inquiries and 3,730 email inquiries (generating more than 36,400 questions), from public water systems (PWSs), federal, state and local governments, and citizens about EPA's drinking water regulations and standards, as well as source water protection and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. These inquiries reflected several "hot topics" and initiatives, including the following: • Terrorism and Drinking Water Security—Following September 11, 2001, the Hotline received questions about drinking water security issues ranging from the safety of the nation's drinking water supply to specific PWS vulnerability assessment requirements and related funding options. • The Arsenic Rule—The revised maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic, promulgated in January 2002, generated numerous inquiries from stakeholders such as citizens, PWS operators, and state agencies. • The Drought of2002—The Hotline fielded questions concerning private wells and public drinking water sources related to the persistent drought and its effect on the availability and quality of water. • Consumer Confidence Reports—As is the case annually, the Hotline handled a large increase in volume of calls and email inquiries during the months of May through July, due to the nationwide issuance of the annual Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs). In responding to inquiries from a diverse user community, the SDW Hotline utilizes a variety of techniques to ensure technical quality as well as efficient service for each inquiry. The following sections summarize the Hotline's technical assistance and techniques for providing high quality service to Hotline users and EPA, supplemented by quotes received from Hotline users during FY 2002. Providing Quality Technical Assistance to Communities, Businesses, and Governments Safe Drinking Water Hotline staff responded to approximately 120 phone and email inquiries each operating day of FY 2002. A staff of regulatory-trained experts provided real-time assistance to user questions ranging from regulatory and policy clarifications, to document requests and Internet availability of information, to referrals for additional sources information from other federal agencies, organizations, states, and local public water systems. A few highlights of the quality technical assistance provided by Hotline staff in FY 2002 are summarized below: • The Hotline served a diverse group of customers including citizens, consultants, PWS operators, government officials, academic institutions, and laboratories. This requires SDW Information Specialists to understand the needs of each group and identify and communicate appropriate, relevant guidance to meet these needs. Safe Drinking Water Hotline ------- Annual Report • The SDW Hotline staff includes trained Spanish-speaking Information Specialists. The Hotline phone system greeting offers Spanish-speaking callers with the option of leaving a message in a voice mailbox which is returned within 24 hours or to speak to an Information Specialist in real-time. During FY 2002, SDW Hotline Spanish-speaking Information Specialists responded to over 100 requests for information. • Gauged caller needs, often recommending documents, and processed requests for over 4,000 documents including 586 requests for Water on Tap (EPA815-K-97-002). • Provided 25,036 referrals to state and local water programs, not-for-profit organizations, and other federal agencies when inquiries extended beyond our purview and required additional input. This is an invaluable service to help individuals reach the right agency or organization—often callers have contacted several different organizations and government offices by telephone before receiving referral information. To aid these callers, the SDW Hotline maintains a comprehensive list of organizations which are appropriate referrals for the most commonly asked questions outside of the Hotline purview. • Responded to a 57 percent increase in inquiry volumes from May 2002 to July 2002 due to the nationwide distribution of CCRs generating additional questions on UCMR, lead, coliform bacteria, arsenic and radon. • Drafted 87 Questions and Answers and 18 Federal Register summaries for inclusion in the monthly Water Lines Report and the Technical Response section of this report. • Provided callers with the option of listening to a message on a particular topic instead of waiting to speak with the Information Specialist. This self-serve options allows callers to obtain new "hot topic" information through automated options on the Hotline's phone system. During FY 2002, 17,672 callers listened to a message on drinking water quality and 1,089 listened to updates on the arsenic regulatory levels. "I have spent the entire week on the telephone with commercial testing labs, hospital-based labs, the state EPA, and the Public Health Department to find an answer to my question. I had gotten nowhere until contacting the SDW Hotline. They thoroughly researched my questions and gave me better answers than I have been able to get anywhere else. I sincerely wish more people in all occupations were as customer-oriented as the Hotline! Regulated Community, OH "Agradezco su gentileza de facilitarme la informacion sobre los productos empleados para la clarification del agua para el consumo humano. jMis debidos respetos!" - Ciudadano, TX Meeting Customer's Unique Needs Through Friendly, Efficient Service The Hotline quickly and accurately answered routine questions while consistently providing friendly, responsive service. The Hotline has embedded customer service, accuracy, and efficiency into our Quality Assurance Plan that includes: • Rigorous training • Time-tested standard operating procedures • Institutionalized review of deliverables by management staff with expert regulatory knowledge • Routine telephone performance monitoring of staff and review of email responses • Internal and external information dissemination procedures to ensure staff is properly informed of new developments and Agency clarifications. Safe Drinking Water Hotline ------- Annual Report Following an in-place Quality Assurance Plan, the Hotline successfully met the contract-required performance standards during FY 2002, including responding to over 90 percent of calls within 60 seconds and all emails and callbacks within five days. To meet these performance standards the SDW Hotline maintains a high quality team of environmental professionals and utilizes a rigorous training program that reviews technical and customer service standards, and current knowledge management systems to ensure high quality, accurate information is disseminated to Hotline customers. During FY 2002, the SDW Hotline staff continued to expand their skills and capabilities and developed and refined the training program and databases, as described in the sections below: • Developed a comprehensive training program consisting of 12 classroom training sessions using self-study modules review, instructor lecture, and case study formats. Regulatory training sessions developed by and presented to Hotline staff during FY 2002 included Introduction to the Safe Drinking Water Act, Public Water System Requirements, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, SDWA Variances; Part 142, Introduction to MTBE, and Public Notification Requirements. • SDW Hotline staff prepared and presented 26 morning briefings on new regulatory areas and five Hotline staff attended various EPA workshops and training sessions during FY • Reviewed and updated six information management databases used by SDW Hotline staff to search and quickly access-EPA approved information. Each database is maintained by a technical lead following standard operating procedures and conventions to ensure consistency of word use and description, and current information is captured in the knowledge management systems. There are currently 18,199 records contained in the six databases. Ensuring Cost Effective Response and Support The SDW Hotline operates within a Firm-Fixed Price, performance-based structure and provides cost- effective, high-quality responses within a dynamic environment by: • Planning in advance for known volume increases due to new rulemakings, reporting deadlines, and Agency announcements • Transferring cross-trained staff between regulatory lines during peak call volumes • Designating senior staff to serve as facilitator in the SDW library to assist with researching difficult calls and to monitor wait times and call volume • Increasing staff awareness of efficient call handling and proactive queue management by establishing incentive programs Safe Drinking Water Hotline - /'/'/ - 2002. "The SDW Hotline Information Specialists have always provided accurate, customer friendly service." -Consultant "Thank you for getting back to me about the EPA requirements for submission of a vulnerability assessment. I had called several weeks ago and, at the time, there was no information available. I never expected to hear back from you. I really appreciate you remembering my call and taking the time to call back with the information. It was extremely helpful and I thought you went beyond what would normally be expected." -Regulated Community, Ml ------- Annual Report • Utilizing standard operating procedures to capture and disseminate data, train staff, and track and report Hotline data to EPA. The level-of-effort required to answer inquiries comprises the largest portion of the SDW Hotline operating costs, there is also an infrastructure needed to support the efficient and accurate response to inquiries. This infrastructure includes activities such as maintaining databases and the reference library, conducting training and quality control programs, and operational reporting. The combination of these elements ensures high-quality, consistent information is disseminated and that EPA captures caller trends and needs. Providing Outreach Assistance for EPA's Office of Water As a main link to the water community, the Hotline seeks to communicate caller trends and needs to EPA and to work with the various Office of Water program offices to anticipate and respond to EPA's needs in order to provide the best service and support possible. During FY 2002, the SDW Hotline staff worked closely with the EPA Project Officer and Deputy Project Officer as well as numerous technical contacts across the program office to confirm regulatory publication dates, conference registration information, schedule briefings and coordinate SDW Hotline Information Specialists training attendance, and to communicate caller requests. Analysis of Hotline statistics from FY 2002 indicates that the SDW Hotline served a number of EPA Offices including OGWDW/Immediate Office, OGWDW/DWPD Protection Branch, OST, OGWDW/DWPD Infrastructure Branch, OGWDW/SRMD, OECA, Water Protection Task Force, and OGWDW/DWPD Prevention Branch. "Loved the September question of the month-unbelievable!!" - EPA Regional Employee "These Monthly Hotline Reports are fabulous! We were looking for this type of information when the UCMR implementation was just starting to gauge how many calls/email were being received by the Hotline. At that time, systems were not in place to specifically track the information. Apparently that has changed. These reports are informative, and VERY much appreciated! Keep up the good work!" - EPA Regional Employee The Hotline often serves as the primary outreach service to the general public, regulators, and water professionals for information about EPA's drinking water standards. As such, it is important for the Hotline to maintain the most current information and understand callers' interests and needs. In order to meet these needs, the Hotline publishes a monthly report, Water Lines, which includes typical questions answered by the Hotline, call and email statistics, caller profiles, and water facts. The Hotline communicates callers' interests and needs to EPA through a section of recommendations in the report. The FY 2002 Safe Drinking Water Hotline Annual Report is a collection of cumulative statistics and statistical analysis of FY 2002 trends, Questions and Answers, and Federal Register summaries included in the monthly Water Lines report. The Technical Response section is followed by Hotline operational information on meeting customer service standards, ensuring cost effective response, and providing outreach assistance to EPA's Office of Water. Safe Drinking Water Hotline -iv- ------- Annual Report Technical Response The Safe Drinking Water (SDW) Hotline answers questions, via telephone and e-mail, related to the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Hotline Information Specialists also assist customers in accessing relevant regulations, Federal Register notices, and EPA guidance documents, via Internet and in hard copy, and provide helpful referrals for questions beyond the Hotline's purview. Additionally, the Hotline offers its services in both English and Spanish. During FY 2002, the Hotline responded to 25,311 telephone calls and 3,738 emails. A single call or e-mail often generated multiple questions, and a total of 36,427 questions were answered by the Hotline in FY 2002. Detailed statistics of the breakdown in the types callers and the topics of questions they asked are included in Attachment I of this report. Calls and Emails Comparison: The inquiry volume for FY 2002 is lower than the total inquiry volume received during FY 2001. This is possibly attributed to an increase in Internet use to obtain documents and general information and a decrease in significant regulatory development over the past year. Inquiry Mode FY 2002 FY 2001 Calls 25,311 34,049 Emails 3,738 5,121 Total 29,049 39,170 The following chart illustrates the distribution of calls and emails in FY 2002, compared to FY 2001. While the number of emails received each month remained fairly steady, the total number of calls peaked in June and July due to the distribution of CCRs. Chart 1 Number of Calls and E-mails by Month in 2002, Compared to 2001 FY02 ~ Calls fl E-mails FY01 1 Calls I | E-mails 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Customer Profiles: As illustrated by the chart below, the Hotline serves a diverse group of customers. Of the 29,049 calls and email received during the FY 2002 the largest category of Hotline customers, by far, are citizens who receive their drinking water from public water systems and citizens who have private household wells. Citizens are followed by consultants, PWS operators, government officials, academic Safe Drinking Water Hotline -1 - ------- Annual Report institutions, and others. The "other" category in the chart below includes analytical laboratories, people who accessed the Hotline from other countries, environmental groups, individuals who communicated with Hotline staff in Spanish, medical professionals, and news media representatives. Additionally, the SDW Hotline Information Specialists responded to over 100 Spanish-speaking inquiries in FY 2002, reflected in the total call volume above. Citizen - PWS Citizen - Private Wells Consultants PWS Operators Other Government Agencies Schools/Universities 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Number of Questions Frequently Requested Publications: In FY 2002, Hotline Information Specialists directed thousands of customers to EPA documents on the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water's Web site. In addition, the Hotline responded to over 4,000 requests for hard copies of relevant EPA publications. Hotline staff generally forwarded these document requests to the Water Resource Center for fulfillment. While some Hotline customers specifically requested certain documents, Information Specialists often recommended documents to meet the individuals" needs. The most frequently requested (hard copy) documents, listed in the table below, range from general informational resources for citizens, to specific technical guidance for water system operators. Chart 2 Hotline Customer Profiles | 15,371 | 4,389 | 2,901 2,169 ]] 1,707 ] 1,505 1,007 Safe Drinking Water Hotline -2- ------- Annual Report Chart 3 Frequently Requested Publications Q. T3 C as U) ¦*—i c o E D O o Q 586 462 208 149 142 141 132 Water on Tap EPA815-K-97-002 Protect Our Health From Source to Tap EPA816-K-01-001 Lead in Your Drinking Water EPA810-F-93-001 ] Guidance for People with Severely Weakened Immune Systems EPA816-F-99-005 ] CCR Writer Software Version 2.0 ] Public Notification Handbook EPA816-R-00-010 ] Drinking Water from Household Wells EPA816-K-02-003 ] Drinking Water and Health: What You Need to Know EPA816-K-99-001 National Primary Drinking Water Standards EPA816-F-02-013 ] A Small Systems Guide to the Total Coliform Rule EPA816-R-01-017A ] Secondary Drinking Water Regulations Guidance EPA810-K-92-001 100 200 300 400 Number of Requests 500 600 700 Top Ten Referrals: Referrals are often provided when questions require input from state and local water programs, non-for-profit organizations, and other federal agencies. The top ten referrals range from EPA's Web site for frequently requested documents to a state's laboratory certification office for questions regarding tap water testing. Chart 4 Top Ten Referrals Frequently Provided by the Safe Drinking Water Hotline £ State Laboratory _J Certification Officer j] Local Water System NSF/WQA/UI ] State Drinking Wate r P rog ra m Offi ce Local Public Health American Ground Water Trust/Water Systems Council Other Hotlines Non-EPA Internet Food and Drug Administration/International Bottled Water Association 2,000 2,500 Number of Referrals Top Ten States: The following chart identifies the ten states from which the Hotline received the most calls. All of the states included in the top ten are among the largest in population, according to the April 1, 2000, Census data. Safe Drinking Water Hotline -3- ------- Annual Report California New York Florida Texas Pennsylvania Illinois New Jersey Virginia Massachusetts Ohio 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Number of Callers Top Ten Topics: Year after year, certain issues, such as local drinking water quality and tap water testing, consistently top the list of the most frequently discussed topics at the Safe Drinking Water Hotline. The table below lists the ten topics that were most frequently discussed with Hotline callers (and via e-mail) during FY 2002. Topic Questions (phone & e-mail) Percent of Total Questions Local Drinking Water Quality 3,410 9 Tap Water Testing 3,368* 9 CCR 2,553 7 Wells 2,142 6 Home Water Treatment Units 1,928 5 Lead 1,910 5 SDWA Background Information 1,585 4 Issues requiring referrals to other EPA offices or Hotlines 1,430 4 Coliforms 1,120 3 Radon 1,109 3 * Many of the tap water testing questions were asked by citizens who obtain their drinking water from private household wells. Chart 5 Top Ten States I 2,024 I 1,360 ~| 1,289 I 1,174 | 1,064 | 934 I 825 |817 I 735 ] 643 Safe Drinking Water Hotline -4- ------- Annual Report Annual Trends The Hotline staff gathers general statistical data on the calls and email to which it responds. These data, combined with the staff members" insight and observations, provide a unique opportunity to identify and analyze trends in the number and types of Hotline inquiries. Some examples of these trends are illustrated below. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) Questions: The Safe Drinking Water Act requires certain PWSs to monitor their water for the presence of certain unregulated contaminants. The purpose of this monitoring is to collect data to support EPA's decision regarding whether or not to regulate contaminants such as these on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List to protect public health. In September 2002, an increase in calls to the Hotline coincided with a September 16th mail-out of letters to PWSs that had not yet submitted UCMR data. 180 160 « 140 c o v 120 3 o o 100 v -Q | 80 z 60 40 20 0 Lead Questions: Questions about lead in drinking water are consistently among the most frequently asked to the Hotline. The particularly high volume of lead questions received in June and July 2002 coincided with the nationwide distribution of CCRs, each of which includes specific language about lead as a contaminant of concern. Chart 6 Monthly Trend (FY02) of UCMR Questions 16! 74 80 61 47 39 35 42 79 37 36 39 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 Safe Drinking Water Hotline -5- ------- Annual Report Chart 7 Monthly Lead Questions Z. 150 16E 109 78 136 135 13E 18C 17* 21 f 174 14S Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Months During FY 2002 Coliform Bacteria Questions: Beginning in April 2002, the Hotline received a steady increase in questions about total coliform bacteria. This increase coincided with both the nationwide distribution of CCRs and the warm summer months when temperatures are more conducive to bacterial growth. Chart 8 Monthly Trend in Coliform Bacteria Questions C O +¦» Si E 3 93 71 31 46 35 38 8£ 98 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Months During FY 2002 Arsenic Questions by Water Supply Source: Throughout FY 2002, the Hotline received many inquiries concerning the new arsenic rule and related guidance. The number of questions about arsenic posed each month by citizens with private household wells was relatively steady, while the number of arsenic questions from citizens served by PWSs fluctuated, possibly in relation to EPA's regulatory activities and related media coverage. Safe Drinking Water Hotline -6- ------- Annual Report Chart 9 Comparison of Monthly Arsenic Questions from Public Water System Citizens and Household Well Owners CCR [1 Deadline-U. EPA administration announced 10 ppb as MCL (October 31, 2001) Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Months During FY 2002 Public Water System Customers —¦—Household Well Owners Radon Questions by Water Supply Source: The following chart shows that, during most of FY 2002, the Hotline received more radon questions from citizens with household wells than it did from PWS customers. The exception occurred in July, most likely because of the overall increase in calls from citizens serviced by PWSs during the CCR season. Chart 10 Comparison of Monthly Radon Questions from Public Water System Customers and Household Well Owners 80 70 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Months During FY 2002 Public Water System Customers - HouseholdWell Owners Monthly Trends: The top five commonly asked questions concerned local drinking water quality, tap water testing, Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs), household wells, and home water treatment units. The following chart illustrates the distribution of those questions throughout FY 2002. The dramatic increases in June and July coincided with the nationwide distribution of CCRs. Safe Drinking Water Hotline -7- ------- Annual Report Chart 11 Monthly Trends in Water Quality Topics Months During FY 2002 Questions and Answers The following questions and answers, organized by subject, represent the range of questions addressed by the Hotline on a variety of topics. These questions were included in FY 2002 Monthly Hotline Reports. Arsenic Q: What is the availability of funding for research to develop new technologies for the removal of arsenic under the new Arsenic Rule? A: In an October 31, 2001, letter to the conferees on the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies appropriations measure, Administrator Whitman wrote that "EPA plans to provide $20 million over the next two years for research and development of more cost-effective technologies to help small systems meet the new [10 ppb arsenic] standard." The Agency is planning how to conduct this activity. Callers may leave contact information with the Hotline, and monitor the EPA drinking water arsenic Web site for updates. Q: On October 31, 2001, EPA Administrator Whitman announced that the arsenic in drinking water standard would be 10 parts per billion (ppb). Will there be a Federal Register notice to this effect? A: No additional Federal Register notice is necessary; the requirements associated with the arsenic in drinking water standard are in the final rule that was published on January 22, 2001 (66 FR 6976). Q: Is it true that because the maximum contaminated level (MCL) for arsenic is expressed in parts per million (mg/L of water) as 0.01 mg/L, and not 0.010 mg/L, arsenic sampling results of 11, 12, 13, and 14 ppb may be rounded to 10 ppb? A: No. In the June 22, 2000, proposed rule, EPA proposed a requirement that was promulgated in the January 22, 2001, final rule that arsenic sampling results above 10 ppb (0.010 mg/L) be reported to the nearest 1 ppb. Thus, according to Dick Reading, OGWDW, 11 (0.011 mg/L) ppb is 11 ppb. And 10.4 ppb (0.0104 mg/L) would round down to 10 ppb whereas 10.5 ppb would round up to 11 ppb. Safe Drinking Water Hotline -8- ------- Annual Report Q: Can a small public water system (PWS) receive an extension of the compliance date for the Arsenic Rule if the PWS will not be able to complete needed capital improvement projects in five years? A: According to the January 22, 2002 final Arsenic Rule, all systems have 5 years to achieve compliance. Exemptions for an additional 3 years can be made available to qualified systems. For those qualified systems serving 3,300 persons or less, up to 3 additional 2-year extensions to the exemption are possible, for a total exemption duration of 9 years. When added to the 5 years provided for compliance by the rule, this allows up to 14 years for small systems serving up to 3,300 people to achieve compliance (66 FR 6976, 6988). Q: When preparing the 2001 Consumer Confidence Report, should water systems list the currently enforceable arsenic MCL (50 ppb) or the new MCL of 10 ppb? A: The regulatory language in 40 CFR 141.153(d)(4) states that for regulated contaminants the table must contain the MCL for that contaminant. Regulatory text from the final arsenic rule dated January 22, 2001 added a footnote to appendix A of Subpart O, Consumer Confidence Reports, reading "These arsenic values (indicating the referenced MCL of 0.01 mg/L and the MCLG of O.Omg/L) are effective January 23, 2006. Until then, the MCL is 0.05 mg/L." Q: On January 22, 2001, EPA published a final rule lowering the arsenic MCL from 50 ppb (parts per billion) to 10 ppb (66 FR 6976). Is the MCL based on total arsenic or inorganic arsenic? A: The MCL for arsenic in drinking water is based on total arsenic including both organic and inorganic forms (66 FR 6976, 7046; January 22, 2001). Q: When are PWSs required to be in compliance with the 10 ppb MCL for arsenic? A: The 10 ppb arsenic value is effective January 23, 2006 (66 FR 6976, 6993; January 22, 2001). Q: When does EPA expect to promulgate the new standard for arsenic that was announced by the Administrator on October 31, 2001? A: The 10 ug/L standard for arsenic in drinking water was promulgated on January 22, 2001 (66 FR6976). The announcement by the Administrator informed the public of the Agency's decision to retain 10ug/L as the new MCL for arsenic in drinking water. Public water systems will be required to meet this standard by January 2006. Q: What is the estimated dollar cost per prevented cancer with the change of the arsenic MCL to 10ppb? A: In table III.E-10 of the final January 22, 2001 Arsenic Rule, the annual cost per cancer avoided (combined lung and bladder) ranges from $4.8 million down to $3.2 million at 3 percent discount rate and ranges from $5.5 million to $3.7 million at 7 percent discount rate. The ranges are based on lower and upper bound risk ranges (with the lesser dollar figure representing the upper bound) (66 FR 6976). Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) The following questions illustrate common citizen recommendations and questions received during the CCR season. Q: When is a new community water system, which began operation in August 2001, required to deliver its first Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)? A: A new community water system must deliver its first report by July 1 of the year after its first full calendar year in operation and annually thereafter (40 CFR 141.152(c)). Q: The operator of a PWS is completing his CCR that is due by July 1, 2002. The system detected 0.008 mg/L of arsenic in the distribution system water during the previous year. Is the system required to use the specified arsenic informational statement in 40 CFR 141.154(b)(1)? A: Beginning in the CCR due by July 1, 2002, a system that detects arsenic above 0.005 mg/L and up to and including 0.01 mg/L must include a short informational statement about arsenic in its report. The system may use the suggested language listed in 40 CFR 141.154(b)(1), or it may write its own educational statement, but only in consultation with its primacy agency (40 CFR 141.154(b)). Q: Must public water systems include Information Collection Rule (ICR) data in the Consumer Confidence Report? A: ICR monitoring data collected pursuant to 40 CFR 141.142 and 141.143 must only be included in the Consumer Confidence Report for five years from the date of the last sample or Safe Drinking Water Hotline -9- ------- Annual Report until any of the detected contaminants becomes regulated (40 CFR 141.153(d)(3)(H)). Q: I received a water quality report from my water system. Does this report indicate there is something wrong with the water, or that it's unsafe? A: Every Community Water System (CWS) is required by law to provide its customers with a water quality report also known as a Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). The CCR is a general overview of the water quality. This report lists the regulated contaminants the CWS detected in treated water and the level at which they were found for the preceding calendar year. For each detected contaminant, the report must contain the following pieces of information in tabular form; maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), level of contaminant detected, likely contaminant source, and notation of any violation. Additional information is available online at www.epa.gov/ safewater/ccr/ccrfact.html. The Hotline can provide general information concerning the required content for the CCR. Contact your local water system for specific information about local water quality. Q: Why is the Safe Drinking Water Hotline's 800 number listed in the report if the Hotline cannot provide local water quality information? A: Systems are required to provide a name and telephone contact at the water system who can answer questions about the report. In addition, a toll free number for EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline is provided to offer another source of information at no cost to the customer. The Hotline provides general information about CCRs and other safe drinking water issues. Hotline staff can also direct callers to sources for additional information, and can assist people in understanding the purpose and language of the CCRs. Q: What does the section on Cryptosporidium mean? Do we have it in our water? Does this mean I am immunocompromised? What should I do? A: Cryptosporidium is a microorganism that can cause gastrointestinal illness. The language concerning Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants is required in all CCRs to provide information for immunocompromised persons such as individuals with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants. This language does not indicate the presence of Cryptosporidium in drinking water. A guidance document developed jointly by EPA and CDC for people who may be immunocompromised is available online at www.epa.gov/safewater/crvpto.html. You can order hard copies of this guidance through the SDW Hotline. Q: Does my public water system treat the water for Cryptosporidium ? A: You should contact your water system to inquire about its Cryptosporidium removal practices. Q: What are the health effects associated with Cryptosporidium ? A: Cryptosporidium can cause gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps). Other health effects information concerning Cryptosporidium is available online at www.epa.gov/ safewater/crypto.html. Q: We live in an apartment building and did not receive the CCR. How can we obtain one? A: The water system is required to make a good faith effort to reach consumers who do not receive a water bill, such as renters, by sending building management a copy of the report for distribution. Contact your building manager or local water system to obtain a copy of the annual water quality report. Q: We detected some unregulated contaminants that we want to include in the CCR but we cannot find the health effects language in Appendix A of 40 CFR Subpart O. Are we required to list health effects language for unregulated detected contaminants? A: There is no federal requirement for health effect information for unregulated contaminants. 40 CFR 141.153(d)(7) requires a CWS to list the average and range at which an unregulated contaminant was detected, and suggests the inclusion of a brief explanation of the reasons for monitoring for unregulated contaminants. Safe Drinking Water Hotline -10- ------- Annual Report Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) Q: What is the status of sodium as a regulated contaminant? A: At this time, sodium is not a regulated contaminant. Sodium is presently included on the CCL. The notice of preliminary regulatory determination has not been published. Q: The Drinking Water CCL at www.epa.gov/ OGWDW/cci/ccifs.htmi was last updated July 23, 2001. The site states that by August 2001 EPA will review 5 or more contaminants for inclusion in the list. Was manganese selected and, if so, what is the timeframe for determining a primary standard? A: According to Julie Du, EPA's lead scientist for manganese, manganese is currently still on the CCL. A proposal whether or not to regulate manganese will be published in the Federal Register soon. General Regulatory Q: What does EPA set as a safe level for methyl tertiary- butyl ether (MTBE)? A: There is no primary drinking water standard for MTBE. In 1997, EPA published an Advisory document on methyl te/f/'ary-butyl ether (Drinking Water Advisory: Consumer Acceptability Advice and Health Effects Analysis on Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, 1997). This non-regulatory document recommends keeping levels at a range of 20 to 40 parts per billion (ppb) or below. At this level, MTBE will probably not generate an odor or taste problem and there is little likelihood that negative resulting health effects will occur. The December 3, 2001, Unified Agenda notes a Notice of Proposed Rule proposing a secondary standard for MTBE that will provide guidance for taste and odor acceptability and to protect the public welfare. The proposed rule making is expected to be published in August 2002. Q: What is the difference between a variance and an exemption? A: Variances generally allow a water system to provide drinking water that may contain contaminants at levels above the MCL on the condition that the quality of the drinking water is still protective of public health. An exemption, on the other hand, is intended to allow a system with compelling circumstances an extension of time before the system must comply with applicable SDWA requirements (63 FR 43834; August 14, 1998). Q: What is the "Six-Year Review?" A: The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to conduct a periodic review of existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). By statute, this review must be conducted at least every six years and is, therefore, referred to as the "six-year review." On April 17, 2002, EPA requested comment on its six-year review of 69 NPDWRs that were established prior to 1997, including 68 chemical NPDWRs and the Total Coliform Rule (67 FR 19030). The intended purpose of the review is to identify those NPDWRs for which current health risk assessments, changes in technology, and/or other factors provide a health or technical basis to support a regulatory revision that will improve or strengthen public health protection. Q: How can a list of "significant non-compliance" (SNC) data be generated? A: According to Sue Pohedra of EPA, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is the overseer of the SNC data. Requestors of SNC list information have to go through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). People may request national lists via FOIA fax at 202-260-4499 or may send their requests to the Freedom of Information Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW20460 (mail code 1105A). Q: Where can I find the standard rounding procedures or significant figure use conventions when judging compliance with an MCL? A: Laboratories should observe conventions concerning proper use of significant figures in making calculations to avoid the appearance that the data are more precise than the method allows. Conventions for the use of significant digits and proper rounding of numbers are discussed in detail in the EPA publication, Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories. EPA600-4-79-019, and in Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater (Section 1050 B in the 18th Edition). Safe Drinking Water Hotline -11- ------- Annual Report Q: My facility treats water for processing purposes Q: and employees use this water to shower. The definition of Public Water System includes the words "human consumption." Can showering be considered "human consumption"? A: On February 26, 1988, the United States District Court settled the U.S. v. Midway Heights case in A: part by claiming "human consumption includes drinking, bathing, showering, cooking, dishwashing, and maintaining oral hygiene," (EPA Water supply guidance memo H22), August 1989. This guidance is available at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/wsq/ wsq H22.pdf Q: Which agency has the authority to address drinking water complaints on trains and other interstate carrier conveyances (ICCs)? Q: A: EPA has the authority to respond to drinking water complaints on ICCs, such as trains or airplanes. The EPA Regional Office for the region within which the headquarters office of A: the ICC is located takes the lead in conducting inspections and responding to complaints. The state agencies are not at all responsible for drinking water quality inspections on ICCs. Q: What are acrylamide and epichlorohydrin, and Q: how are they regulated as drinking water contaminants? A: Acrylamide is an organic solid of white, odorless, flake-like crystals. The greatest use of acrylamide is as a coagulant in drinking water treatment. Epichlorohydrin is a colorless organic liquid with a pungent, garlic-like odor. Epichlorohydrin is generally used to make glycerin and as an ingredient in plastics and other polymers, some of which are used in water supply systems. There are currently no Q; acceptable means of detecting either acrylamide or epichlorohydrin in drinking water. Instead, EPA has set a treatment technique to control the level of both chemicals that enter into the drinking water supply by limiting their use in drinking water treatment processes. The _ regulations in 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart K require that each water system must certify in writing to the state, using third-party or manufacturer's certification, that when acrylamide and epichlorohydrin are used in drinking water systems, the combination (or product) of dose and monomer level does not exceed the following levels: Acrylamide = 0.05% dosed at 1 mg/L (or equivalent) Epichlorohydrin = 0.01% dosed at 20 mg/L (or equivalent) The Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for aluminum indicates an acceptable range between 0.05 mg/L - 0.20mg/L. Why did EPA develop a range for this secondary contaminant, rather than a specific acceptable level? While EPA encourages utilities to meet a level of 0.05 mg/L for aluminum where possible, the Agency still believes that varying water quality and treatment situations necessitate a flexible approach to develop the SMCL. What may be appropriate in one case may not be appropriate in another. Hence, a range was developed for the aluminum SMCL (56 FR 3526, 3573; January 30, 1991). When federal drinking water regulations are promulgated or revised, is there a time frame in which states must adopt the new or revised regulations? States have two years from the promulgation date of new or revised federal regulation to submit a request for approval of program revisions to adopt the new or revised regulation (40 CFR 142.12(b)(1)). Why did EPA promulgate a combined nitrate/nitrite MCL? EPA set a maximum contaminant level for combined nitrate and nitrite to account for the possible additive toxicity of these two chemicals and also to protect against the deterioration of the drinking water quality, since the presence of nitrite in water is indicative of water contaminated with sewage (54 FR 22062, 22077; May 22, 1989). The EPA Web site lists key features of the Ground Water Rule. It reads, "States may waive source water monitoring for sensitive systems if there is a hydrogeologic barrier to fecal contamination". What is considered a hydrogeologic barrier? The proposed Ground Water Rule published in the May 10, 2000, Federal Register states. "A hydrogeological barrier is defined as the physical, biological and chemical factors, singularly or in combination, that prevent the movement of viable pathogens from a contaminant source to a public supply well" (65 FR 30194; 30222). A confining layer is one example of a hydrogeological barrier. A confining layer is defined as, "a layer of material that is not very permeable to ground water flow which overlies an aquifer and acts to prevent Safe Drinking Water Hotline -12- ------- Annual Report water movement into the aquifer" (65 FR 30194, q: 30225; May 10, 2000). Q: What is the applicability of the proposed Ground Water Rule? A: The requirements of the proposed Ground Water Rule would apply to: (1) all public water systems served solely be ground water, and (2) public water systems that distribute ground water that is not treated to a 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses. Systems supplied by ground q: water under the direct influence of surface water would not be regulated under this rule as proposed. Q: I was under the impression that the Groundwater Rule was to go final in November 2001. Has it gone final? A: The Groundwater Rule has not been finalized. The Unified Agenda, published on December 3, 2001, lists December 2002 as a final action date for the Groundwater Rule (66 FR 62388). Lead and Copper Q: How can a citizen determine whether or not the service line that connects her home to the water main is made of lead? A: According to 40 CFR 141,85(a)(1)(iv)(B)(5), the best way to determine if a service line is made of lead is by either hiring a licensed plumber to inspect the line or by contacting the plumbing contractor who installed the line. To identify the q. plumbing contractor a person can check the city's record of building permits. A licensed plumber can at the same time check to see if a home's plumbing contains lead solder, lead pipes, or pipe fittings that contain lead. The public water system that delivers water to the home should also maintain records of the materials located in the distribution system. A. Q: A first draw sample is required when taking tap water samples for lead analysis. How does EPA define first draw sample? A: A first draw sample is a one-liter sample of tap water that has stood motionless in the plumbing pipes for at least six hours and is collected without flushing the tap (40 CFR 141.2). All tap water samples for lead must be first draw q. samples collected in accordance with 40 CFR 141.86(b)(2). A: Does the temperature of drinking water contribute to the amount of lead that it contains? Which type of water should be used for cooking and drinking? According to the public information language specified in 40 CFR 141,85(a)(1)(iv)(B)(2), people should try not to cook with or drink water from the hot water tap. Hot water can dissolve lead more quickly than cold water. Is there a safe level of lead in drinking water for children? Lead is a toxic metal that can be harmful to human health even at low exposure levels because it is persistent and can bioaccumulate in the body over time (56 FR 26460, 26468; June 7, 1991). Young children, infants, and fetuses are particularly vulnerable to lead because the physical and behavioral effects of lead occur at lower exposure levels in children than in adults. A dose of lead that would have little effect on an adult can have a significant effect on a child. In children, low levels of exposure have been linked to damage to the central and peripheral nervous system, learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired hearing, and impaired formation and function of blood cells (40 CFR 141,85(a)(1)(ii)). Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA has set an MCLG for lead at zero, indicating that there is no safe level of lead for children (56 FR 26460, 26469; June 7, 1991). My annual water quality report indicates that my PWS was in violation of the copper treatment technique requirements during the past year. I never received information or notification about this violation. Is a PWS required to provide public notification when there is a treatment technique violation for copper? If so, how soon after the violation must the notification be provided? A PWS must provide public notice about a treatment technique violation as soon as practical, but no later than 30 days after the system learns of the violation. Under appropriate circumstances, the primacy agency may grant up to 3 additional months for the initial notice (40 CFR 141.203(b)(1)). Does the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulate the amount of lead in pipes, plumbing fixtures, and faucets? Yes. The SDWA requires that after June 19, 1986, only lead free pipe, solder, or flux may be used in the installation or repair of a public water Safe Drinking Water Hotline -13- ------- Annual Report system, or any plumbing in a residential or non- residential facility providing water for human consumption, which is connected to a public water system. Lead free under the SDWA means that solders and flux may not contain more than 0.2 percent lead, and pipe, pipe fittings, and well pumps may not contain more than 8.0 percent lead (40 CFR 141.43). By amending Section 1417 of the SDWA in 1996, Congress incorporated a performance standard into the law for endpoint devices intended to dispense water for human consumption. Section 1417(e) of the SDWA states that "lead free" with regard to plumbing fittings and fixtures intended to dispense water for human consumption means those fittings and fixtures that are in compliance with a voluntary standard established pursuant to the Act. This standard, NSF Standard 61, Section 9, relates to the amount of lead leached from a product while "lead free" relates to lead content. Microbials and Disinfection Byproducts (MDBP) Q: EPA proposed to authorize or permit the use of selected strains of bacterial spores, such as those of Bacullus subtilis or other spore-forming bacilli, as indicator organisms for disinfectant evaluation for destruction of Cryptosporidium and Giardia cysts in drinking water treatment. Does the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule have any provision for this process? A: According to Dr. Paul Berger, OGWDW, bacterial endospores have been examined as an indicator of filter efficiency for systems using surface water. The endospores are somewhat smaller than the Crypto oocyst, and efficient removal of the endospores would imply effective oocyst removal. Clostridium perfringens endospores have also been evaluated as an indicator of fecal contamination in groundwater sources but, in at least one recent study, other indicators were found to be more effective. The team developing changes to the Surface Water Treatment Rule has determined that the endospores were not under consideration as a monitoring tool because the CT values for Crypto are sufficiently well defined to obviate the need for endospore use. Q: When must a public water system serving less than 10,000 people comply with the turbidity requirements of the Long Term One Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR)? A: Surface water systems or GWUDI systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must comply with the applicable LT1ESWTR provisions for turbidity by January 14, 2005 (Long Term One Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: A Quick Reference Guide. EPA816-F-02-001, January 2002). Q: Does the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) apply to transient noncommunity water systems (TNCWS)? A: Yes. A TNCWS using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must comply with the chlorine dioxide requirements of the Stage 1 DBPR (40 CFR 141.130(b)(2)). The Stage 1 DBPR does not apply to TNCWS that use disinfectants other than chlorine dioxide. Q: Must a community water system (CWS) that intermittently uses chlorine dioxide monitor daily for chlorine dioxide and chlorite as specified in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(2) and (c)(2)? A: According to the Implementation Guidance for the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule. EPA816-R-01-012, a CWS that uses chlorine dioxide intermittently is not required to conduct the daily monitoring for chlorine dioxide and chlorite for days when the chlorine dioxide is not in use. In addition, a CWS is not required to conduct monthly monitoring for chlorite as specified in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(2)(l)(B) if the chlorine dioxide has not been used at all for the entire month. However, monthly monitoring for chlorite is required if chlorine dioxide is used at any time during the month. Q: What type of public water systems (PWSs) must monitor for chlorine dioxide and chlorite? A: All community water systems and nontransient noncommunity water systems that use chlorine dioxide must monitor for both chlorine dioxide and chlorite (40 CFR 141.132(b)(2) and (c)(2)). Transient noncommunity water systems that use chlorine dioxide must monitor for chlorine dioxide, but not for chlorite (40 CFR 141.132(c)(2)). Operator Certification Q: Is there a list of states that have reciprocity with other states under the Operator Certification Program? A: According to Jenny Jacobs of EPA's OGWDW, currently there is not a list of states that have Safe Drinking Water Hotline -14- ------- Annual Report reciprocity. It was suggested that the caller contact the Ohio EPA's Operator Certification Program contact (Kirk Leifheit at 614-644-2752) to find out if Ohio has reciprocity agreements with other states. Their Web site is http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddaqw/ opcert.html. Public Notification Q: Under the Public Notification Rule (PNR), must a system designated as a consecutive water system provide public notification in the event of a violation by the wholesale system? A: Yes. According to 40 CFR 141.201(c)(1), "Each public water system must provide public notice to persons served by the water system. Public water systems that sell or otherwise provide drinking water to other public water systems (i.e., to consecutive systems) are required to give public notice to the owner or operator of the consecutive system; the consecutive system is responsible for providing public notice to the persons it serves." Q: What is the effective date and compliance date for the Public Notification Rule revisions promulgated on May 4, 2000? A: The revised regulations (under 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q) were effective on June 5, 2000. Public water systems in primacy states must comply with the rule beginning May 6, 2002, (regardless of whether the primacy state has adopted and EPA has approved the public notification rule primacy revision), unless a primacy state chooses to adopt the new regulations earlier. Public water systems where EPA directly implements the drinking water program (i.e., Wyoming, Washington, D.C., and Tribal lands) were required to comply with the new regulation on October 31, 2000. Radionuclides Q: For initial compliance determination with the Radionuclides Rule, can I composite the samples from all of my wells? A: No. Systems are only allowed to composite samples temporally, not spatially. "Compositing: to fulfill quarterly monitoring requirements for gross alpha particle activity, radium-226, radium- 228, or uranium, a system may composite up to four consecutive quarterly samples from a single entry point if analysis is done within a year of the first sample. States will treat analytical results from the composite as the average analytical result to determine compliance with the MCLs and the future monitoring frequency" (40 CFR 141.26(a)(4)). Q: Did the 2000 Radionuclides Rule include any new methods for analysis of uranium? A: No. EPA is currently reviewing the Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) method (EPA method 200.8 or SM 3125) for uranium analysis (65 FR 76708, 76724). Q: A laboratory uses a mass-type method (laser phosphorimetry) to determine uranium levels in the drinking water. In order to calculate the "net" alpha (gross alpha minus uranium and radon) used to determine compliance with the gross alpha MCL, the laboratory result must be converted from mass to activity. What mass to activity ratio must be used? A: If uranium (U) is determined by mass-type methods (i.e., fluorometric or laser phosphorimetry), a 0.67 pCi/ug uranium conversion factor must be used (40 CFR 141.25, Footnote 12). Q: The Radionuclides Rule requires compliance with the MCL for radium 226/228. Could a public water system use point-of-use (POU) treatment, point-of-entry (POE) treatment, or bottled water for compliance with the MCL? A: POU ion exchange and POU reverse osmosis are listed as small system compliance technologies for combined radium 226/228; no POE technologies are listed. Public water systems are not authorized to use bottled water to comply with an MCL. Bottled water may only be used on a temporary basis to avoid unreasonable risk to health (65 FR 76708,76727; December 7, 2000). Q: Must a public water system that uses ground water monitor for radon? If so, where must the compliance monitoring occur? A: The SDWA "Radon Rule" has not yet been finalized. However, according to a November 2, 1999, proposed rule, all community water systems that use ground water would be required to monitor for radon at each entry point to the distribution system, after treatment and storage (64 FR 59246, 59252). Q: What is the detection limit for uranium radioanalysis? A: A detection limit for uranium is not listed in 40 CFR 141.25 and none was proposed in the Radionuclides Proposed Rule (56 FR 33050, July 8, 1991). EPA did propose a practical Safe Drinking Water Hotline -15- ------- Annual Report quantitation limit (PQL) and an acceptance limit but in order to be consistent with other regulated radionuclides, EPA did not adopt the PQL. The Agency will propose a detection limit for uranium in a future rulemaking and will set the limit before December 8, 2003 (the compliance date for the Rule) (65 FR 76708, 76724). Q: States have interpreted radionuclide analytical results in a variety of ways including adding and subtracting standard deviations from analytical results. For compliance purposes, how should states interpret analytical results for radionuclides under the Radionuclides Rule ? A: Compliance and reduced monitoring frequencies are determined based on the "analytical result(s)" (40 CFR 141.26(c)(3)). The analytical result is the number that the laboratory reports, not including (i.e., not adding or subtracting) the standard deviation (65 FR 76708, 76727; December 7, 2000). Q: When monitoring for radionuclides, compliance with the MCL is determined by a running annual average at each sampling point. If a public water system does not collect all required samples, how should compliance be determined? A: If a system does not collect all required samples when compliance is based on a running annual average of quarterly samples, compliance will be based on the running average of the samples that were collected (40 CFR 141,26(c)(3)(iv)). Q: Is naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in drinking water addressed in the radionuclides final rule? For example, regarding the MCL of 4 mrem/y for beta particles, is Pb210 included since it is a beta emitter and naturally occurring? A: According to Radionuclides Rule: A quick Reference Guide. EPA816-F-01-003, June 2001, naturally occurring Lead-210 is not individually related but is included as one of the 168 individual beta particle and photon emitters. Monitoring of Lead-210 is required under the Unrelated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR). Further action may be proposed at a later date. Naturally occurring Potassium-40 is excluded from the gross beta activity standard. Naturally occurring Polonuim-210 is included under the gross alpha particles standard and monitoring of Polonuim-210 is also required under the UCMR. Source Water Assessment and Protection Q: Can the development of new homes utilizing septic systems as the only form of wastewater treatment adversely affect a nearby stream used as a drinking water source for several small communities downstream? A: Consult the state Source Water Assessment and Protection Program contact who can assist with information on protecting sources of drinking water. Information is also available at the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Web site at www.epa.gov/ safewater/swp.html. Q: Can states use Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (DWSRF) to implement their Source Water Protection (SWP) program? A: The Safe Drinking Water Act as amended in 1996 allows up to 10 percent of a state's allotment for the DWSRF to be used to administer or provide technical assistance for SWP programs within the state (SDWA 1452(g)(2)(B)). Additional information on the DWSRF can be found at www.epa.gov/ safewater/dwsrf.html. Q: Where in the regulations does it say states must initiate and complete a Source Water Assessment Program? A: Source Water Assessment Program regulations have not been promulgated. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, P.L 104-182, added Section 1453 directing EPA to require states to develop and submit Source Water Assessment Programs to EPA for approval. Because each state develops and implements their own assessment program, EPA published guidance describing how the states should carry out a source water assessment program, rather than promulgating federal regulation. Underground Injection Control (UIC) Wells Q: Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, how is the term "well" defined? A: 40 CFR 146.4 defines a well as "a bored, drilled, or driven shaft whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension; or, a dug hole whose depth is greater that the largest surface dimension; or, an improved sinkhole; or, a subsurface fluid distribution system." Q: What is the deadline for states to complete "other sensitive ground water" delineation requirements established by the December 7, 1999 rule regarding Class V Injection Wells? Safe Drinking Water Hotline -16- ------- Annual Report A: States must delineate other sensitive ground water areas by January 1, 2004 unless EPA grants a one-year extension (40 CFR 144.87(c)). Motor vehicle waste disposal wells within other sensitive ground water areas must close or receive a permit by January 1, 2007 (or January 1, 2008, if granted an extension). If a state does not complete the delineation by the January 1, 2004 deadline (or by January 1, 2005 if granted an extension), all motor vehicle waste disposal wells are subject to the permit/closure requirements (40 CFR 141.87(f)). Q: Can Indian Tribes receive primacy for the UIC Program? A: Section 1451 of the Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the Administrator to delegate primary enforcement responsibility for a UIC program to eligible Indian Tribes. Indian Tribes must first establish eligibility to be treated as a state before being eligible to apply for primacy enforcement responsibility. Q: Do the UIC regulations have a definition for the term "aquifer" that specifies well yield or some other hydrogeologic characteristic? A: The UIC regulations at 40 CFR 146.4 define an aquifer as "a geological formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that is capable of yielding a significant amount of water to a well or spring." Federal regulations do not specify well yield as a parameter for this definition. Q: Owners and operators of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells located in regulated areas are required to close the well or seek a waiver and obtain a permit (40 CFR 144.88). In some instances the UIC director may allow the conversion of a Class V motor vehicle waste disposal well to another kind of Class V well (40 CFR 144.89(b)). Is a federal permit required for such a conversion? A: No. There are no specific federal permitting requirements for Class V well conversions. Permitting is at the discretion of the UIC Program Director (Conversion of a Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Well. EPA816-R-00- 017, November 2000). Q: If a facility is installing a Class I injection well, the well must inject beneath the lowermost underground source of drinking water (USDW). How does EPA define USDW? A: USDW is defined in 40 CFR 144.3 as any aquifer that: (1) supplies a public water system; or (2) contains a sufficient quantity of water to supply a public water system and currently supplies drinking water for human consumption or contains fewer than 10,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids. Q: A state park utilizes a dry well to receive wastewater from shower facilities used by 8-10 crewmen working on a project. Do the UIC requirements for Class V wells apply to this well? A: The UIC requirements do not apply to dry wells that receive solely sanitary waste and have the capacity to serve fewer than 20 persons a day (i.e., non-residential cesspools) (40 CFR 144.81(2)). Q: Are septic systems regulated as Class V wells under UIC program? A: The UIC requirements for owners and operators of Class V injection wells are found in 40 CFR Part 144, Subpart G. This subpart applies to owners or operators of septic system wells used to inject solely sanitary waste from a multiple dwelling, business establishment, community or regional business establishment septic tank. The UIC requirements for Class V injection wells do not apply to single family residential septic system wells and to non-residential septic system wells that are used solely for the disposal of sanitary waste and have the capacity to serve fewer than 20 persons a day (40 CFR 144.81(9)). Q: The owner or operator of a Class I injection well is required to comply with the testing and monitoring requirements defined in the UIC regulations (40 CFR 146.68). Do these requirements include a provision for monitoring ground water quality? A: Ground water quality monitoring may be required if there is a possibility of fluids moving into or between underground sources of drinking water (USDW). The decision to require this monitoring is based on a site specific assessment of the well or injection zone and the potential value of monitoring wells to detect such movement (40 CFR 146.8(e)). Q: UIC requirements, as stated in 40 CFR 144.81(9), do not apply to single family residential septic system wells or to non- residential septic system wells, which are used solely for the disposal of sanitary waste and have the capacity to serve fewer than 20 persons a day. Is the word capacity defined by EPA? Safe Drinking Water Hotline -17- ------- Annual Report A: According to Robyn Delehanty from EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW), questions regarding the applicability of UIC regulations should be directed to the appropriate state or regional implementing agency. There is no published EPA definition for the term capacity as used in this section. Q: Are all motor vehicle waste disposal wells currently banned? A: All new motor vehicle waste disposal wells are prohibited as of April 5, 2000 (40 CFR 141.88). Pursuant to 40 CFR 141.87, existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells (including wells under construction as of April 2, 2000) are regulated based upon their location. If a motor vehicle waste disposal well is located within a "ground water protection area," the owner/operator is required to close the well or obtain a permit within one year of the completed ground water protection area assessment. The state must complete ground water protection area assessment in time, all motor vehicle waste disposal wells in the state must be closed or obtain a permit by January 1, 2005. If a motor vehicle waste disposal well is located within "other sensitive ground water areas," the owner /operator must close the well or obtain a permit by January 1, 2007. States have until January 1, 2004, to delineate "other sensitive ground water areas." If the state fails to identify these areas by January 1, 2004, all motor vehicle waste disposal wells in the state must be closed or obtained a permit by January 1, 2007, unless they are subject to a different compliance date associated with the ground water protection assessment criteria. Q: I am a citizen of Florida concerned about the use of an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) well in a test project wastewater injection well. The project site for treated wastewater is located near urban and residential wells. The wastewater will be used for recharge purposes as well as reuse such as spraying for a golf course. The country utility indicates this treated wastewater is meeting primary and secondary standards. Is this the correct or appropriate use of an ASR well? Would this well be considered a Class I well? A: No. According to the Class V Underground Injection Control Study, EPA816-R-99-014, September 1999, the well is considered a Class V well. ASR wells are used to replenish water in an aquifer for subsequent use. They are used to achieve two objectives: (1) storing water in the ground; and (2) recovering the stored water (from the same well) for beneficial reuse. Potable drinking water (from a drinking water plant), ground water (treatment or untreated), and surface water (treated or untreated) are types of fluid injected into an ASR well. ASR wells injecting wastewaters are considered Sewage Treatment Effluent (STE) wells. Water injected into ASR wells is typically treated to meet primary and secondary drinking water standards. ASR wells are drilled to various depths depending on the depth of the receiving aquifer. They inject into confined, semi- confined, and unconfined aquifers. Class V STE wells are used for the disposal of treated sanitary waste from publicly owned treatment works or treated effluent from a privately owned treatment facility that receives only sanitary waste. STE wells are commonly used where injection will aid in aquifer recharge. The injectate may contain fecal conforms and nitrates above primary drinking water standards as well as containing constituents that may exceed secondary standards. Some STE wells injection into shallow aquifers (<50 feet) that are of extremely poor quality and are not likely to be used as drinking water sources. However other wells inject treated wastewater effluent for aquifers recharge, and may be injecting into aquifers of drinking water quality. It is recommended that you contact your state Underground Injection Control Program for information and help with your concerns on this project. You can contact the Florida UIC program at (850) 921-9417, attention Rich Deuerling. Q: What regulatory agency receives a copy of the CCR certification letter? A: The CCR certification letter is sent to the State Drinking Water Office or other primacy agency. Q: We purchase all of our water; do we have to produce a CCR? A: Yes. A water wholesaler that sells water to a water system must provide the retailer with monitoring and other information by April of each calendar year to give the water system enough time to produce the report. Q: Why does the current CCR contain results from previous calendar years? A: Federal regulations require that if a system is allowed to monitor for regulated Safe Drinking Water Hotline -18- ------- Annual Report contaminants less often than once a year, the table must include the date and results of the most recent sampling. Thus, the report may reflect the date and result of the last samples taken. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) Q: For Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) sampling, the regulations in 40 CFR 141.35(a)(v)(ii)(c) require samples to be taken at the entry point to the distribution system. Does this mean before or after treatment? A: As specified in footnote f of Table 1 in 40 CFR 141.40, entry points to the distribution system (EPTDS) are after treatment. Q: The UCMR requires the use of EPA's electronic reporting system, Central Data Exchange (CDX) for purposes of UCMR data reporting (40 CFR 141.35(e)). Can a public water system or laboratory that does not have access to the electronic reporting system use an alternative reporting method? A: Public water systems and laboratories participating in UCMR that do not have access to the Internet can establish an alternative process for UCMR reporting by contacting the EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Branch at 202-260-4934. EPA expects that very few large systems or laboratories will not have the ability to access the CDX via the Internet and encourages PWSs and laboratories without Internet access to utilize computer equipment at local libraries (Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Guidance. EPA815-R-01-029, November 2001). Q: Under UCMR requirements, must the UCMR sampling data collected in accordance with 40 CFR 141.40 be submitted to EPA by the PWS, or by the laboratory that analyzes the samples? A: According to the regulatory language in 40 CFR 141.35(e), public water systems must instruct the organization(s) responsible for the analysis of unregulated contaminant samples taken under 40 CFR 141.40 to enter the results into EPA's electronic reporting system. The PWS is responsible for reviewing those results and approving their submission to EPA. If the analytical organization or laboratory cannot enter these data electronically for the PWS, the PWS must obtain EPA's approval to use an alternate reporting procedure. Q: For UCMR sampling, what is considered the vulnerable time of year? A: Vulnerable time, according to 40 CFR 141.40(a)(5) Table 3, means "May 1 through July 31, unless the state or EPA informs you that it has selected a different time period for sampling as your system's vulnerable time." Water systems usually have higher levels of contaminant concentrations during periods of annual runoff and recharge. For most of the United States, annual runoff and recharge occurs during late-spring and early-summer. Sampling during the vulnerable period will provide seasonal variation data on contaminant concentration. Q: What is the protocol for a UCMR sample that is corrupt? A: For large systems, samples not collected according to required procedures must be resampled by the PWS within 14 days of observing the error. This includes errors observed by the laboratory that would notify the PWS that re-sampling is required (40 CFR 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(F)). For small systems with recognized sampling deviations, re-sampling will be done following instructions from EPA's designated laboratory or the state (40 CFR 141.40 (a) (5) (i i i) (C)). Q: Under UMCR, is composite sampling permitted for samples collected in accordance with the UCMR regulations in 40 CFR 141.40? A: No. Public water systems must not composite (combine, mix, or blend) samples taken in accordance with the UCMR regulations in 40 CFR 141.40 unless otherwise informed by the state or EPA of other sampling arrangements. Each sample must be collected, preserved, and tested separately (40 CFR 141.40(5)). Q: The CDX registration requirements include the submission of a sponsor letter confirming which individual(s) at the organization will have access to the PWS data and what level of access each individual will have (Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Guidance. EPA815-R-01- 029; November 2001). Is there a template or example sponsor letter available? A: An example sponsor letter for a public water system and for a laboratory can be downloaded from EPA's CDX Web site at the following URL: http ://cdx. e pa. g o v/FAQ. as p#u cm r. Safe Drinking Water Hotline -19- ------- Annual Report Q: Under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulations (UCMR), PWSs serving over 10,000 are required to report results to EPA within 30 days following the month in which the PWS received the data results from the laboratory (40 CFR 141.35). If a PWS discovers errors with the data and returns the data to the laboratory for corrections, does the PWS have another 30 days to review and approve the corrected data? A: No. The UCMR does not specify any allowances for PWS review beyond 30 days following the month the data were made available (Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Reporting Guidance. EPA815-R-01- 029; November 2001). The PWS should begin its review as soon as possible, in case there are any problems with the data. Q: Under the UCMR, EPA will arrange all testing and reporting of results for all systems serving a population of 10,000 or less (40 CFR 141.35(a)(2)). How can a small system obtain the UCMR data results for review? A: A hard copy of the UCMR data generated from samples taken at PWSs serving a population of 10,000 or less will be sent to the PWS. Q: If a PWS is forced to re-sample for a UCMR contaminant outside the pre-determined sampling quarter, should the entire sampling schedule be altered? A: According to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Reporting Guidance. EPA815-R-01-029, November 2001, the only case where monitoring schedules may change is if all the samples for the first sampling period are lost or damaged. In this case, the system may monitor in another month, and reschedule sampling based on that starting month. Federal Register Summaries FINAL RULES "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final Rule" January 14, 2002 (67 FR 1812) EPA finalized the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR). The purposes of the LT1ESWTR are to improve control of microbial pathogens, specifically the protozoan Cryptosporidium, in drinking water and address risk trade-offs with disinfection byproducts. The rule will require systems to meet strengthened filtration requirements as well as to calculate levels of microbial inactivation to ensure that microbial protection is not jeopardized if systems make changes to comply with disinfection requirements of the Stage 1 Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. "Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; Establishing of Reporting Date" March 12, 2002 (67 FR 11043) results received on or after May 13, 2002, must be reported within 30 days following the month in which laboratory results are received, as specified in the current regulation for this program. "Underground Injection Control Program; Notice of Final Determination for Class V Wells, Final Rule" June 7, 2002 (67 FR 39584) EPA announced a final determination for all sub-classes of Class V injection wells not included in the final rulemaking on Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large-capacity cesspools (December 7, 1999). These include shallow non-hazardous industrial waste disposal wells, large-capacity septic systems, agricultural and storm water drainage wells, and other wells. The Agency determined that the existing Federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations are adequate to prevent these Class V wells from endangering underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) and no new rulemaking is necessary at this time. EPA published a direct final rule establishing August 9, 2002, as the new, later date by which large water systems serving more than 100,000 persons had to report all contaminant monitoring results they received before May 13, 2002, for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) monitoring program. Monitoring Safe Drinking Water Hotline -20- ------- Annual Report PROPOSED RULES "October 2001 Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions" December 3, 2001 (66 FR 62240) EPA published the "Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions" to update the public about: regulations and major policies currently under development, reviews of existing regulations and major policies, and regulations and major policies completed or canceled since the last Agenda. "Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation: Approval of Analytical Method for Aeromonas; National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical and Microbiological Contaminants" March 7, 2002 (67 FR 10532) EPA proposed the analytical method and an associated Minimum Reporting Level for the analysis of Aeromonas to support the UCMR's List 2 monitoring. Additionally, EPA proposed to approve EPA Method 515.4 to support previously required National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) compliance monitoring for 2,4-D (as acid, salts and esters), 2,4,5-TP (Silvex), dinoseb, pentachlorophenol, picloram and dalapon, and USEPA Method 531.2 to support previously required NPDWR monitoring for carbofuran and oxamyl. Finally, EPA proposed to approve eight additional industry developed analytical methods to support previously required NPDWR compliance monitoring. "Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; Establishment of Reporting Date" March 12, 2002 (67 FR 11071) This action proposed to establish August 9, 2002, as a new, later date by which large public water systems serving more than 10,000 persons had to report all contaminant monitoring laboratory results they received before May 13, 2002, for the UCMR monitoring program. Monitoring results received on or after May 13, 2002, would have to be reported within 30 days following the month in which laboratory results are received, as specified in the current regulation for this program. "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Announcement of the Results of EPA's Review of Existing Drinking Water Standards and Request for Public Comment" April 17, 2002 (67 FR 19030) The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to conduct a periodic review of existing NPDWRs. EPA requested public comment on the results of its review of 69 NPDWRs that were established prior to 1997, including 68 chemical NPDWRs and the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). The intended purpose of the review is to identify those NPDWRs for which current health risk assessments, changes in technology, and/or other factors, provide a health or technical basis to support a regulatory revision that will improve or strengthen public health protection. Based on its review, and pending an evaluation of public comments, the Agency preliminarily believes that the 68 chemical NPDWRs remain appropriate at this time, and that the TCR should be revised. EPA must receive public comments on this action by June 17, 2002. "Spring 2002 Regulatory Agenda" May 13, 2002 (67 FR 33724) EPA published the "Semiannual Regulatory Agenda" to update the public about: regulations and major policies currently under development, reviews of existing regulations and major policies, and regulations and major policies completed or canceled since the last Agenda. NOTICES "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring" October 5, 2001 (66 FR 50961) EPA announced the availability of three reports and recommendations on the science, cost of compliance, and benefits analyses in support of a rule on arsenic in drinking water. These reports were prepared by panels convened by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Drinking Water Advisory Council, and the EPA Science Advisory Board. The establishment and operation of each of these independent, expert panels was described in a July 19, 2001, Federal Register proposed rule. The July 19 proposal also requested comment on whether data and analyses supported setting the enforceable arsenic drinking water standard, or Maximum Contaminant Level, at 3 micrograms per liter (ug/L) (the feasible level), 5 ug/L (the level proposed in June 2000), 10 ug/L (the level published in the January 2001 rule), 20 ug/L, or some other level. The availability of these three reports allowed commenters to consider this information in preparing their comments on the July 19, 2001, proposal, and to comment on the data, analyses, and conclusions that EPA should consider. "Arsenic Treatment Demonstrations" March 28, 2002 (67 FR 14951) EPA planned to conduct a demonstration program on the treatment (reduction and/or removal) of arsenic in drinking water. EPA recently promulgated a standard that limits arsenic concentrations in drinking water to 10 ug/L. Safe Drinking Water Hotline -21- ------- Annual Report Through this demonstration program EPA intends to identify and evaluate the ability of commercially available technologies and engineering or other approaches to cost effectively meet the new standard in small water systems (<10,000 customers). Through this notice, EPA invited the public at large, governmental and regulatory agencies, public health agencies, and drinking water utilities to identify small water utilities that may be interested in hosting a demonstration at their facility. Such utilities should be those which will require treatment to comply with the new arsenic standard. "Announcement of Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for Priority Contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List" June 3, 2002 (67 FR 38222) The SDWA, as amended in 1996, directs EPA to publish a list of contaminants (referred to as the Contaminant Candidate List, or CCL) to assist in priority-setting efforts. EPA announced the preliminary regulatory determinations for nine contaminants from the current CCL and described the supporting rationale for each. "Notice of Final Decision on Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells in EPA Region 8; Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V Program" June 4, 2002 (67 FR 38403) EPA announced a decision under which each motor vehicle waste disposal well in Colorado, Montana, or South Dakota (regardless of whether it is in Indian country) or in Indian country in North Dakota, Utah, or Wyoming must either be closed or covered by a Class V UIC permit application no later than January 1, 2007. "National Drinking Water Advisory Council: Request for Nominations to Contaminant Candidate List Working Group and Small Systems Affordability Working Group" June 19, 2002 (67 FR 41717) EPA announced the formation of a Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List Working Group and Small Systems Affordability Working Group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council, and was soliciting nominations to these working groups. "Announcement of a Stakeholder Meeting on Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for Priority Contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List" June 19, 2002 (67 FR 41722) EPA announced a public meeting to discuss the results of the Agency's preliminary regulatory determinations for nine CCL contaminants (67 FR 38222; June 3, 2002) together with the determination process, rationale, and supporting technical information for each. "Announcement of Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for Priority Contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List; Correction" July 17, 2002 (67 FR 46949) EPA published a document in the Federal Register of June 3, 2002, announcing the preliminary regulatory determinations for priority contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List. EPA inadvertently included the incorrect docket number in the Addresses section. The correct docket number is W-01-03. "Joint USEPA/State Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation: Alternative Treatment Technique for National Primary Drinking Water Lead and Copper Regulations for Certain Non- Transient Non-Community Water Systems" August 6, 2002 (67 FR 50880) EPA proposed to issue a variance under section 1415(a)(3) of SDWA for certain Non-Transient Non- Community Water Systems in the State of Michigan. The final SDWA variance would be used to implement a project entitled "Use of Flushing to Meet the Federal Lead/Copper Regulation for Non-Transient Non- Community Public Water Supply Systems." This project was proposed under the Joint USEPA/State Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation between the USEPA and the Environmental Council of the States. "Meeting of the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List Classification Process Working Group and Small Systems Affordability Working Group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council" August 20, 2002 (67 FR 53930) EPA announced meetings of the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List Classification Process Work Group, and the Small Systems Affordability Work Group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council, established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. S300f et seq.). "National Drinking Water Advisory Council; Request for Nominations" August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54805) EPA invited all interested persons to nominate qualified individuals to serve a three-year term as members of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council. This Council was established by the SDWA to provide practical and independent advice, consultation and recommendations to Safe Drinking Water Hotline -22- ------- Annual Report the Agency on the activities, functions and policies related to the implementation of the SDWA. "Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program; Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Wells Report" August 28, 2002 (67 FR 55249) EPA completed a draft report titled Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal bed Methane Reservoirs. EPA816-D- 02-006. The draft report contains the preliminary results of Phase I of an investigation undertaken by EPA to evaluate the impacts to USDWs by hydraulic fracturing of CBM wells. Based on the information collected, EPA preliminarily found that the potential threats to public health posed by hydraulic fracturing of CBM wells appear to be small and do not appear to justify additional study. EPA must receive public comment by October 28, 2002. Safe Drinking Water Hotline -23- ------- Annual Report Hotline Statistics Technical Response Appendix I Annual Summary of Hotline Service Total number of calls answered 25,311 Total number of emails received 3,738 Average wait time (in seconds) 0:18 Percent of calls satisfied immediately 99.9% Percent of all calls answered in < 1 min 92.2% Percent of callbacks answered in 5 days 100% Percent of emails answered in 5 days 100% Number of times callers listened to recorded message about local DW quality 17,672 Number of times callers listened to recorded message about arsenic rule 1,089 Comparison to Previous Year Calls Emails FY02 25,311 3,738 FY01 34,049 5,081 Customer Profiles Customer Calls Emails Analytical Laboratories 352 52 Citizen - Private Well 3,864 525 Citizen - PWS 14,137 1,234 Consultants/lndustry/Trade (DW) 1,373 228 Consultants/lndustry/Trade (Other) 915 385 Environmental Groups 121 19 EPA 387 25 Other Federal Agency 184 51 Government, Local 215 64 Government, State 446 118 Government, Tribal 12 3 Spanish Speaking 86 21 International 38 275 Media 80 8 Medical Professional 78 20 Public Water System 1,993 176 Schools/University 518 489 Other 512 45 TOTALS 25,311 3,738 Top Ten Referrals Inquiry Referred to: Number of Referrals Percent of Total* Referrals 1. EPA Internet 3,771 15 2. State Lab Certification 3,377 13 3. Local Water System 2,698 11 4. NSF/WQA/UL 2,565 10 5. State PWSS 2,451 10 6. Local Public Health 1,406 6 7. AGWT/WSC 1,267 5 8. Other Hotlines 954 4 9. Non-EPA Internet 949 4 10. FDA/IBWA 711 3 *25,036 total referrals to other resources, agencies, and organizations were provided by the Hotline in FY 2002. Monthly Call Data Total Calls Average Wait Time Answered mm:sec October 2001 1,735 00:13 November 2001 1,333 00:16 December 2001 1,033 00:17 January 2002 1,641 00:16 February 2002 1,517 00:19 March 2002 1,783 00:16 April 2002 2,165 00:27 May 2002 2,293 00:26 June 2002 3,718 00:19 July 2002 3,800 00:18 August 2002 2,232 00:16 September 2002 2,061 00:16 Total 25,311 00:18 Safe Drinking Water Hotline -24- ------- Annual Report Topic Categories Category Calls Emails Microbials/Disinfection Byproducts Chlorine 312 63 Coliforms 1,026 94 Cryptosporidium 997 10 Disinfection/Disinfection Byproducts (Other) 249 59 Disinfection - Home Water 342 53 Other Microbials 250 19 Surface Water Treatment (SWTR, ESWTR, LT1FBR) 372 61 Trihalomethane (THM) 189 20 Inorganic Chemicals (IOC)/Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOC) Arsenic 870 139 Fluoride 282 50 Methyl-fert/'a/y-butyl-ether (MTBE) 172 23 Perchlorate 48 13 Phase I, II &V 567 133 Sodium Monitoring 100 16 Sulfate 57 11 Lead and Copper Copper 187 93 Lead 1,870 40 Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA)/Lead Ban 70 5 Radionuclides Radionuclides (Other) 357 52 Radionuclides (Radon) 1,025 84 Secondary DW Regulations Secondary DW Regulations 711 124 SDWA Background/Overview Definitions & Applicability 344 49 MCL List 560 127 Other Background 1,350 235 SDWA 254 45 Hotline Statistics Category Calls Emails Water on Tap 432 36 Other DW Regulations Analytical Methods (DW) 292 128 Contaminant Candidate List/ Drinking Water Priority List 60 12 Consumer Confidence Report (DW) 2,461 92 DW Primacy (PWS) 26 6 Operator (PWS) Certification 44 20 Other Drinking Water Security 132 39 Public Notification (PWS) 268 13 Security Planning Grants 345 33 State Revolving Fund (DW) 44 28 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) 653 29 Other Drinking Water Additives Program 55 30 Bottled Water 849 91 Complaints about PWS 616 66 Compliance & Enforcement (PWS) 183 31 Home Water Treatment Units 1,718 210 Infrastructure/Cap. Development 50 20 Local DW Quality 3,105 305 Tap Water Testing 3,169 199 Treatment/BATs (DW) 306 102 Drinking Water Source Protection Ground Water Rule 104 16 Sole Source Aquifer 22 3 Source Water/Wellhead Protect. 244 86 UIC Program 150 25 Out of Purview Household Wells 1,917 225 Non-Environmental 481 241 Non-EPA Environmental 667 339 Other EPA (Programs) 1,201 229 TOTALS 32,155 4,272 Safe Drinking Water Hotline -25- ------- |